^' a PEINCETON, N. J. '^^ Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnezv Coll. on Baptism, No. Cv INFANT BAPTISM A SCRIPTURAL SERVICE, DIPPING UNNECESSARY TO ITS RIGHT ADMINISTRATION; CONTAINING A CRITICAL SURVEY AND DIGEST OF THE LEADIKG EVIDENCE, CLASSICAL, BIBLICAL, AND PATRISTIC : SPECIAL REFEUENCE TO THE WORK OF DR. CARSON, AND OCCASIONAL STRICTURES ON THE VIEWS OF DR. HALLEY. THE REV. ROBERT WILSON, rR(^>Pr,SSOB OF SACRKD T.ITKRATtmr. FOR THE OENEaAL ASSEMnT.T. ROTAl* COLLECE, BELFAST LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. BELFAST: HENRY GREER. MDCCCXLVm, GLASGOW : PRINTED BY BEI,I, AMD BAtN, ST, ENOCH SIJCARE. PREFACE. The leading object contemplated in this treatise is the defence of infant baptism as a divine institution, and of scriptural latitude in the mode of its administration. Convinced by careful and protracted inquiry that immer- sion is neither identical with baptism, nor essential to it, and that " the little ones " cannot be rightfully debarred from the ordinance, I have endeavoured to present a critical analysis and digest of the evidence on which these convictions are founded. In prosecuting the inquir}^, the principal testimonies from the ancient classics, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, have been examined at con- siderable length, and the results in some interesting cases tested and sustained by comparison with artistic monuments of antiquity. The chronological order has been to a certain extent followed in tracing the signilS- cations of the more important terms ; the structure of IV PREFACE. the passages in which these terms occur, has not been overlooked as a modifying element ; and the principle has been broadly asserted that the ascertained usage of any particular period is not the slave of antecedent usage. Baptism, for instance, in the writings of the apostles may not exactly correspond to baptism in the works of Hippocrates or Plato ; and in that case each must stand upon its own evidence, the earlier usage having no power to overlay or coerce the later. This principle does not limit the province, though it aids in wisely applying the products, of " historical philology," which renders valuable service in determining the mode of the ordinance, and the discipleship predicated of its subjects. Without deviating essentially from the proposed plan of discussion, I have considered it my duty, in the present state of the baptismal controversy, to make special reference to the opposing ^dew as advocated with characteristic power and acumen in Dr. Carson's work on Baptism. As a specimen of masterly criticism and forcible argument, that work possesses merit of a very high order; yet the scholarship of the writer, as it appears to me, is not unfrequently at fault, and fallacy lurks in several of those logical processes which seem closest and most convincing. This charge is not pre- PREFACE. V ferred at random, nor would it ever have been penned in the absence of such proof as will satisfy every candid inquirer, and sustain the assault of adverse polemics. It is contrary alike to my intention and my feelings, if these pages contain a single expression inconsistent with sincere respect for Dr. Carson's talents and acquii^e- ments as an author, and his eminent worth as a Christian man ; — still in instances not a few, his positions are challenged, his reasonings refuted, his assertions contra- dicted, and his abuse and dogmatism rebuked. For this course I have no apology to offer. It would indeed be a most unsuitable tribute to the memory of an author who zealously maintained the pri^dlege of unshackled freedom of discussion, to shield his own views from the fire of criticism, and thus necessarily invest truth and error with a common sacredness. On the mode of Baptism, I am disposed to rank the labours of Dr. IlaUey among the most important contri- butions to the cause which I have espoused. In none of the treatises which have recently issued from the press, have I detected the same comprehensiveness and mental grasp in dealing with the subject as a whole, com- bined with equal correctness in the examination and adjustment of matters of detail. Of the fruits of his well-directed talent, I have freely, and with marked VI PREFACE. acknowledgments, availed myself in several parts of the discussion, without, however, in any instance sacrificing the responsibility, or shrinking from the toil, of inde- pendent investigation. More space than consisted with Dr. Halley's object, has been here devoted to several branches of the evidence on which Immersionists place considerable reliance ; and their leading objections are combated, — with what success it remains for an enlight- ened Christian public to decide. On the subjects of baptism^ some of the views advo- cated by Dr. Halley find little favour in the present volume. Reasons have been assigned for setting aside his conclusions respecting the character and value of the argument derived from the Abrahamic covenant; and the restricted view of infant and adult baptism has been supported in opposition to the more liberal principle on which he dispenses the ordinance. Dr. Wardlaw, in his excellent Dissertation on Infant Baptism, approaches much nearer to the teaching which I hold to be at once patriarchal and apostolic. At the same time, candour must admit that the constitution and membership of the churchj according to Dr. Halley's theory of which he has promised a farther expansion and defence, remain unaffected by the laxity with which he administers baptism to all infants indiscriminately, and to all adults PREFACE. Vll who apply for the privilege without manifest scoffing and profanity. I take leave simply to add that my honest disapproval of some of the author's most cherished opinions, has not, in the slightest degree, diminished the high estimation in which I hold him as a learned and able theologian, and an upright manly controver- sialist. Few in the present day, it may be presumed, depre- cate all religious discussion, however they may regret the necessity for it. As a general rule it may be confi- dently stated, that as is the spirit in which controversy is conducted, so are its tendencies for good or for evil. To the interests of the sceptic and the dogmatist, free^ earnest discussion is equally hostile ; while, under the divine blessing, it goes to dispel obscurity^, elicit truth, and ascertain what are " those things which cannot be shaken." I patronize religious controversy, not because it may occasion a little present disturbance ; but as an agency calculated to produce eventually the harmony which is based on sound comprehensive knowledge. Productive of temporary and adventitious evil, it yet secures permanent good : its course may be attended with transient strife and bitterness, but Christian unity will triumph in its consummation. While, therefore, I appear on the arena of religious controversy, my heart viil' PREFACE. owns no feeling of hostility to the friends of evangelical truth of whatever denomination, among all of whom I rejoice to witness a desire for more friendly co-operation, prompted" doubtless by the Spirit of Him who offered the intercessory prayer " that they all may be one." Belfast College, June, 1848. 4 \^. CONTENTS. PART FIRST.— MODE OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER FIRST. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. Claims of the Ordinance on tlie Student of Scripture. — It largely engaged the attention of the Reformers and their Successors. — Christian Baptism not to be identified with mode. — Points of agreement and difference among Baptists and Psedobaptists, 1 CHAPTER SECOND. MODE ESTIMATED, AND EVIDENCE ARRANGED. Estimate of the comparative value of Mode in observing the Symbolic Ordinances of the New Testament. — Arrangement of the Evidence sup- plied by the terms jSaT-ra) and fiit-s-rH^a, 9 CHAPTER THIRD. PRIMARY SENSE OF BinTfl. Detailed Evidence in support of " Dip " as the Primary Sense of /Saa-Tw— The importance attaching to Diversity of Construction — Meaning of the expression " Wet with the Dew of Heaven," Dan. iv. 30, v. 21 — Objec- tions to the Baptist view, as expounded by Gale and Carson — ^Tendency of the Verb to shake off the trammels of Mode, 18 X CONTENTS. CHAPTER FOURTH. SECONDARY SENSE OF BAUTil. Secondary sense of /iiivrrM, to Dye. — Dr. Carson opposed to his Brethren on this point. — Direct proof that the Verb denotes to Dye, irrespective of JMode. — Examples from Greek Authors Curious Mistranslation of Gale, copied by Carson. — Comments and Strictures. — Evidence from the Sep- tuagint and New Testament. — Argument from the Structure of certain Passages, well stated by Halley. — Derivatives of (ixTru sustaining the preceding views, 38 CHAPTER FIFTH. FIGURATIVE USE OF BATlTil, AND RELATION BETWEEN THE PRIMART AND SECONDARY SENSE. Figurative use interesting chiefly as it involves an important principle. — Examples Full Statement of the principle — and Defence against the incorrect Translations of Gale. — Connection of the Secondary Sense with the Primary — its nature illustrated. — Strictures on the Renderings |of Gale and Carson. — General Concluding Observations on this branch of the discussion, 54 CHAPTER SIXTH. EXAMINATION OF BAnTIZfJ. Baa-r/^w related to /SaVrw in Etymology The Nature of the Relation. — Difference in meaning between the two Verbs. — Various opinions stated and examined. — Bserr/^w not a diminutive, nor frequentative, nor causative, nor continuative.—The. usus loquendi, not the form of the Verb, determines its sense. — Comparative value of early Greek Literature in ascertaining the Mode of Baptism. — Shade of Meaning in the New Testament may differ from that of the Classics. — Dr. Carson's Rule infringed by himself. — Testimony of the Greek Fathers. — Its uses and limits, 71 CHAPTER SEVENTH. EVIDENCE FROM THE GREEK CLASSICS. Meaning of /ia-TTTi^ai . — General Statement sustained by the view of Dr. Gale. — Instances from Plato explained in Ast's Lexicon Platonicum. — Interesting example from Aristotle fully canvassed. — Testimony of Hip- pocrates—of Diodorus Siculus.- Batrr/^w in construction with si',- con- CONTENTS. XI sidered. — Dr. Carson's Examples from Hippocrates, Josephus, Plutarch, and Heliodorus, discussed. — Closing Remarks on this Construction — Ba-rr^cj with the Dative : — Instances — from Heraclides Ponticus — from the Life of Homer, ascribed to Dionysius of Halicaraassus. — Miscella- neous Examples — Sybilline "Verse cited by Plutarch. — Its importance developed. — Distinction between (id^Tca and /Sa^rr/^o) evinced by Dr. Carson's own Renderings. — Instances from Poly bins and Strabo. — Sum- mary View of Classical Evidence, 96 CHAPTER EIGHTH, EVIDENCE FKOM THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS. Reason for introducing Josephus earlier than Chronological Order would warrant. — His Testimony possesses no very determinate character, and relates to matters unconnected with the Cei-emonial Ablutions of the Jewish Law, or the Baptism of Proselytes. — Instances ; — Baptism of Aristobulus, which issued in Drowning; — Baptism of Ships at Sea under various circumstances. — Reference to an interesting Figurative Applica- tion.— General Remark, 133 CHAPTER NINTH. EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. General Value of the Septuagint in the Interpretation of the New Testa- ment.— Infrequent occurrence of fix'TTi^m. — Utility of Collating Greek with Hebrew. — Important Testimony from 2 Kings v. 14. — Relations of jSa^T(^!w with >.iv&> considered. — Reply to Dr. Carson's Dissertation on Xovm. including an Account of the Bath among the Ancient Greeks. — Use of XovT'^sis and v/sttsj^sj in the early Christian Church, compared with that of Xou-'^^, and Cognate Terms in the Septuagint. — Naaman's Baptism fully discussed, in connection with the Washing enjoined by the Prophet. — Egyptian mode of Bathing opposed to the assertion that Xoica implies Immersion. — Figurative instance of /S«-TiTfei from Isa. xxi. 4. — Exam- ples from the Apocrypha, — Judith xii. 7, Wisdom of Sirach xxxi, 25, (30), — Not easily reducible within the limits of Baptist Mode, 144 CHAPTER TENTH. JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. Alleged relation of Proselyte Baptism by the Jews to Christian Baptism. — Priority of the Jewish Rite advocated by different Authors, particu- ■ larly by some of the leading Orientalists. — Testimony of the Talmud, and XU CONTENTS. other Rabbinical writings. — Later Origin of the Baptism of Proselytes the Doctrine of Carpzov, Lardner, and others Amount of support it derives fi'om the state of the Evidence. — Estimate of the comparative soundness of these opposing views, in a series of connected observations. — 1. The Prior Existence of the Rite has not a clear Historical basis. — 2. Yet its observance preceded the date of the Evidence on its behalf, by some considerable period 3. Jewish writers assert that it arose befoi'e the days of Our Saviour. — 4. The silence of some ancient Authors has exercised too much influence against the idea of its early origin, — 5. Which appears to be implied in various passages of the New Testament. — 6. Remarks on the 3Iode of Jewish Proselyte Baptism, 187 CHAPTER ELEVENTH. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. Result of preceding inquiries how related to the Evidence found in the Greek Scriptures. — This Evidence less copious than might be anticipated. — The Reason assigned Testinionies arranged, and canvassed, in the following order. — I. Occurrences of /Sasi-Ti^a, and its derivatives, which do not apply to the Ordinance of Christian Baptism. — H. Occurrences in which these terms denote " the Baptism of John," or of Jesus, and the intimately related Baptism with the Holy Spirit. — IH. Figurative applications, including Strictures on the Principles and Reasonings of leading Baptist writers, in the interpretation of such passages as 1 Cor. X. 1, 2, and 1 Peter iii. 21, 22. — IV. Refutation of some of the principal objections of the Immersionists. — V. Subordination of mere Mode to the substance of the Ordinance, as indicated by the expression, " Bap- tism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."— Mat. xxviii. 19, 210 CHAPTER TWELFTH. EVIDENCE FKOM THE TATHERS. Character and value of the Patristic Argument, as distinguished both fi'om the mere opinion and practice of the Fathers.— Mode of Baptism counte- nanced by early Cliristian writers not necessarily that of tlie Apostolic Commission. — Tendency of Religious Observances to assume stereotyped forms. — Patristic Evidence most forcible, when it relates to Baptisms unconnected with the Christian Ordinance. — Classified summary of the principal points to which the Fathers bear witness. — I. The Baptism of Clinics administered by pouring or perfusion. — Strength of this brancii of the General Argument. — H. Comments by the Fathers on different portions of Scripture, prove that they did not identify Baptism with Immersion. — III. The Fathers applied the term Baptism to ablutions in which there was no Immersion. — Conclusion of the Fuist Part, 316 CONTENTS. Xlll PART SECOND.— SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER FIRST. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. Character of this part of the Discussion. — Baptist and Padobaptist to some extent occupy common ground. — Both administer Baptism to a believing Adult, — Point of divergence. — The Infants of Church Members also admitted to the Ordinance by the Pa^dobaptist. — His opponent professes to baptize none but believers. — Scripture the supreme and sole arbiter, 335 CHAPTER SECOND. PKOEESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. Importance of ascertaining the Scriptural qualifications for Adult Baptism. — Connection of this topic with Infant Baptism Presumptive argument drawn from Jewish Proselyte Baptism, and from John's " Baptism of Repentance." — The doctrine of the Apostolic Commission favourable to the necessity of a profession of Faith and Obedience by the Adult candi- date for the Ordinance. — Our view of Mat. xxviii. 19, borne out and strengthened by the instruction recorded in Mark xvi. 16. — Value of such forms of expression as place Baptism posterior to Faith and Repentance, 338 CHAPTER THIRD. A PROFESSION PREREQUISITE APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. Baptism by the Apostles and other Ministers not indiscriminately adminis- tered.— A credible profession of repentance and faith prerequisite. — Instances cited and canvassed : — Baptism of the Three Thousand, Acts ii. 38, 41: — of the Samaritans, Acts viii. 12, 13: — of the Ethiopian Treasurer, Acts viii. 37-39 : — of Cornelius, Acts x. 47, 48 : — of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, 15: — of the Jailor at Philippi, xvi. 33: — of John's Dis- ciples, xix. 1-5 : — of Saul by Ananias, Acts xxii. 1 6 ; ix. 1 8 : — Concluding observations on the I'ecord of Apostolic Baptisms, 355 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER FOURTH. EVIDENCE FOR INFANT BAPTISM ARRANGED. The Endence and its arrangement variously viewed by different classes of writers. — Some not only commence with the Apostolic Commission, hut suspend almost the entire Argument on its Testimony. — That course rejected in this Treatise, without prejudice to the importance of the Commission. — Constitution and state of the Old Testament Church not to be neglected by the student of the New Economy. — Covenant with Abraham the true starting point, and the Evidence to be traced chiefly in the order of History. — Reasons for this arrangement, 382 CHAPTER FIFTH. INFANTS INCLUDED IN THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. Spiritual blessings, in connection with temporal good, secured by the federal aiTangement with Abraham. — Prominence of the Religious Ele- ment in the Historical Disclosure of the provisions of the Covenant. — Circumcision, as its sign and seal, intimately related to the higher inter- ests and objects of the ancient economy. — Infant children of none but Church Members recognised as proper subjects of this rite. — Connection of parents with their infant children.— Initiation into the Ancient Church performed by affixing the seal of the Covenant, 388 CHAPTER SIXTH. INFANTS IN THE CHURCH TILL CHRIST'S COMING. Scripture recognition of Infants as a component part of the Church under the ancient economy. — Their title equally valid with that of Abraham and Moses. — Character and value of the relation in which they stood to the saving promises of the Covenant Continuance of Infants in the Church from its foundation till the fulness of time. — The Covenant stand- ing of Females considered. — Indirect influence of Circumcision in securing their federal privileges. — Objection fi-om Ezra ix. x. and Neh. xiii. 13, answered. — General bearing of the law of admission into " the Church of the Fathers " on the right understanding and interpretation of the analogous law under the iSTew Covenant, 422 CHAPTER SEVENTH. INFANTS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE NEW COVENANT. Importance of ascertaining the range and limits of the New Covenant. — Infants, according to Dr. Carson, not interested in its provisions. — State- ment of his Argument, with a detailed Refutation, embracing a compari- son of the Old Covenant with the New, — an examination of the terms CONTENTS. XV of the latter,— and an account of the relation it sustains to Christ as its Mediator.— The federal standing of Infants under the Christian dispen- sation in obvious accordance with other portions of Scripture.— Saving provisions of the Covenant of Grace under each successive economy not commensurate with its administrative extension. — Dr. Carson's attempt to hold militant Infants up to ridicule, neither logical nor scriptural, .... 438 CHAPTEE EIGHTH. ROOM FOR INFANTS IN THE COMMISSION. The Apostolic Commission, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16, cited and considered.— Its structure viewed in the light of certain Baptist admissions. — Nature of the connection in which the Commission intro- duces Baptism. — Relation of Baptism to Discipleship not imfi-iendly to the admission of Infants — nor its relation to Faith — nor its relation to the subsequent teaching of the baptized, as enjoined in Matthew. — The limited view of Infant Baptism sustained by the Commission. — Possibility and hope of uniform action among the advocates of P.-edobaptism, 464 CHAPTEE NINTH. ROOM FOR INFANTS IN THE APOSTOLIC BAPTISMS. Character of the Adult Baptisms recorded in Scripture. — The evidence they furnish wholly inadequate to sustain the cause of our opponents. — No instance in all the New Testament, of Adult Baptism, in the sense in which it is impugned by the Ptedobaptist, and forms the peculiarity of the Antipa3dobaptist system. — Examination of Apostolic testimonies, — Acts ii. 38, 39, " The promise is unto you and to your children." — 1 Cor. vii. 14, Holiness of Children; its import investigated — and Infants shown to be federally holy, and therefore entitled to Baptism. — House- hold Baptism proved to involve Infant Baptism. — Concluding Eemark, 499 CHzlPTEE TENTH. PATRISTIC INFANT BAPTISMS. After the third century, no evidence for Antipcedobaptism during a period of 700 years — Testimony of Pelagius and of Augustine in the fourth cen- tury.— Even in the frst three centuries — no instance of the Adult Bap- tism which alone can sustain our opponents — no opposition to Infiint Baptism on Antipasdobaptist principles — and no aid in tracing that observance to a human original. — Summary of Patristic Evidence for Infant Baptism — Persian Church — Cyprian and the Church in North Africa — Origen and the Church of Alexandria — Tertullian — Irenseus — Justin Martyr. — Observations on the Evidence. — Conclusion, ., .524 PART FIRST. MODE OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER FIRST. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. CLAIMS OP THE ORDINANCE ON THE STUDENT OF SCEEPTURE. IT LARGELY ENGAGED THE ATTENTION OF THE REFORMERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM NOT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH MODE. — POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE AMONG BAPTISTS AND P^DOBAPTISTS. The ordinance of Baptism, as the initiatory rite of the New Covenant, demands from the student of Scripture a full and searching investigation. Instituted by our blessed Lord, and designed to continue in the church till his second coming, this solemn and interesting observance puts forward high claims on the understand- ing and conscience of every Christian, and more especially of him who "ministers in sacred things." Through ignorance of its character, or misapprehension of the engagements which it imposes, the ordinary member of the church will fail in the department of personal duty — the gospel minister in the discharge of public obligation. Z MODE OF BAPTISM. We cannot, indeed, entertain tlie apprehension that the church will become insensible to the vital importance of baptism, or forget the high authority by which its observance is expressly enjoined. The inspired record of its institution, by the evangelists — Matthew and Mark — has long afforded considerable employment to different classes of critics and Theologians. In many respects, this is as it should be. A dark day wiU dawn on the followers of the Lord Jesus, when the apostolic commission fails to awaken the deepest interest, and to summon forth the most powerful energies of those who are " set for the defence of the gospel." It behoves the heralds of the cross to comprehend, in its full import, the momentous, the divine utterance, which bids them " go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Upon these instructive words the resources of theo- logy have been largely, and sometimes not unsuccess- fully, concentrated. To investigate, scripturally, the signification of the ordinance — to mark the great facts and doctrines which it obviously symbolises or implies — to press home, by enlightened enforcement, the motives it furnishes to practical godliness — these are objects to which minds of the first order, both in ancient and modern times, have piously consecrated their energies, with the rich stores of knowledge which they had laboriously accu- mulated. These views occupy a place of merited promi- nence in the writings of the leading reformers. We do not refer to the works composed by Luther, and some of his distinguished compeers, in refutation of the errors of the Anabaptists, or, as Zwingle styled them, the INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 6 Katabaptists. Our remark points emphatically to those calm, didactic exhibitions of divine truth by which these men of God enlightened the darkness, and animated the deadness, of European mind. The Institutes of Calvin may be mentioned as a felicitous example of that theolo- gical disquisition, which, penetrating the shell of rite and ceremony, brought to view the substantive blessings of the baptismal institution, as symbolical of " the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ." By a succession of able men, this spiritual element has been from time to time fully developed, and faithfully pressed on the attention of evangelical Christendom ; while none, perhaps, have better succeeded in presenting it, on the sure foundation of Scripture verity, than our excellent Westminster divines. Whatever importance, then, may legitimately attach to the outward ceremonial, we hold it to be com- paratively as the shell to the kernel, or the casket to the gem, which they respectively contain. We do not, by these remarks, court the imputation of complimenting theology, properly so called, at the expense of sacred Hermeneutics. The function of the interpreter of Scripture is not distinguished from that of the theologian, by an exclusive devotedness to modes, and forms, and rites, and the entire tribe of externalities. It may indeed appear frequently in the costume, and occupy the position of an outer-court worshipper ; yet, there exists no barrier in the way of its free entrance into the Hoi?/ of Holies. When engaged in canvassing the institution of baptism, its province is by no means confined to the common questions respecting the autho- rized use of water, and the scriptural subjects to whom 4 MODE OF BAPTISM. that element is to be applied. The very terms of the apostolic commission demand^, for the exercise of its powers, a loftier range of investigation, and raise topics of infinitely more profound interest, in the discussion of which it is entitled to a patient hearing. A simple reference to the phrase — " Baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost "—must instantly satisfy every candid mind that the ordinance implies, on the part of its subjects, an intimate relation to the author of the new economy, and, consequently, that the sound exposition of it cannot fail of conducting us into the region of spirituality. The principle thus briefly indicated appears to be loudly called for, in the present crisis of the controversy respecting baptism. So far has inconsiderate attach- ment to a particular view carried some of the disputants on one side of the question, that the mode of adminis- tration has been avowedly identified with the ordinance itself; and the alteration of the form is affirmed to involve the destruction of the substance. Thus the Primitive Church Magazine^ the representative of the Strict Communion Baptists in England, in a review* of Dr. Halley on The Sacraments, risks the adventurous proposition, " That in baptism the mode is the ordi- nance, and if the mode is altered, the ordinance is abolished." This carnal and degrading view of the initiatory rite of Christianity, we hold to be utterly incompatible with the plain language of the apostolic commission. Had that commission merely enjoined baptism with water, and were such baptism ascertained * Number for October, 1844, p. 515. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 5 to be stringently synonymous with dipping, then indeed it might be triumphantly contended that " the mode is the ordinance." But so long as the record commands to " baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," the conscientious and enlight- ened interpreter of the Bible will be compelled to admit that baptism is something more than mode. Even con- ceding, for the sake of argument, that the mode is fixed and unalterable, we should still maintain that the use of the divine name, in a form so beautifully solemn and impressive, does not constitute an ornamental af)pendage to the ordinance, but enters into its nature and essence. The mode may be of very material interest — it might be even essential to the scriptural administration of bap- tism ; still, it can never be rightfully identified with the baptismal sacrament, until the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be blotted out of the commission. We do not wonder that a correspondent of the respectable periodical to which we have referred, " would feel obliged by an answer to the question, ' Is it consistent, with our Lord's institution of the Supper, to observe it at any other time than in the evening ?' " This is to introduce into the generous religion of Christ that narrow and atomic spirit, of which Seneca complained in the department of philosophy — " Sed non debuit hoc nobis esse propositum, * * * philosophiam in has angiistias ex sua maj estate detrahere." Might it not be respectfully suggested, to the conductors and their correspondent, that a disproportionate zeal for external circumstances has an unhappy tendency to impair the exercise of spiritual discernment, and, in the case under 6 MODE OF B.\PTISM. consideration, to reduce both ordinances to the level of those " beggarly elements," which we have the highest authority for pronouncing alien to the genius of Chris- tianity ? In entering upon our present inquiry, it affords us pleasure to notice that the controversy between the Psedobaptist and Anti-Psedobaptist does not cover the entire ground of the ordinance. The advocate of affusion, or sprinkling, for example, does not generally impugn, as wrong or unscriptural, the mode of adminis- tration adopted by the Immersionist. His position is, that the terms of the institution are of such latitude as to permit diversity of mode, without trenching upon the character and substance of the ordinance, or rendering its import of none effect. We consider baptism to be equally valid, so far as mere mode is concerned, whether the subject is plunged into its waters, or these are applied to him by sprinkling or affusion. The language of the Confession of Faith on this point is well weighed, and distinguished alike for caution and discrimination. " Dipping of the person into water," say the West- minster divines, " is not necessary ; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person." On this branch of the argument, therefore, we stand entirely on the defensive, not assail- ing the mode defended by the Anti-Psedobaptist, but simply vindicating the scriptural validity of our own. He is bound by his principles to cut up our mode by the roots — and religiously does he labour to discharge the obligation ; while tve have no quarrel with his mode, except in relation to what we conceive to be its unwar- INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 7 rantable intolerance and exclusiveness. The right or the wrong of these several points of agreement and anta- gonism must, of course, be decided mainly by appeal to the ascertained usage of the Greek language. Again, in regard to the subjects of baptism, it is admitted, by the vast majority on both sides of the con- troversy, that the ordinance may be administered to an adult, and that the administration must be preceded by at least his credible profession of faith in Christ, and obedience to him. The principle of adult baptism, as we may have occasion to notice more in detail, has been uniformly held by the Christian church from the earliest times ; most generally, however, has it appeared not as the rival, but the companion of infant baptism. The statement holds good at the present hour. Our Psedo- baptist missionaries in heathen lands, and among the Jews, invariably commence with the baptism of adults; and, in this respect, the ordinary narratives of the dawn of missionary enterprise, in all parts of the globe, pre- sent a pleasing and instructive similarity to the records of the apostolic age. In common, then, with our Anti- Peedobaptist brethren, we believe that adults should be baptized with the " one baptism ;" and we farther con- cur with them generally, in maintaining that the adult applicant must possess certain religious qualifications. But with reference to another class of the proposed sub- jects of this ordinance, the Anti-Pcedobcqotist denies, and zve affirm, that " The infants of such as are members of the visible chui'ch are to be baptized." We charge his system with unauthorized restriction in the administra- tion of baptism, contrary to the liberal and comprehen- 8 MODE OF BAPTISM. sive spirit of the new covenant, and unsupported by the provisions of the apostolic commission. He condemns ours as wantonly opening the door of the commission, to admit subjects whose exclusion was obviously intended by our blessed Saviour. The entire ground of debate, so far as it commonly engages public discussion, may be placed before the reader in the simple, suggestive questions. Is baptism divinely tied to one mode ? and are believers alone, or such as make a credible profession of faith, its scriptural subjects? In the extensive course of investigation, requisite to furnish a satisfactory answer to these ques- tions, we shall have occasion to consider, in its bearing on both branches of the controversy, the important expression, " Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." CHAPTER SECOND. MODE ESTIMATED, AND EVIDENCE ARRANGED. ESTIMATE OF THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF MODE IN OBSERVING THE SYMBOLIC ORDINANCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. — ARRANGEMENT OF THE EVIDENCB SUPPLIED BY THE TERMS B^HTii AND BAHTIzn. In common with the great mass of evangelical Chris- tians, we hold, as has been abeady intimated, that while baptism may be rightly administered by immersion, there exists no adequate ground for the lofty and exclu- sive pretensions with which that mode has been confi- dently invested. We are free to admit, that were immersion ascertained to be absolutely essential to the ordinance, or, had the Saviour's injunction specified that particular mode as obligatory upon his followers, then unhesitating submission would have been the duty and the privilege of the Christian. But the language of Scripture, as we are convinced, correctly expounded, allows us greater latitude in the administration of bap- tism ; and hence we will not permit the sphere of our Christian liberty to be circumscribed, or bring ourselves into bondage, by subjection to a modal observance which divine authority has not imposed. 10 MODE OF BAPTISM. The comparative value of mode in baptism has been sometimes illustrated by referring to a parallel principle, practically elicited in partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That solemn ordinance was instituted by our blessed Lord on the night in which he was betrayed. The very season, therefore, which he selected for this purpose, formed a strong link of association between the sacramental partaking of bread and wine, and that repast which immediately precedes the rest of the night. But the case supplies us with e^ddence more cogent than that which arises out of the mere exercise of a principle of association, however natural and irresistible. As if to confirm and perpetuate the bond between the ordinance, and a certain period of the day set apart for its observance, the Spirit of God has expressly designated it "the Lord's Supper.^'' The term in the original is })ei'7rvov, the histor}^ of which discovers some striking varieties of application, particularly among the earlier classical writers. According to Dr." Halley, in his able w^ork on The Sacraments, forming the Congrega- tional Lecture for 1844, " The heroes of Homer par- took of their ^eiwov in the morning, and their successors seem to have made it their dinner ; but long before the apostolic age, it had become regularly and constantly the evening meal." The former part of this statement appears to be chargeable with some degree of inaccuracy. In the age of Homer, as is noticed by Damm, Buttman, and other lexicographers, there are two daily repasts — one in the morning, and the other in the evening; and the term lei-Trvov is found to be generally, though not exclusively, appropriated to the former. The MODE ESTIMATED, AND EVIDENCE ARRANGED. 11 philosophy of its subsequent transitions may probably be explained in a satisfactory manner, if, as Nitzsch maintains in his learned commentary on the Odyssey, it primarily denoted the principal meal, without reference to time. But on whatever principle we may dispose of the philological explanation, it is an undoubted fact, that in the later period of Greek literature, ^ei'^vov precisely corresponded with the Latin coena, and our English Supper; and its application, in this sense, to the com- munion of Christ's body and blood, cannot be success- fully challenged. The student of Scripture, who drinks at the fountain of the originals, wiU thus perceive that a triumphant case could be easily made out for restriction to a specified time in the observance of this solemn institution. By a process analogous to that which is commonly adopted in investigating the sense of ^(xttitijjk, it were not diffi- cult to prove, by a mass of evidence, superior to aU exception, drawn from Hellenistic Greek, that in the apostolic age leiTvov was the appropriated designation of the evening meal. The New Testament alone, according to Bruder's accurate Concordance, supplies eighteen examples, aU obviously limited to the one application. Now, proceeding upon this, as an established fact in the history and usage of the Greek language, might we not, after the manner of our opponents, earnestly warn the professed disciples of Jesus against disobedience to the command of their divine Master, when we find them in the morning, or at mid-day, sacramentaUy partaking of bread and wine, and calling this observance the Lord's Supper? Are they at liberty, we might ask with 12 MODE OF BAPTISM. unfeigned astonishmeut, to trample upon the time selected by tlieii" Saviour, in the institution of the ordinance, and ingrained in the name given to it by the spirit of inspi- ration ? To reasoning and appeals of this stamp, it would be deemed sufficient by the great body of Christians, including a majority of the Baptist denomination, to reply that time forms no essential part of the ordinance ; and that, therefore, at whatever period!' of the day the humble and exercised Christian sits down at the table of the Lord, he realises a substantial and scriptural participa- tion of the Lord's Supper. This view of duty we are not disposed to controvert ; and we are gratified to understand that it commands the suffrages of the most enlightened of our Immersionist brethren. Now, even on the assumption that mode is invariably and essentially implied in ^ocTrriaiMK^ the sin of the advocate for sprink- ling or affusion, consists simply in regarding mode, as one of the circumstantials of the ordinance. And while he cherishes a godly jealousy against all unholy, or prohi- bited liberty with the word of God, he feels it both hard and inconsistent to be rebuked by a Baptist brother, who, with all his boasted attachment to literal exposi- tion, has had the temerity to expunge the element of time from the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. We reiterate our conviction that the evangelical Baptist com- mits no breach of the divine law, in partaking of the Sacramental Supper in the morning; but if he denounces, at the same time, our baptism as no ordinance of Christ, because it wears not the outward garb which his sect may consider essential, we shall take the liberty of Jiold- ing the mirror up to nature, for the exposure of this MODE ESTIMATED, AND EVIDENCE ARRANGED. 13 specimen of flagrant inconsistency. Does he attempt to defend the peculiarity of his procedure, by asserting that mode is inseparable from the term ^ccTrrtfffjijci, and there- fore belongs essentially to the ordinance? We reply time is just as necessarily included in hSTrvov: and when he produces his warrant for the ejectment of time from the observance of the Supper, we shall be prepared to establish our right to dispense with his favourite mode, in the administration of baptism. In this line of argument, we have proceeded upon the assumption that dipping is the synonyme of baptism ; we see no reason, however, for conceding that great point in the discussion. It may perhaps be considered prepos- terous, or unprofitable to go over ground which has been so often traversed by the most competent Biblical scholars and philologists of various religious denomina- tions. In particular, it may be suj)posed to betray the confidence of an enterprising spirit to challenge some of the leading positions of the late lamented Dr. Carson, whose ability and critical acumen eminently qualified him for profound philological investigation, while a higher tribute of respect is due to his character, as a Christian man of exemplary candour, and unfaltering honesty of purpose. It were, however, a mistaken compliment to the memory of one who loved and coui'ted great freedom of discussion to spare his views, when we may consider them erroneous, or shrink from the manly task of exposing his statements and reasonings, where they are ascertained to be illogical or inconclusive. The memory of the good we delight to hold in high and venerable estimation ; but apart from all names, however honoured, 14 MODE OF BAPTISM . we are bound to reserve for the heavenly form of truth, the deep and unlimited homage of our hearts. Among the earlier writers on both sides of the ques- tion, it was customary to mix up the verbs (Bd'rra) and (iocTrriZ^aj, in critical disquisitions on the mode of baptism. This procedure evinced not only want of discrimination, but utter ignorance of the true functions which these terms respectively are employed to discharge. The con- fusion which thus lay at the foundation of many a learned treatise, forced the author into a variety of philological and controversial details, which could serve no other purpose than to display the unphilosophical cast of the mind from which they emanated. Thus, the advocates of baptism, by sprinkling, or affusion, derived a popular argument in support of their practice from the secondary sense of (^ccTTco, which is to d?/e or tinge; and their opponents, in order to neutralise the force of the argument, had the hardihood to deny the existence of this secondary sense altogether, in defiance of the plainest facts of usage, and the soundest canons of criticism. In reference to the reasoning of the Psedobaptists, though the term has unquCvStionably the secondary acceptation for which they contended, yet their cause could reap no direct benefit from that circumstance ; for in the whole ckcle of Hel- lenistic Greek, the ordinance is never once designated by ^^d'Trrco, or any of its immediate derivatives. Whatever, * In the edition of Steplianus, by Hasc and Dindorf, ^sfi»f/,y,ivos is said to be used for lie^x-n-Tuxfihos, in the following example from Arrian. Epictet. ii. 9, 21 : — -"OTaw 3' dva.'Ka.^'fi to •^-a^o? iZv ^i^a.fift,iuov * * T0T£ tctHi 'iari ru ovrt notl x.ot'heiroi.t ' lovhoiiog- Somc SOrt of bap- tism is here indicated. MODE ESTDIATED, AND EVIDENCE ABRANGED. 15 then, may be the strength or clearness of the evidence establishing the claim of this verb to a variet}^ of senses, we are not entitled to infer a corresponding variety in the use of (3a7rr/^iy, which must jjrove its own meaning, not by hereditary descent, so to speak, but b}' personal testimon}". We admit, indeed, that the philologist having encountered actual diversity in the one verb, may anticipate probable diversity in the other : but the anticipation possesses no practical value, unless upon examination it is borne out by facts. The Paedobaptist, therefore, had no lecdtimate warrant to arome from an ascertained secondary sense of (BaTra/ to a supposed or assumed similar sense of ^a-zriZ.aj; though, in so doing, he merely exemplified the unhappy confusion which long remained common property on both sides of the controversy. It is, indeed, painfuUy instructive to observe the efforts of the Immersionists of a former age. to prove that overy occurrence of (idTroj, in the sense of dyeing, necessarily involves the modal signification of dipphig. You direct the attention of Dr. Gale to the case of the aged dandy, who had recourse to colouring matter in order to disguise the hoariness of his locks ; you place under his eye the statement of Arrian, on the authority of Nearchus, " that the Indians dye their beards ;" — you even present him with the decisive passage from Hippo- crates, in which the author states, that when a certain liquid ^^ drops v.pon the garments they are dyed;'''' and you inform him that these constitute a sample of the testimonies found in the language to the secondary sense of (Bu'TrTaf, and its immediate derivatives. Having briefly 16 MODE OF BAPTISM. submitted the matter to the consideration of the " very learned doctor/' — the former leader of the English Bap- tist world, you respectfully ask for his decision. This he pronounces as follows : — " Those persons who would depend upon these passages to prove that ^ci'Trra) signifies something else besides dipping, must consider there is a manifest allusion in these and all such to the art of dye- ing. And if the word is borrowed from thence, as none can be hardy enough to deny, they must allow it is used there improperly and metaphorically, and that its true primitive meaning only is still referred to and implied." WaWs Hist ofLif.Bap. Vol IIL, p. 109. The philo- sophy of Dr. Gale on this subject is unceremoniously and very properly impugned by Dr. Carson ; and it is gratifying to learn from Dr. Halley's treatise, that the Baptists of Britain, despite of the faith and philology of their ancestors, now generally adopt, at the instance of Dr. Carson, the secondary sense for which their Paedo- baptist brethren have all along contended. " As gener- ally I am told," observes Halley, " as they did follow Dr. Gale in denying a secondary meaning, do they now follow Dr. Carson in asserting it. To what extent this may be true, I cannot say ; but as no opponent appears, and as we have no reason to suspect the sincerity of our brethren's convictions, the result furnishes a remarkable instance of the difference in the force or the impression of arguments, as they are suggested by a friend, and as they are propounded by a foe : That ^d'Ttrco often means to dye, without dipping, was said by one Paedobaptist after another, no Baptist regarding ; but when Dr. Carson said the same thing, MODE ESTIMATED, AND EVIDENCE ARRANGED. 17 multitudes were converted." — Halley on the Sacraments, Vol L, p. 440. In the present day, wiiters at all acquainted with the literature of the subject, and professing to enter critically into the analysis of the evidence, take the verbs (Sa-rrisy and (3a7rr/^(y into separate consideration, and thus avoid much of the confusion and irrelevancies chargeable on the reasonings of their predecessors. Following this course, we shall proceed to adduce proofs of the primary and secondary sense of (od'Trraj, defending the views which we consider well founded, and offering such strictures as the positions of some authors of merit may appear to us to demand. CHAPTER THIRD. PRIMARY SENSE OF BAnXn. DETAILED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF " DIP AS THE PRIMARY SENSE OF BAD 112 THE IMPORTANCE ATTACHINO TO DIVERSITY OF CONSTRUCTION — MEAN- ING OP THE EXPRESSION " WET WITH THE DEW OF HEAVEN," DAN. IV. 30, V. 21 OBJECTIONS TO THE BAPTIST VIEW, AS EXPOUNDED BY GALE AND CARSON TENDENCY OF THE VERB TO SHAKE OFF THE TRAMMELS OF MODE. That di^) represents the primitive and leading sense of ^d'TTTu is freely, and, we presume, universally conceded. This position is not more zealously maintained by Gale, Booth, Maclean, Carson, and others, than it is cordially admitted by such writers as Vossius, Matthies, Profes- sor Stuart, and President Beecher. A few examples, embracing the principal constructions in which the term occurs, will at once place this meaning on a solid foun- dation, and probably bring to light some tendency to departure from the morlal signification. The instances we may thus classify : — 1. The action of ^d'^ru is conceived to be expressed most unequivocally and emphatically in construction with the preposition zig : as in the Timaeus of Plato 73. E. ed. Steph. E/V y^e fBaTrs/, " He di2:)s (an object) PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 19 mto water." The verb is not confined to fluids, but applies equally to solid substances which are penetrable. Thus Lycophron, surnamed Tenehrosiis, in his Cassandra, V. 1121, predicting the punishment of Clytemnestra, by Orestes, for murder, says : E/V G'Jtkayyy s^/^v;?? avrox^i^ (od'^Psi li(pog, The child * * * " with his own hand shall di2^ (plunge) Ids stvord into the vi'per's hotveUy The same construction occurs in the Septuagint, Numb, xix, 18, " And the man that is cleansed shall take hyssop, and ^(z-^zi zlg ro vhoj^, dip it into water.'''' From the New Testament we can furnish no example of this verb with ilg and the accusative. The word occurs only in three passages of the Greek Scriptures, and two of these are characterised by peculiarities which may hereafter claim a word of explanation. 2. We find (Sa-rro; often construed with sf, occasion- ally with ■r^og, and the dative, a formula which is com- monly rendered dip in ; though critics of distinction, holding this to be the dative of instrument, consider the construction unfavourable to the modal sense of the verb. It would, perhaps, be imprudent to stand a siege in such a fortress. The shade of meaning may indeed be singularly varied by alterations in syntax ; but, in the present instance, the ground to be gained by either party would not, we are satisfied, justify a hard-fought battle. 3. Kinth-ed to the preceding construction is ^ccttm followed by a dative without the preposition. Strabo, quoted by Dr. Gale, speaking of the " wild sport " of elephant-hunting, states that the Arabs used " arrows %oX^ (5&^cc[j!j(jbsvoig, dipped in the gall " of serpents. This construction is not of frequent occurrence, at least when 20 MODE OF BAPTISM. the verb is taken in its primary signification ; and it does not seem to demand any particular remark. 4. The syntax of (ou'Trrcj with the genitive, of which there are some examples, presents a less manageable construction, and little light has been cast upon it by our more eminent controversialists. An instance meets us in Luke xvi. 24 : " Send Lazarus, that he may (Sa-v^?? ro azpoy rov IctxrvXov ocvrov vharog dip the tip of his finger of water." On this passage Stuart has the following note : — " vharog^ the genitive of instrument, i.e., that he may tvet his finger with water, which is a rendering that seems to accord more exactly with the syntactical construction of the sentence." — Mode of Bapt.^ p. 25. Kuinol, in his able Commentary on the Historical Books of the New Testament, adopts a summary method of eliminating the difficulty. "T^aro^, he informs us, is for g^' vharog, used instead of s/V v^aop, — which is, of course, unspeakably sage and satisfactory ! Were such whole- sale and unscrupulous use of what are imagined to be syntactical equivalents, admissible in exegesis, all diffi- culty and all precision would vanish simultaneously from the structural interpretation of language. That jSaTrg/v vharog^ and ^d'jrrziv zlg vhu^ convey different meanings, is obvious to the veriest smatterer in Grreek^ while the resources of the most profound and accomplished scholar- ship may be requisite for elucidating the precise differ- ence. The point is not devoid of interest ; but to do it justice would carry us too far from our object. Besides, it will be found partially illustrated under the subsequent observation. 5. We discover a somewhat similar construction of PRIMARY SENSE OP BAnTfl. 21 ^ocTTTco with the preposition a9ro and the genitive. We do not remember to have met this peculiarity in the ancient classics, and, so far as it affects Hellenistic Greek, it would seem to form the mere echo of a corresponding expression in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. The subjoined example, as adduced and canvassed by Stuart, will serve for illustration. Lev. iv. 17 : " And the priest shall SMEAR OVER or MOISTEN (jSa-vJ^s/) Ms finger, cctto rov ai(jb(x,rog, hy or with the Uood of the hillock ; Uj\T\ p ^^^l- When the sense of plunging into is directly and fuUy expressed in Hebrew, it is by using the preposition 5 after the verb bnro. * * * But p is sometimes used (as in the example above) before the noun desig- nating the liquid element made use of; and then the Seventy have imitated this in such a way that we are constrained to render their version as I have done above." — p. 23. The constraint to which Professor Stuart has yielded. Dr. Carson is not prepared to recog- nise, and his views of language conduct him to a very different interpretation of the formula. " When octto fol- lows jSaorriy," he says, "it respects the point from which the finished dipping has proceeded, (^k'tttm axo rov cLi^haroq, I dip it from the Uood. The blood is the point from which the thing dipped proceeded, after the operation." — Baptism, p. 51. Both these attempts at explanation are, for different reasons, manifestly excep- tionable and unsatisfactory. Professor Stuart's consists merely of an empirical adjustment of English to Greek, without even pretending to found on any established principle. Dr. Carson's assumes, as a basis, the purely local sense of the preposition, without a particle of proof. 22 MODE OF BAPTISM. and erects on the assumption an exact and well-propor- tioned theory. In this interesting construction, as it appears to us, the leading thought is that of obtaining, by the action of |3a^r^, some portion of the fluid for an ulterior purpose. Under this Adew, what our ablest and most recent lexicographers have styled " the partitive use of a-^o," seems legitimately apphcable, and furnishes for the majority of occurrences a law of plain meaning and easy development. Thus aid k'xo X^i'i^og denotes a shm^e of the spoil ; and jSa^^aca '7rovria,g ocXog, from the Hecuba of Euripides, refers to salt zvater obtained hy dip- ping a vessel into the sea. In the latter example, though the preposition is not used, the construction exhibits no substantive feature of diversity. To the partitive application of a^ro, therefore, and the corresponding usage of the genitive, we are disposed to look generally for a satisfactory account of this perplexing specimen of Greek Syntax, while we advance it rather as a sugges- tion, to be valued at what it is worth, than as an ultimate or dogmatical solution. Intimately related in structure to this class of exam- ples, which we derive chiefly from the ceremonial puri- fications of the ancient economy, are the two well-known passages in Daniel, respecting the.aAvful judgment which God pronounced and executed upon Nebuchadnezzar. Dan. iv. 30, (33, Auth. version,) " He was driven fi'om men, and did eat grass as oxen, Ka/ aTo ryjg \ogov rod 6v§oivov TO (TiDfjjOi ccvTov l(ici(py], and his hody vms tvet zvith the dew of heaven.''^ In Dan. v. 21, the same expression is repeated without the slightest alteration. These texts form the battle-ground of many a fierce though bloodless PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 23 contest among the controversialists. In entering upon the consideration of them we notice, as somewhat remarkable, that the Baptists, the fast friends of literal interpretation, cannot approach these verses without displaying an ardent, if not suspicious, affection for the beauties of trope and figure. But is there not a cause ? The literal exposition, it is evident, possesses no affinity for the modal sense of jSa-rr^ ; nor is it practicable either to force or flatter these discordant elements into a state of reconciliation. The dew manifestly fell upon Nebu- chadnezzar— its diamond drops were not collected into a pond, or other receptacle, that the monarch might be plunged into the crystal depths. Influenced by the indubitable facts of the case, some front-rank men among our opponents have been betrayed into a surrender fatal to the cause which they defend. " It seems very clear," observes Dr. Gale, " that both Daniel and his transla- tors designed to express the great dew Nebuchadnezzar should be exposed to, more emphatically, by saying he should lie in dew, and be covered with it aU over, as if he had been dipped : for that is so much like being dipped, as at most to differ no more than being in, and being put in ; so that the metaphor is very easy, and not in the least ^immQ(\.:'— Reflections, p. 150. But who does not perceive that the diiference which this winter treats as insignificant, is just the difference between the modcd and non-modal acceptation of the verb, and that his uncritical and imprudent admission has laid bare to the sword of the enemy the bosom of his beloved system? Dr. Carson adopts more sldlful tactics, and exhibits superior circumspection. Abandoning several unfortunate 24 MODE OF BAPTISM. positions in the line of defence attempted by Gale and Cox, he rests the tropical exposition of the passage mainly on the great principle that " one mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination." With the principle itself we have no quarrel, believing it entitled to " a local habitation and a name " in the region of figurative language ; but we may perhaps presently adduce sufficient grounds for questioning the justness of its application to the case under review. Dr. Carson's usual accuracy appears to have forsaken him, in introducing to his readers these passages from Daniel, and his discussion of them we hold to be incap- able of affording rational satisfaction. 1. He introduces them inaccurately. In Dan. iv. 30, and V. 21, " this word," he informs us, " is rendered by 2vet in our version." What word ? The only answer supplied by the context is the word ^cc-TrrM. Now, it is almost superfluous to state that (B(x,ttm is not rendered in our version at all ; inasmuch as our version does not profess to be taken from the Septuagint, but aspires to the honour of representing the Chaldee original. In Dan. iv. 15, (Sep. 12,) the authorized version has " let it he ivet,^^ where the Greek rendering is Koiru(T0'/]ffSTai, " he shall be put to bed," or " shaU make his bed." Surely, in this example, 2vet is not the translation of KoirdcZio. 2. His reasoning on the passages adopts almost exclu- sively for its basis the Greek rendering, and not the Chaldee original, while he avails himself of their assumed correspondence. Not only are the references to the original trifling and incidental, but thc}^ appear purely in PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 25 the form of unsupported assertions, borrowed from Cox and Gale. No effort is made to prove, by examples, or otherwise, the modal sense of yn^, though Dr. Carson asks triumphantly, "^ How can mode be excluded, if it is in both the original and the translation ?" Had he confined his remarks to jSaTr^y, as the term whose meaning it was his avowed object to ascertain and vin- dicate, the procedure, so far, would have brought upon him no breath of animadversion. He had an unques- tionable right to canvass the Septuagint rendering, and extract from it whatever amount of testimony it could bear in favour of his cause, without the slightest regard to the ability or faithfulness of the Greek translators. But as he advanced a claim to the joint support of Chaldee and Septuagint, he was bound in honour, and in common justice to the interests which he espoused, to show that his claim had a solid foundation. We are fully aware that in many instances there exists no accurate correspondence between a translation and the original ; but as Dr. Carson asserted its existence in the case before us, the assertion should have been sustained by evidence. As these occurrences of ^dxroj involve some peculiar principles and difficulties, they are of sufficient import- ance to warrant a more particular and detailed examina- tion. We observe then — I. That Baptist writers have signally failed in theii- attempts to confine the original of these passages to a modal application. This remark is not to be understood as including Dr. Carson, who stands exempted from all imputation of failure, by discreetly abstaining from any 26 MODE OF BAPTISM. assault upon the Chaldee. Into his first edition he had indeed copied a statement of Gale, (characterised by an imposing parade of Oriental learning ; but in the second edition, we observe, he consulted his reputation as a scholar and critic by quietly omitting it altogether. The authorities, which form no inconsiderable part of Dr. Gale's proof, that the term in the Chaldee neces- sarily implies immersion, are Buxtorf, Castell, &c. ! and he appeals above all to " the constant use of the word." Now, on looking into the instances cited by Buxtorf, in his great Chaldee and Rabbinical Lexicon, we do not find them lending unqualified support to the cause of the learned doctor. The great Hebraist, indeed, plainly regards the passage in Daniel as an instance of dipping, but he shows as plainly that the verb denotes also to tvashy and has even rendered it painted, in a curious example which he quotes from an old Rabbinical author. On the testimony of Castell it is not requisite to bestow a separate notice, as it substantially harmonizes with that of Buxtorf; and in regard to Gale's "^c," we confess our inability to rebut the evidence which may be wrapped up in so mysterious a symbol. In the present day, however, we have access to the testimony of biblical scholars not less learned, and probably far more critical, than those referred to by Dr. Gale. Of these Gesenius, who stands " facile princeps " in the ranks of European Hebrew lexicography, assigns as the primary sense of the Chaldee verb, to dip in, to immerse ; and in Pahel and and IthpaJiel, rigavit, to tvet, moisten, and to he tvet, moistened, respectively, under which latter he classes the different occurrences of the term in Daniel. Dr. Lee, PRIMARY SENSE OFBAHTn. 27 again, probably the first Orientalist in Great Britain, adopts, without hesitation, in Dan. iv. 22, the rendering made tvet, without noticing any other sense as possessing a better claim to acceptance or originality. On the mere ground of lexical authority, therefore, the confident assertions of the Baptist Doctor do not appear in a very enviable light. It may be desirable to add the testimony of the younger Rosenmiiller, whose distinguished critical ability, and extensive acquaintance with Eastern lan- guages, entitle his judgment, on a topic of this nature, to the most respectful consideration. In his Scholia on Dan. iv. 15, having adopted as the translation of the dis- puted clause, — Et rore coelonmi tingetur, he immediately explains the verb by the terms, imhuetiir^ et madidus fiet, thus precisely coinciding with the view of Gesenius. We do not forget, however^, that Dr. Gale appeals also to the tribunal of " constant use," from which in common with him we are content to receive the ultimate decision. Let us see, then, how he prosecutes his appeal in the highest court of Critical Justiciary. " It is," says he, " by this word the Jerusalem Targum renders the Hebrew bnK), Lev. iv. 6," — a word which, he had before asserted, " every one must own signifies dip." There, in sober seriousness, the reader has before him the entire evidence by which Dr. Gale seeks to substantiate his affiimation of constant use ! He lays down an universal proposition respecting the application of a term, and he furnishes, as its basis, one solitary example ! ! To upset this fig- ment of constant use, we have simply to cite Lev. xiii. .6, on which the same Jerusalem Targum employs lyn? as the rendering of the Hebrew D3p to tread, or trample, 28 MODE OF BAPTISM. a term commonly applied to the washing of garments by treading upon them. That operation, a philologist of Gale's school would say, necessarily implies previous immersion. But the objection is frivolous, though not vexatious j for whether the garments are put into the water, or the water is made to flow over the garments, these actions are not expressed by the Hebrew verb ; and, therefore, the interpreter who possesses a scintilla of the philosophy of language, will not permit himself, or the term, to be imposed upon by matters wholly irrelevant. The verb Dzi3 cares not whether the garments got into the water, or the water came about the garments ; — its sole business is to wash them when there by the action of trampling. We may now permit Dr. Grale to bring up his reserves — the battalion of auxiliary forces which Dr. Carson prudently returned to their own general, not having found them particularly serviceable in the'ffield. " In other places," he continues, " the word is used * * * always in the same sense, signifying to immerse or drown — as Exod. xv. 4, in which place the Jerusalem Targum, Jonathan's Paraphrase, and that called Onkelos, the S^Tiac version, and the Original of Moses, do all use 37ntD, or ^72tD, to signify immerse, plunge, or drown, as our version renders it." This piece of learning, as it is pre- sented to us, may be disposed of in a summary manner, by observing that the worthy Doctor seems to have fallen upon a wrong scent, having apparently mistaken the Hebrew rn^i* for the Chaldee 5?nv, and thus irrepar- * Professor Stuart has fallen into the same mistake, or perhaps it is a typographical error. PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 29 ably vitiated his logic, while he displayed his lore. He intimates, indeed, with what propriety the reader will now be able to judge, that he considered the case too plain to require from him more detailed evidence in support of his general proposition. We take leave, on the other hand, respectfully to submit, as the fruit of a deliberate review of the facts, that the very learned Dr. Gale has failed to establish his point ; and we state farther, in regard to the sense of the original, what all must candidly acknowledge, that in the circumstances specified, the term cannot possibly denote literal immer- sion. We shall have opportunity of inquiring presently whether the abettors of a figurative solution of the difficulty have succeeded in placing their scheme on a solid philological basis. We observe — II. That the Septuagint* renderings do not counte- nance the doctrine of an exclusively modal sense in the original. Dr. Carson speaks of mode as existing both in the original and in the Greek translation, as if ^d'rrroj were the only Septuagint rendering of the Chaldee verb. Such a statement is calculated to convey a defective, if not an absolutely erroneous impression. Whether ^d'Trrco is limited to the act of immersion, or claims a less restricted meaning, we have the most unexceptionable * For the information of the general reader, it may be desirable to state, that in the various editions of the Septuagint, the translation of Daniel by Theodotion has been substituted for that of the Seventy. The real Septuagint of Daniel bears no testimony on the point before us — the only rendering it supplies of the disputed term being a part of otxxo/oiy, founded apparently on a diflferent reading in the Chaldee text. 30 MODE OF BAPTISM. evidence that the Greek translator of Daniel did not regard 575? as denoting mode, and nothing but mode. The overwhelming proof of this position is contained in the fact, that in addition to this verb he has also employed kvXi'Cpy^ai to lie out at nigJd, and zoiraZpo to put to bed, as representatives severally of the same original word. To affirm, therefore, that dipping in the dew is the sense sustained by the Chaldee, and embraced in the Greek translation, is to make a palpably deceptive statement. It may be the truth, but it certainly is not the whole truth. Lying out at night under the dew, and heing put to bed in the dew, occupy in the Septuagint a place of authority co-ordinate with dipping in the dew — assuming this to be the correct translation of one of the Greek renderings. And hence so far as the testimony of this Greek version is of force, we have the same ground for contending that the Chaldee denotes to lie out at night, or he put to bed, that the Baptist has for maintain- ing it to be expressive of the act of immersion. This seems plain to a demonstration; for had the Greek translator been satisfied that i^n? designates exclusively the action of dipping, he would, as a matter of course, have uniformly rendered it accordingly. Whereas, in two of the five instances in which the verb occurs, he has represented it by terms which, it is admitted on all hands, have no reference whatever to mode. This reasoning cannot be subverted hy assuming or even proving that ^ocTTToj signifies mode, and nothing but mode. The Greek verb might be so limited ; but the Septuagint, by the voice of its varied renderings, claims for the Chaldee a wider latitude of application, by adopting as its PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 31 representatives other terms from which the idea of mode is necessarily excluded. So much for the testimony supplied by this ^ enerable version, and for the views which its translator must have entertained respecting the modal sense of the Chaldee original. It remains for us to offer a remark on the structure of the clauses in which ^d'Trru is employed to represent the Chaldee verb. This structure, as in Dan. iv. 30, is briefly — a^ro ryjg l^oaov . . . l^a,(pri, thus translated by Dr. Carson, " His body tvas immersed m the cletv ;" — a translation which not only sets aside the peculiarity of construction, but gives the sanction of the author to the loose and unauthorized substitution of one preposition for another. It is obvious that the explanation of the force of aTo after the verb, which Dr. Carson attempts in another place, can have no literal application here ; and equally plain that the partitive sense so clearly established by various writers on Greek philology, is inadequate to furnish a correct solution. Nor does the difficulty appear capable of being abated, much less entirely removed, by comparison with the supposed paral- lels of ^d'Trrco, constructed with a-ro, in the inspired statement of certain duties connected with the ancient sacerdotal office. " I am not ashamed," observes Dr. Halley, referring to the passage before us, " to acknow- ledge I do not understand these words. If they be Greek, I am not scholar enough to translate them. It appears to me that the translator has closely followed the Chaldee idiom, in selecting both the preposition a^ro, and the verb (id'Trrco, as corresponding, in some respects, to the Chaldee 2?3^, which seems, according to the 32 MODE OF BAPTISM. analogy of the Hebrew and Syriac,, sometimes to mean to coloiu'." — On the Sacrmnents, p. 462. The author concludes that l(occ(p^, so far as he understands it, is an inaccurate rendering of the Chaldee, which he maintains " with Gesenius and the Orientalists," denotes simply, " he was made wet from the dew." In the present inquiry, however, we are not deeply concerned with the accuracy or inaccuracy of the render- ing, the great object being to reach the signification of (iu'yrra in the hands of the Greek translator. Now, it is indubitable that if he intended the verb to be taken in its strictly modal sense, the construction with octo is inexplicable on the principles of literal interpretation. There was — there could have been — in the circumstances, no literal immersion either in the dew, or from the dew. But if the verb, divorced from mode, takes the meaning assigned by Gesenius to the Pahel of the Chaldee, then a literal exegesis is both practicable and natural. We have already shown that the Greek translator, by the character and variety of his renderings, exhibits himself as an unbeliever in the strictly modal acceptation of the Chaldee verb. On this ground, and also aware, of the actual circumstances of the case, he could not possibly have contemplated the literal dipping of Nebuchadnezzar in the dews of heaven. The contrary supposition involves a double absurdity — as it runs directly counter to the views of the translator, and clashes with the recorded facts. As mode then is, of necessity, excluded from the letter of this passage, what is the conclusion to which the interpreter must feel himself absolutely shut up ? Clearly this, that if figurative interpretation be not PRIMARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 33 legitimately admissible, the construction in these texts supplies occurrences of ^uttm, from which the common modal sense is excluded by the law of a stern physical impossibility. We observe — III. In the last place, that the figurative exegesis appears to rest upon an extremely questionable founda- tion. Dr. Carson's principle, alluded to under a preced- ing observation, is, that " one mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination." I am unable to gather from his state- ments whether in the instance under review, this " live- liness of imagination " is to be regarded as an attribute of Daniel, or of his translator. If the prophet himself is to have the credit of the fine figure, some effort should have been made to discover, for the tropical exposition, a basis in the meaning of the Chaldee verb ; but this Dr. Carson has not even attempted. It is true he has affirmed, after Cox, that the original signifies to dip, but the opposing authorities have not been set aside : — and he has also cited from Gale, the testimony of the ancient Syriac version in support of the same view, but the value of the testimony is simply commended to the credulity of the reader by the assertion of the writer. In regard to the Syriac rendering, the meaning of which should have been proved by the author who availed him- self of its evidence, we shall simply remark, that a word whose primary sense, according to CasteU and Oberleitner, is imjyressit, signavit, appears rather to requii'e than afford elucidation. Now, tiU the modal sense of the Chaldee verb be fairly established, we are not warranted to ascribe to Daniel the " liveliness of imagination," which I) 34 MODE OF BAPTISM. gave bii'th to the beautiful figure of immersion in the dew of heaven. This condition every one will perceive to be essential to the very foundation of a figurative exegesis. There might possibly arise, on a hasty perusal of Dan. iv. 15, a general presumption in favour of figurative application, in consequence of the allegorical mode of expression at the commencement of the verse. But as Rosenmiiller has acutely observed, there is a transition from allegory to common description, the latter part of the verse not applying to a tree, but to the person of the fallen monarch. Besides, the advocate of a figm^a- tive immersion should beware lest his interpretation open the door to a figurative, or, it may be, neological infliction of the other judgments denounced against Nebuchadnezzar. We turn, however, to the Greek version, convinced that the term j8aTrjv xf^^^-> — " ^^"^ heing pressed., it dyes and colours the hand." The exclusion of dipping in this case is so manifest and incontestable, and the passage so perfectly lucid, as to be incapable of illustration. Instead of the hand being dipped into the colouring matter, the colouring matter is placed in the hand, by the mere pres- sure of which the dyeing process is completed. It is amazing that Dr. Gale could resist such forcible evidence, and that intelligent Baptists for generations remained utterly insensible to its clearness and cogency. From Aristophanes Dr. Gale adduced the following example, which Dr. Carson has adopted without the slightest alteration, thus patronizing, and transmitting to other generations, the gross mistakes of his learned predecessor. — " Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared it over with tawny washes.''"' We cite the original, as it is found in the Hippeis, Act /., Scene 3, AvhiZcov., kcc) -^riviZcov, Kcci (DccTTToiJjSuog (oKT^oix^toig, which contains no reference whatever to the pleasant operation of shaving, nor to the application of tawny washes to the face. The correct view of the passage, as any Greek scholar will instantly discover, is, that Aristophanes speaks of Magnes as " Imitating the Lydians, and writing a play caUed "^m?, and smearing himself with frog-coloured [paints or washes.]" Gale, we are of opinion, was misled by an old Latin translation of the poet, which closely corres- ponds with his English ; while the best apology that can be offered for Dr. Carson is, that he was too credu- lous or confiding to institute an independent examination SECONDARY SENSE OF BAnTfl. 41 for himself. The probable foundation of the error, we have noticed in a statement made by Suidas, which was repeated by Stephanus, and echoed, of course, by the tribe of minor lexicographers. That Dr. Carson should have unconsciously sanctioned Gale's mistranslation must appear more singular, when we take into account the fact that it strongly militates against a principle which he considered highly important, and well established. Referring, in another part of his work, to the verb (iaTTiZciJ, he says, " It may apply to any part, as well as to the whole ; but whenever it is used without its regimen expressed, or understood in phrases much used, it applies to the whole body. When a part only is dipped, the part is mentioned, or some part is excepted." And again, — " When no part is mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always meant." Now, in the quotation from Aristophanes, by adopting Gale's erroneous ren- dering. Dr. Carson has limited the action of (BaTrrM to the face, though no exception is made in the Greek, no part is mentioned, and none omitted, nor any warrant afforded for such limitation, b?/ a phrase much used. The Baptist often inquires, in mockery of our system, by what authority we apply the water in the ordinance of baptism to the face of the subject, rather than to any other part of the person. We might be tempted to return the taunt by sending him to his literary cham- pions Drs. Gale and Carson, to ascertain what authority they had for applying their tawny washes to the face of the comic poet Magnes ! The truth is, that had some unhappy Psedobaptist, fallen into these singular blunders, there would liave been no end to the loud and super- 42 MODE OF BAPTISM. cilious exposure of incompetency and want of scholar- ship among the abettors of infant sprinkling. Again, it may be noticed, in connection mth another part of the same example, that if (owTrToft^zvog denotes S7neared, as these writers have concurred in rendering it, the unavoidable inference is, that the same verb expresses at least two modes, contrary to Dr. Carson's solemn and often repeated asseverations. The w^ashes, or paints, in this instance, w^ere applied to the face ! of Magnes, by smearing, or nibhmg, which is certainly a modal opera- tion, and the verb employed to indicate it is ^a'Trroj. Thus, the author's translation, copied from his pane- gyrized predecessor, upsets his own favourite doctrine ; nor can it recover its position until Baptist critics are able to show that smearing means either dipping or dyeing. The force of the observation will appear more distinctly in the discussion of the succeeding testimony. Hippocrates, describing the effect produced by the application of a certain liquid, says, — " s-rs/^av iTriffrd^ri, ifjbaTfcc (id'Trr&TOii — " The garments are dyed, when it drops upon them.^^ This instance is perfectly conclusive against aU who allege that mode is universally either expressed or implied in the use of this verb. The process stated by the father of medicine, as Dr. Carson has well observed, is not dyeing by dipping. He is in error, however, when he asserts that Hippocrates " employs (BaTTM to denote dyeing by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed." The dyeing alone is expressed by (Bd'Trraj, the dropping of the liquid by another term altogether difterent. Indeed, the gTeat critical value of the example consists in its stripping the verb completel}^ of all claim to modal SECONDARY SENSE OPBAnXn. 43 signification, by employing another term to denote the manner in which the dye was applied to the garments. This circumstance suggests an instructive point of difference between the use of the verb here and in the preceding quotation. When Magnes is represented as applying the tawny washes to his face, Aristophanes does not use one verb to express the mode, and another to indicate the result. Bd'Trrco alone serves the purpose, and the joint scholarship of Dr. Gale and Dr. Carson assigns to it the sense of smearing, which is evidently a modal sense. That this meaning too is literal and not figurative will not be readily disputed ; and, in fact, it has been expressly asserted by Dr. Carson. We are furnished, then, with detailed evidence of irresistible cogency for assigning to this verb the sense of dipping; and the authority of the highest names among our opponents assures us, that it denotes also smearing ; — that is, the same verb denotes two different modes, — a principle which not only annihilates one of Dr. Carson's self-evident canons, but is utterly subversive of the foundation of his reasonings on the mode of baptism. Admit, as we have intimated, the correctness of his translation, and this part of his system necessarily falls to the gi'ound. In the Batrachomyomachia, the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, a mock-heroic poem, falsely ascribed to Homer, depicting the sad fate of one of the champions, called Crambophagus, who fell mortally wounded, the poet says— V. 218 — Not to dwell on the trifling circumstance that Dr. Carson 44 MODE OF BAPTISM. mistakes both the name and genus of the fallen comba- tant, this passage affords occasion for adverting to the somewhat curious history of what may be styled a tradi- tionary mistranslation. So far as we have been able to trace the genealogy of the blunder, it originated with Dr. Gale, — no very uncommon event in the life of that learned author — and it has since been honoured by the patronage of scholars, who greatly excelled the doctor, if not in the extent of their literary attainments, at least in their character for acuteness, and general critical ability. Gale renders the passage thus ; — " He hreatJiless fell, and the lake was tinged with blood." Whether the correct- ness of this rendering was challenged from the days of its author, till the appearance of Dr. Carson's treatise on Baptism, we are not aware ; but in that publication it was slightly modified, as follows: — "He fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged with his blood." The next leading name, in countenancing this singular version, is that of Dr. Halley, whose renderings generally evince the accuracy of sound scholarsliip ; and who, in regard to ^aTcriZpo, has publicly brought against Carson the charge of " following Dr. Gale with good heart through mistranslations as well as correct versions." Yet, with all his known talent and acquirements, he has adopted in substance the version, and in terms the mistake of Dr. Carson. Here are the words : — " He fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was baptized with his blood." The substitution by this author of baptised for tinged, which is the reading in the version of his prede- cessors, will not be considered an improved rendering of the verb liSct-^rrgro. SECONDARY SENSE OF BAUTil. 45 Now, the blunder which disfigures the works of these learned authors, and which has been handed down by tradition from the great ancestor of modern Immersionists, consists in absolutely mistaking one Greek verb for another. The action of hreatJiing they all understand to be expressed by a term which has no more connection with breathing than it has with walking or flying. Not a syllable is uttered by the writer of the mock-heroic poem, respecting the respiration of his little cold-blooded hero ; and, indeed, the true nature of the case, had it been known to such a man as Dr. Carson, might well have abated the nuisance of his sarcasm, and disposed him, in view of his own fallibility, to extend a measure of indulgence to the ignorance and mistakes of weak brethren. The attempt of Professor Stuart, to translate this formidable Greek sentence, cannot be regarded as much more successful. His version runs thus : — " He fell, without even looking upivards, and the lake was tinged with his blood." There is at least something novel in this translation, but the netv, we apprehend, is not true. Whether it is a common practice with frogs, when mortally wounded, to look upwards, before they expire, my acquaintance with natural history does not enable me to determine ; and I am equally at a loss to discover how an author, of Stuart's varied and exact scholarship, could present such a specimen of his acquaintance with Greek literature. The upward look of a dying frog- would be a study for a painter ! We are prepared to exhibit, in contrast with these mistranslations, the correct rendering of the passage. 46 MODE OF BAPTISM. The verb is civmvffsp, which Gale, Carson, and their fol- lowers, evidently mistook for ccvs-Trvzvff&v, and Stuart referred to the root Avco, while in reality it is com- pounded of kvoi iipf and Aco to sivim; and thus plainly signifies to sivim up, emerge, rise to the surface. Accord- ingly, the true meaning of the original becomes equally manifest and natural, — " He fell, and rose no more, and the lake was tinged with blood ;" or, as the poet Cow^- per has expressed it with equal elegance and fidelity to the Greek — " So fell Crambophagns ; and from that fall Never arose, but reddening with his blood The wave, and wallowing," &c. Even in this decisive example Dr. Gale still contends, in defiance of the established principles both of literal and figurative interpretation, that ^d'Trroj retains at least hyperbolieally the modal sense of immersion. This untenable view is met by Carson with unsparing and indignant exposure. " What a monstrous paradox in Rhetoric," he exclaims, " is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse !" — [Frog, he should have said.] " Never was there such a figure. The lake is not said to be dipped in the blood, but dyed tvith the blood." We are content to leave Dr. Gale in the hands of his Baptist admirer and antagonist, while we go on to state — That the secondary sense of the term belongs also to Hellenistic Greek, and is exemplified in the Septuagint rendering of b^n^ in Ezek. xxiii. 15, where "the images of the Chaldeans, pourtrayed with vermillion," are SECONDARY SENSE OF BAllTn. 47 represented as " exceeding* in dyed attire — '7roi§a(iu'7rr(x, — upon their heads." Bd(jij(jbK, another derivative of the verb, is several times repeated in a single verse, Judges V. 30, "X^vXa (DCi[jj[J!jaTcov roj ^iffd^cc, GzvXa (oa(J!j[jjKrcou TTOtziXicig, locc(Jb[jbarMv TrouiXraJv, k. r. \. — thus translated by Sclileusner, — Spolia colorata, spolia versicoloria, colores artificum variantium — "There are spoils of dyed garments for Sisara, spoils of various dyed garments, dyed embroi- dered garments." — Brenton^s Septiiagint. It were easy to swell the list of examples from later Greek writers, including Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, and Lucian ; but as the signification, for which we contend, is already placed on an immoveable basis, we pass to an instance from the New Testament, which involves some peculiar considerations. Rev. xix. 13, Ka/ TTgf; ^z(pkyii/Avog i(i>drtov (5&(icx,[jb[Mvou citiJjari, rendered in the authorized version, — " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood. ^^ It is remarkable that the Syriac and Ethiopic versions of this passage represent ^z^ayb^ikvovy by a term which denotes sprinkled ; and it is yet more remarkable that Origen, citing the verse from the Greek text of his day, employs hppavrKTfjbmv, whether as a substitute or an exposition, it is perhaps impossible to determine. On these facts, several Psedobaptist authors have, with great, and, we are persuaded, honest confidence, founded an argument against immersion ; but the evidence adduced, so far as it possesses credi- bility, rather appears favourable to the recognition of a different reading in the original. It must also be * " Having also richly dyed attire upon their heads." — Sept. Trans, by Sir L. Brcntun. 48 MODE OF BAPTISM. remembered that were sprinkle proved to be the meaning of ^d'TTTco, by the testimony of the most unexceptionable witnesses, the circumstance would merely create a general presumption, or probability, in favour of that mode of administering baptism. The advocate of sprinkling or affusion, as an enlightened and candid controversialist, would still acknowledge that no solid ground was gained till he had established a corresponding latitude in the application of ^a'jrriZoj, and its derivatives. Dr. Carson adopts the authorized version of the passage, and yet describes the tunic of the warrior, " as emblematically dyed to represent his work before it was begun. Of this combination of the primary and secondary sense, in the same occurrence, a plausible defence might be offered, by alleging that to dip in blood necessarily implies dyeing, and that, therefore, it is not incorrect to employ indifferently either mode of expression. But, with all respect, we would ask, is the influence of Greek construction to have no weight, or its voice to be entirely stifled in determining the right translation ? When an author not only acknowledges, but proves, by suflicient evidence, that ^d'zroj has the sense of dyeing, and when its syntax obviously countenances, if it does not demand, that meaning, why not promptly introduce it into the rendering of the sentence? In a former example, precisely identical in structure with the present, we found Dr, Carson contending eloquently, and trium- phantly, in opposition to the absurd extravagance of Gale, that the verb denoted dyeing, and not dipping. Now, the expressions, — " The lake was tinged with blood," and " a garment dyed with blood," exhibit, in SECONDARY SENSE OF BAHTn. 49 the original, so exactly the same form and regimen, that there exists in the one case no sound principle to justify a departure from the translation adopted in the other. Both clearly exemplify the secondary sense, though it by no means receives from each the same amount of evidence. For such reasons, we have rejected the arrangement of Dr. Carson, as unauthorized, and have classified this interesting occurrence under the secondary acceptation of the verb. That j3a Trr^y denotes to dye, without regard to mode, and even where immersion is in terms excluded, the preceding examples place beyond the pale of candid disputation. There remains, however, an additional element of proof, which, if not more convincing in its nature, is at least calculated to afford higher gratification to the mind of the true philologist. We allude to the interesting fact, that the secondary meaning, instead of hanging loosely upon the outskirts of clauses and sen- tences, has seized upon their most intimate connexions, and entered deeply into the structural fabric of the Greek language. As Dr. Halley, so far as we are aware, was the first to du*ect public attention to the existence and value of this branch of evidence, we shall present in his own words the statement and illustration of its character. " The best proof," he observes, " of a complete change of meaning, is a corresponding change in the syntax, accommodating itself to the deflection of sense. When we read of the use of the word in dyeing wool, or colouring the hair, or staining the hand, the instances as adduced by Dr. Carson are quite satisfactory. But the syntax is not affected. The wool, the hair, or the E 50 MODE OF BAPTISM. hand, which would be dipped, if the dyeing were accom- plished by dipping, is still the object of the verb. In the phrases, to dip the wool and to stain the wool, the syntax is the same. But if the syntax is so varied as to make not the thing coloured, but the colour itself, the object of the verb — as when we say to dye a purple — ^the secondary sense has then renounced all dependence upon the primary, and established itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its undisturbed pos- session. Dr. Carson might have produced a proof passage from Plato — De Repuh. lib. iv. 429 — as of that passage respecting the work of dyers, he has given us the inexcusably inaccurate translation of Gale, of which, however, I adduce only the clause relating to our pur- pose,— ' no matter what dye they are dipped in.' Would any one think that this was the translation made by Dr. Gale, and cited by Dr. Carson, of the words, 'iav rs rig dXka ^^^Pisy^ara (iccTrp, 'iav rs x,a) raura, whether any one dye other colours, or these also. Whether the xi^f^^ w^s the dye into which the wool was dipped, according to the version cited, or the colour imparted to it, is not the question. Be it which it may, it is the object of (^d'^T'/i ; it has gained in the syntax the place of the material subjected to the process; and therefore pleads a law of language, that (od'^raf in the passage does not and cannot mean to dip, as the colour cannot be dipped, whatever may be done with the wool." — p. 454. Having now submitted in detail, with such comments as we deemed necessary, plain and cogent evidence of both the primary and secondary senses of the verb (idTTTco, we may refer to some of the words immediately SECONDARY SENSE OF BAIlTn. 51 derived from it, for farther illustration of the principles already established. Terms of this class frequently imitate the example of their primitive in presenting both significations, though some are appropriated almost exclusively in the primary, others in the secon- dary sense. Thus the verbal ^avrog in several passages means dipped, while instances are not wanting in which it must be rendered dyed, as in the Aves of Aristophanes, V. 287, where it has been supposed to denote " bright- coloured." But the example, though evidently to the point, belongs rather to the tropical department. The term is also applied to the tempering of iron and other metals — an appropriation which Dr. Halley conceives to rest on the same independent footing with the sense of dyeing. " Iron," he states, " is dipped in water, but tempered tuith water ;" and in support of his ^dew, he cites the authority of the Scholiast on the Ajax of Sophocles, V. 650, founding confidently on the syntax of the passage, and protesting against Dr. Carson's different rendering of an analogous construction, as a heresy in interpretation. The noun (iu[jj{/ja denotes the substance in which an object is dipped, such as sauce ; also dye, paint, &c., without reference to the mode of applying it. That the secondary sense should thus assert its entire indepen- dence on the primary, is altogether in accordance with the state of the preceding evidence ; and we shall have additional proof of the fact in canvassing some of the figm'ative acceptations. Another derivative, the usa^e of which exhibits con- siderable peculiarity, is (icclace in our regards, and is calculated io realise impor- tant results. We may safely take little interest in the more contest of party — the battle of man against man, — PIOUBATIVE USE OP hATl'lil. 09 Psedobaptist against Anti-Padobaptist ; but in the noble strife of solid facts and sound reasonings, it should be our ambition to come off' victorioas. 3. Our principal object, in the preceding literary criticisms, was to exemplify, at an early stage, some of those processes which will be found essential to an accu- rate estimate of the amount and character of the evidence canvassed in our future investigations. That depart- ment of the Baijtist controversy, which relates to the mode of administering the ordinance, from its verj' nature, brings us largely into contact with ancient liter- ature, and requires all the appliances of a critical know- ledge of language, combined with wakeful attention to the laws and philosophy of evidence. Indeed, the man who would prosecute successfully the path of inquiry which it opens up, must be prepared for the varioas, as well as vigorous, exerci.se of his faculties, keeping before him the great salient points of the argument on iKjth sides, and, at the same time, not overlooking those considerations which may be regarded as minute and apparently insignificant. We have no sympathy with the criticism, which uniformly cultivates the companion- ship of the trifling and the small; but on the other hand, that does not deserve the name of criticism, which is blind to the fkct, that on small jKjints great interests are often susj^ended. How often has some ancient testi- mony been misunderstood and per\'erted, in consequence of its interjjreters failing to assign to an unimportant term the precise shade of meaning which the author intended. It is comfortable, however, to reflect that in the present day, neither of the parties interested in the 70 MODE OF BAPTISM. issue of the Baptist controversy, can have the front to complain of the application of learning and critical research. Of these weapons both have shown a dispo- sition to avail themselves, as far as in their power ; and, in common consistency, both must feel pledged not to quarrel with the course which has secured their common approbation. Christians must not despise the value, any more than " the day of small things." It were as unrea- sonable in these inquuies to disregard the nicer and more delicate points of criticism, as for the algebraist or astronomer to cast off those quantities which are as nothing in the process, but which make their influence tell palpably upon the final result. The microscopic must not be accounted worthless ; for though it may possess no intrinsic claim upon the regards of the biblical student, still it merits a degree of consideration, arising out of its intimate bearing on large and important issues. Hence it appeared especially desirable, in the introduc- tory department of our subject, to exemplify some of those more minute processes, which are indispensable to the thorough sifting of the evidence on either side, and to that enlightened estimate of its character, which is essential to a sound conclusion. To every element, whether great or small, concerned in the discussion, we desire, by the divine blessing, to assign the measure of importance to which it is justly entitled; while we anxiously cherish the hope that our humble labours may be instrumental in promoting those habits of discrimi- nating thought and patient research, without which it is impossible to become " mighty in the Scriptures." CHAPTER SIXTH. EXAMINATION OF BAHTIZfl. BAnrizn related to BAnrn in etymology. — the nature of the rela- tion.— difference in meaning between the two verbs. — various opinions stated and examined. — BAnxizn not a diminutive, nor FREQUENTATIVE, NOR CAUSATIVE, NOR CONTINUATIVE. THE USUS LOaUENDI, NOT THE FORM OF THE VERB, DETERMINES ITS SENSE. COM- PARATIVE VALUE OF EARLY GREEK LITERATURE IN ASCERTAINING THE MODE OF BAPTISM. — SHADE OF MEANING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT MAY DIFFER FROM THAT OF THE CLASSICS. DR. CARSOn's RULE INFRINGED BY HIMSELF. TESTIMONY OF THE GREEK FATHERS- ITS USES AND LIMITS. That the verb (Sa-^rr/^a; is intimately related to (idTTTco, in etymology and in meaning, is universally acknowledged; but the specific nature of the relation, particularly as regards meaning, continues to be warmly contested. This diversity of view, to which general philology is not altogether a stranger, yet shows itself most prominently, as may be anticipated^ on the field of the Baptist controversy. That doctrinal or ceremonial predilections have had their influence on the formation of some of the opinions entertained on the subject, will appear as we proceed; but in regard to others, there is evidently no ground for such imputation. 72 MODE OF BAPTISM. On the mere point of etymology, the common opinion iSj that (BaTTTiZ^M, whatever be its meaning, is immediately derived from the root (od'Trrco, by a simple change of termination. Whether Buttmann would accede to this opinion, is doubtful, because, in treating of the forma- tion of verbs generally, including those which end in i%af, he states that he will '^ consider chiefly those that are derived from nouns, either substantives or adjectives." There may, of course, be others, of which it was not his design to take particular cognizance, derived not from nouns but from verbs^ and to this latter class /SaTrr/^o; may belong. The principle of derivation, as laid down by Kiihner, is more explicit and decided, and appears, at the same time, irreconcilable with the common opinion. " All derivative verbs," he states broadly and without exception, " must be considered as denomina- tive, i. e. as derivatives from substantives or adjectives; for although the stem-substantive for several verbs of this kind is not in use, yet the analogy of the others requires that the stem of these also should be assumed." In accordance with the views of this distinguished grammarian, the verb ^uTrri'Cfo, which has one of the derivative endings enumerated by him, should be traced immediately to such a stem, for instance, as the verbal jSa-rro?, and both probably to (oa'Trraj, as their common ancestor. This principle of etymology is perhaps the more correct, and, at all events, is entitled to respectful attention ; yet, in the case before us, its adoption does not materially affect even the genealogical relation subsisting between the two verbs. The meaning of jSaTr/^ay, as compared with that of its EXAMINATION OF BAnXIZn. 73 primitive, demands a somewhat closer and more detailed statement, particularly as the authorities, in support of some of the different views, are both numerous and highly respectable. I. Certain writers, regarding the termination /^a;, as the sign of a diminutive, have contended that as the root ^d'TTTo) confessedly signifies to dip, the derivative must denote something less than immersion. This species of criticism had its day, and its patrons, some of them men of eminence in the walks of theology. Others, again, looking upon the same termination as intensive, have maintained that it must necessarily make some accession to the signification of its primitive. Upon these views, however, it were superfluous to offer any comment, partly because they are purely hypothetical, deriving no support whatever from the usiis loqiiendi, and also because they may be said to belong to the history, rather than to the present state, of the Baptist contro- versy. II. An opinion which has prevailed much more gene- rally, and has commanded the suffrages of many of the first names in Greek literature, from an early period till the present day, places ^ocTrri^oj in the class of frequen- tative verbs, and assigns to it a corresponding sense. Tertullian, it has been argued, manifestly wi'ote in accordance with this view, as we find him applying the Latin frequentative mergito to the ordinance of Christian baptism. In support of the same opinion, may be cited the authority of most of the leading lexicographers, including Stephanus, Scapula, Bretschneider, Passow, Liddell and Scott, with numbers of inferior rank. Had 74 MODE OF BAPTISM. some of these authors employed their undoubtedly pro- found and extensive scholarship, in sustaining, by suffi- cient examples, the sense which they so unhesitatingly attached to this verb, they would have supplied for the interpreter a highly important desideratum. But this essential part of the process they have not even attempted. Why, it may be asked, do we witness such general concui'rence in the adoption of a particular meaning, without, at least, an effort to base it upon an induction of appropriate instances? Professor Stuart states that the able lexicographers, to whom reference has been made, appear to have assigned a frequentative sense to the verb, " on the ground of theoretical prin- ciples as to the mode of formation." The main principle of formation, which seems to be recognised by such grammarians as Rost and Buttmann is, that a frequen- tative character belongs to those verbs in X^co, which are derived from other verbs of greater simplicity. This principle, however, is presented under a more qualified and restricted form by Kiihner, where he lays down the general rule that — " By the ending in a^o;, verbs are formed, which denote the repetition or strengthening of the idea expressed by the simple verb; these," he adds, " are called Frequentative and Intensive verbs, e. g. pt-zraZoi) j'acto, from p/Vr^y j'acio.''^ Tliis rule, by implica- tion, excludes verbs in /^(w from the class of frequenta- tives, and consequently leaves the structural sense of such a term as (iuTrriZco still an open question. But we are of opinion that some other element, in addition to the influence of a law of formation, must have operated upon the minds of lexicographers to EXAMINATION OF BAUTIzn. 75 secure such general harmony, in assigning to this verb a frequentative sense. It is worthy of serious inquiry, whether an unauthorized mode of administering baptism, embodied to some extent in the ritual of Christian anti- quity, has not practised a singular imposition at once upon the verb (^oiTrriZ,^, and upon some of its most accu- rate interpreters. Our meaning will become patent, by attending to an observation of the celebrated Vossius, in his Etymologicon, under the word Bapttsinus. — " Cum autem (odi'TrTM sit mergo, (Butti^m commode vertamus mergito: prsesertim, si sermo de Christianorum baptismo, qid trind fit immersione.''^ In accordance with this testi- mony, the practice at one time prevailed pretty exten- sively in the Christian church, of thrice immersing the subject of baptism, in allusion to the three persons of the adorable Trinity, or to Christ's resurrection on the third day. Now, is it not reasonable to surmise that this practice, the prevalence of which is abundantly attested by ecclesiastical history, exerted some influence on the decisions of lexicography ? The remark of Vossius is clearly in favour of the affirmative. It may, indeed, be objected, that for trine immersion itself we are probably indebted to the peculiar form of (oa'^rCCpo; but there is, we submit, a far weightier probability on the side of tracing that rite to the scrip tm^al connection of the doctrine of the Trinity with the baptismal insti- tution. Whether the origin of the proposed frequentative sense may be discovered in grammar or history, the writers by whom that sense is adopted cannot hope to obtain for it a cordial and intelligent reception, till they 76 MODE OF BAPTISM. procure for it a solid basis, on an adequate induction of instances. At present, it appears simply in the light of an opinion, entertained, indeed, by Greek scholars of the first eminence, but not referable to any general principle of the language, and, at the same time, unat- tended by the evidence requisite to establish a particular acceptation. III. According to Dr. Gale's theory, ^octtm and (^ot'TrTtZpo are to be regarded as strictly laolvvuf/jot of the same power and signification, so that it is perfectly warrantable to argue " promiscuously from both." This theory, which would obviously requii-e for its support an extensive philological investigation, the author grounds not on any peculiarity in these two verbs, but on the alleged general principle that " derivatives in Zfo signify the same as their primitives." Having stated the principle, he furnishes in the margin of his work several examples of verbs, which he considers so related in etymology and sense, informing us that there are infinita alia ; but he makes no attempt to disengage the evidence which these examples may be supposed to contain, or meet such objections as will not fail to suggest themselves to every educated inquirer. The true state of the facts may be briefly unfolded. That there are instances in which the Greek language employs these two endings without any appreciable difference of signification is at once conceded ; but it cannot be denied that there are others in which the derivative evinces a wide and striking departure from the sense of its primi- tive. These are not matters of doubtful disputation: for usage^ the arbiter from whom there is no appeal, EXAMINATION OFBAHTIzn. 77 has registered, in the several cases, both the coincidence and the diversity. It were superfluous, however, to enter into an elaborate exposure of Dr. Gale's general principle, which will be perceived, as we canvass the examples of (oa'TrriZpo, to be utterly at variance with the actual state of the evidence. IV. Others have contended for what they call a continuative sense of ^a'^riZo), as compared with its root ; but as this hy|Dothesis, after careful examination, appears to us, like its predecessors, great in promise, and little in performance, and, as we are likely to have future opportunities of testing its pretensions, it may, for the present, be safely dismissed. Indeed our baptismal etymologists of all classes have gained wondrous little by their recondite speculations. Proceeding, for the most part, upon an inadequate or hasty induction of particulars, they have laid no broad foundation, on which to erect the superstructure of a firm general conclusion. Their learned labours, accordingly, betray more of the a priori logical spirit of the Schoolmen, than of that slower but more secure method which has immortalized the name of Bacon, and shed the bright effulgence of truth upon the vast and varied discoveries of modern science. V. The last opinion we shall notice, respecting the connection in sense, between (Bd-TrrM and (Sa-rr/^fi/, is stated and defended by Dr. Carson. " The termination ^la;," he observes, " when employed to form a derivative, appears to me to have served some such purpose, as the Hebrew causal form, and to denote the making of the action of the verb to be performed. Mere speculation 78 MODE OF BAPTISM. is of no value. The most ingenious theory, not confii'med by the use of language, ought to have no authority. * * * But that my observation is just, may be fully verified by examples. There cannot be the least doubt that the Greeks did form derivatives on this plan. Could I produce no other instance, the follomng, from Aelimi's Varia Historia, would be sufficient to establish my doctrine. It occurs in the anecdote he relates with respect to the beneficence of Ptolemy Lagides. ' They say that Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, took great delight in enriching his friends. He said that it is better to enrich, than to be rich.' — 197. Here, v'kovrzoj is to be rich, and 'TrXovritpj, to make rich." Having adduced another example of two verbs, similarly related in forma- tion and meaning. Dr. Carson leaps at once to his general conclusion, as follows : — " Such, then, indubitably, was originally the use of derivatives with this termination, though in many cases they and their primitives may be interchangeable; and although, in some, the distinction cannot at all be traced. In this view ^oc^riZfo would signify originally to make an object dip. The use, then, would be to apply to the dipping of objects too heavy to be sustained by the dipper." — p. 20. On this statement, which is put forward with all the assurance of truth, or demonstration, we take leave to offer the following strictures : — 1. In common with the theories akeady brought under review, it rests upon an induction which is wholly inade- quate to the support of the author's conclusion. We admit that Dr. Carson has succeeded in pointing out the causative relation in two examples, one of them wiitten EXAMINATION OF BAnTl'za. 79 some hundreds of years hefore tlie Christian era, the other more than a century after. But surely these are wholly insufficient to establish a fundamental principle of Greek etj^mology. Is it philosophical to found a comprehensive principle of grammar on a basis so narrow ? Is such a proceeding wise, or safe in any department of knowledge? — or rather does it not obviously belong to those hasty generalizations which have often painfully increased and complicated, instead of facilitating, the labour of scientific investigation. Dr. Gale discusses a number of examples in which the derivative ending in X^u indicates no depar- ture from the sense of the primitive, and forthwith he sagely concludes that verbs so related are laohvvaihoi, of the same meaning. Buttmann produces four examples of verbs with this termination, which denote the frequent repetition of the actions expressed by their roots respec- tively ; but that consummate philologist, far from making this the ground-work of a general principle, simply designates the verbs frequentative, and assigns them to one of the " more limited classes of derived forms." On the other hand, Dr. Carson proves, in two instances, the existence of the causal relation; and hence he will have it that the original design of the derivative ending in 'Co), was indubitably to express the causal form of the act denoted by the primitive verb. The view embraced by the German grammarian may be less imposing, but it is more solid, and more consistent with the facts, by which alone any view can be sustained. The truth is, that if any of these theories will insist upon its claim to appear in a generalized form as a great principle of the Greek language, one or two stubborn examples can speedily 80 MODE OF BAPTISM. dispose of its lofty pretensions. The different theories, indeed, are self-evidently incompatible with one another, as each of them occupies the entire ground, and professes to account for all the etymologies concerned. Are they all, then, to be condemned as unfounded speculations ? By no means. Each is manifestly true to a limited extent, while none has been able to establish its claim to generality, much less to universality. He must be a Sciolist in Greek who does not know that the meanings of derivatives in Zoj from other verbs are exceedingly diversified in relation to their primitives, and that no principle has hitherto been developed which can be said to hold out a credible promise of reducing them all to a common standard. 2. Dr. Carson's assertion that (^oczrriZfo would properly apply to objects "too heavy to be sustained by the dipper," is not borne out by classical usage generally, nor even by his own examples. " Its occurrence in profane writers," he informs us, is comparatively "rare, and it generally applies to objects that are too heavy to be lifted or borne by the dipper." It is easy for any scholar to test the correctness of this statement, by examining the application of the term in a number of instances taken indiscriminately from the classical writers. Let us consider, in their order, the nine examples first adduced by Dr. Carson himself to establish the modal sense of the verb, with a view to ascertain whether the objects to which it is applied are in general too heav}^ to be sustained by the dipper. These objects are — soldiers, a hand, land animals, a man, a sinner, things which float in the laJce near Agrigentnm, (their bulk and EXAMINATION OF BAHTIZn. 81 weight not specified,) an arrow. ^ a sword, a piece of iron, (which a smith takes out of the fire, and tempers with water). We are not aware that in these instances the proportion is more unfavourable to Dr. Carson's prin- ciple, than would be presented by an inspection of the entire list which his industry has collected from various authors. What, then, is the true state of the case ? It cannot be pretended that more than two or three of the objects are too heavy to be sustained by the dipper, while the great majority of them would obviously prove quite tractable in the hands of a man of ordinary strength. Dr. Carson, indeed, candidly admits that ^wxrl'^oj may apply to the smallest object ; but he also affirms its general use to be altogether different, — an affirmation which we hold to be utterly invalidated by the broad facts as they are exhibited on the pages of classical literature. The question is a perfectly simple one, having nothing recondite in its whole compass, but find- ing a correct solution in the common arithmetic of fact and criticism. 3. The causative relation betwen jSa^ro; and /SaTr/^^y, as traced by Dr. Carson, involves a distinction without a difference. That jSa^ro;, in almost all the occurrences of its primary meaning, denotes to dip in an active transi- tive sense, no competent judge will think of calling in question. The truth of this statement is powerfully confirmed by our author's own examples. If, then, ^dTCTiX^oo is the causative of ^a'zru, it must mean, not to make an ohjed dip, as he incorrectly states, but to maJce a perso7i dip an object, which is the true causative expres- sion. In the endeavour to support his principle, he 82 MODE OF BAPTISM. makes a tacit — probably an unconscious — transition from the active to the neuter sense of ^dcrrof, thus laying open his philology to a fatal objection. In fact, Dr. Carson's causative meaning is nothing more or less than the transitive sense of ^octtto) itself, for to dip an ohject, and to make an object dip, are manifestly expressive of one and the same process. The exposure of this want of critical acumen by Dr. Halley is able and triumphant. ^^ Dr. Carson," he observes, " attempts to sustain his shadow of a distinction by shifting the sense of the word : ^cctttco is to dip, the transitive verb, to put a thing into the water, and not the neuter verb, to dip or go into the water. In the causative, the sense is shifted from the transitive into the neuter, as when he says, the causative 'is applied to ships, which are made to dip.' This dip of the ships is not ^octttoo, the transitive, but the neuter into which it has shifted." — p. 464. Dr. Carson's powers of discrimination, we apprehend, must have been strangely in abeyance when he hazarded a distinction so evidently groundless. On a comprehen- sive view of the entire case, we think it wiU be admitted that the Greek language affords no warrant for general- izing the causative relation between derivative verbs in t^o) and their primitives, and in the particular instance of ^d'TTroj and iSa-rr/^o;, that Dr. Carson has entirely failed in his attempt to establish its existence, or exem- plify its application. Other machinery, at least, must be brought into operation, before the fy of the Greeks can be identified with the Hiphil of the Hebrews. The principles of etymology having thus betrayed their total inability to cast any steady or clear light on EXAMINATION OF BAnTIZ.Q. 83 the meaning of (iccTrriZco, we are compelled to have recourse to the itsus loquendi, the supreme court of appeal, by whose decision every proposed interpretation must ultimately stand or fall. In ascertaining the sense of a term in any language, mere derivation is not of the nature of evidence. The actual occurrences of the term in works of standard merit, if such exist, must be care- fully examined, that we may discover the different shades of meaning in various connexions of subject and syntax ; and, when necessary, mark any figurative or tropical applications. In this interesting branch of the inquiry, much has been already accomplished by the combined efforts of a great number of authors, who, in the prosecution of their several objects and interests, have largely contributed to the materials which are requisite for forming a sound and enlightened judgment respecting the mode of the baptismal ordinance. Still there appear to us to exist certain leading facts or prin- ciples which ought to be kept in view in dealing with the evidence, and on which controversialists have not hitherto bestowed an amount of consideration commen- surate with their value and importance. To the more prominent of these we would now, therefore, briefly solicit attention. 1. The meaning of jSa'rr/^a;, or of any other word, in the very early literature of Greece, must be regarded as of subordinate moment in determining its New Testa- ment usage. The principle involved in this statement secures the cordial acquiescence of all interpreters, who cannot, indeed, hesitate respecting its correctness in ascertaining the sense of the Greek Scriptures generally ; 84 MODE OF BAPTISM. while its application to the case before us finds a sure warrant in the acknowledged liability of language to change, and in the fact of numerous recorded instances of actual alteration. It would be considered on all hands preposterously unsound in sacred hermeneutics, to argue that a word must be understood in a particular sense in the Epistles of Paul, simply because that had been proved to be its accredited meaning in the writings of Homer or Hesiod. In any comprehensive and well arranged Greek Lexicon, do we not encounter repeated examples of a marked difference between the later and more ancient significations of terms, thus holding out a strong prac- tical admonition against reasoning indiscriminately from the one to the other ? And the value of this lesson is peculiarly enhanced by the fact, that the parties inculcat- ing it are not merely competent instructors, but cannot possibly fall under the imputation of sinister design. Their pages exhibit a great principle in the natural history of language ; but for the bearing of that principle on the interests of doctrine and denomination, they are neither concerned, nor accountable. We cannot be suspected of putting forward this view for the pui'pose of creating a prejudice in favour of, or against any particular meaning of ^a'TrriZpo ; for we are not aware that there is any very important difference between the earlier and later testimonies upon the sub- ject. The principle is a general one, claiming extensive control in the region of interpretation, and we are bound faithfully to carry it through, whether the result may be prejudicial or advantageous to the teachings of any party. Were the Iliad to supply an occurrence of this EXAMINATION OFBAHTIZn. 85 verb, to which the P^edobaptist might confidently appeal as a proof-passage for sprinkling, or affusion, we should consider it extremely hazardous, in the absence of cor- responding evidence derived from Hellenistic Greek, to build upon such a testimony. Nay, on this supposition, it might be fearlessly contended, that we should have no authority whatever for imposing that sense on the term as it occurs in the apostolic commission, unless in the extreme case of its having disappeared from the Greek language altogether, during the intermediate period. These remarks will readily suggest the correct view. The diction of Evangelists and Apostles, every man who reflects clearly on the facts of the case, will expect to present the closest affinities in character and meaning with Hellenistic Greek, or more generally, with the Greek of the first half century of the Christian era. 2. The verb (SaTrr/^sy has not necessarily the same specific meaning in the Hellenistic Greek of profane authors, and in the language of the New Testament. In this position also, a principle of some moment is found to be involved. Though the later Greek, in its general features, including both the forms and significations of words, approaches most nearly to the original of the Christian Scriptures, yet it would be neither safe nor logical to proceed upon the assumption of thek absolute identity. We have already seen that the established meaning of ^ei'Trvov as it occurs even in the profane writ- ings of the Hellenistic period, must be considerably modified, when it is employed to denote the solemn ordinance of the Lord's Supper ; — and almost all the churches of Christendom, amid their mutual divisions 86 MODE OF BAPTISM. and strifes, concur in recognising the modification. We do not assert the existence of a similar necessity in the case of baptism. Our principle simply goes to affirm, that when adopted by the inspired penmen, the term may have undergone a change of meaning, which can be ascertained only from the New Testament itself The new views of which the Christian Scriptures formed the chosen vehicle, necessitated modification in the sense of a great variety of terms ; and baptism possibly may be one of the number. On this point, we refuse to submit to the unreasonably stringent regulation which Dr. Car- son toils to enforce in theory. In explanation of what he believes to be the legitimate evidence for determining the signification of (Sa-rr/^^y, he says, " I give my oppo- nents the whole range of Greek literature, till the insti- tution of the ordinance of baptism." In another passage, referring to his own practice, he thus propounds the same limitation ; — " I begin with the classics ; I end only with the hour of the institution of the ordinance." Might he not, with safety to his principle, have so stretched his chronology as to include the period of recording the apostolic commission, thus generously affording us the benefit of whatever evidence could be collected from a number of additional years ? Perhaps we have the power to extort this boon, as an opponent would find it no easy task to prove that baptism was instituted in Greek, and not in vSyro-Chaldee. Apart from this, however, we entertain a strong objection to the principle which avowedly casts over- board the authority of New Testament usage in settling the meaning of a New Testament word. We are EXAMINATION OF BAHTIzn. 87 called upon, forsooth, to regard the vocable (^a'^riZco as having attained, at the hour of the institution, the state of a stiffened swathed mummy, to be deposited in the catacombs of the Greek Scriptures. But we cannot receive such doctrine. It is repugnant to our deepest convictions. We contemplate this verb at the period stated, as a member of living active society, staid, it may be, in its character, but not immutable, — not " a reed shaken with the wind," yet in some degree exposed to the fluctuations of its tribe. Let the inter- pretation of Aoyog in the writings of John be subjected to the law of exclusion which Dr. Carson insists upon applying to (^wtttiZco, — let the entire range of Greek literature, till the moment of employing this term as a designation of the Messiah, be freely thrown open to the expositor ; and has he not just reason to complain, that by a principle of arbitrary and unwarrantable restriction, he has been deprived of that part of the evidence which is most essential to a sound interpretation ? Let us try what would be the manifest result of generalizing this exclusive principle. Every word occurring in the New Testament must have its meaning proved by evidence derived solely from the previous state of the language, and no meaning can claim to be admitted which has not succeeded in passing this severe ordeal. Would not such a procedure issue in a much closer correspondence than actually exists, between the significations of terms as they are used in the ancient classics, and as we meet them in the pages of the Greek Scriptiu'es? It wiU scarcely be denied that the New Testament employs terms which were familiar to the historians and philo- 88 MODE OF BAPTISM. sophers of Greece, to convey thoughts which never " entered into the heart" of uninspked sage. This, indeed, forms one of the conditions indispensable to the defence of Christianity as a Revelation from God, — and its denial would involve the inference, that, with the exception of the meaning of a few peculiar words, what- ever is contained in the New Testament must he found within the compass of preceding Greek literature. We hold universally that at no period in the history of a term, is its meaning exempted from the law of change ; consequently, that at the commencement of the Christian economy, there was nothing to prevent, but, from the nature of the circumstances, much to impose a modified acceptation of terms as they were transplanted from the field of the Greek world into the vineyard of the Christian revelation. For the principle we zealously contend ; — its application in any alleged instance can be sustained only by the evidence of New Testament usage. On this topic, in its general importance, and particularly as it relates to the legitimate sources of testimony respecting the mode of baptism, Dr. Halley has some clear and forcible observations. " To require," says he, "the evidence of the usage from previous writers, or from writers who knew not the religious institute, appears to us as unreasonable, as to refuse to hear any exposition of the Greek words of which the terms law, justification, sanctification, resurrection, spirit, angel, and many others, are the representatives, unless it be in accordance with the ideas which pagan poets and philosophers attached to them. Such an exposition, if carried to its full extent, would convert Christianity into EXAMINATION OF BAnXIZn. 89 paganism. Am I to attach to the Son of God, only the same idea as did the pagan centurion at the foot of the cross?" — p. 471. But Dr. Carson has asserted it to be his own practice, in tracing the evidence for mode, to begin with the classics, and end with the hour of the institution of baptism. With this assertion under our eyOj it may be considered superfluous or insulting, to inquire whether he has religiously observed the conditions emphatically imposed upon himself, in common with his opponents. Let us, however, take a chronological glance at the authorities which he has produced, in support of his view of the meaning of /Sa-rr/^iy ; and, perhaps, the result will illustrate the wisdom of the Scripture injunc- tion, "" Prove all things." The testimonies examined by him for the purpose specified, amount to fourteen, of which, startling as must be the announcement, no fewer than seven lie beyond the prescribed boundary! These seven we shall enumerate, in the order in which their evidence is canvassed by Dr. Carson, furnishing, at the same time, a correct statement of the periods to which they respectively belong. Plutarch flourished about the year of our Lord 110; Lucian, 160; Porphyry, 290; Themistius, 353; Heliodorus, 390; Josephus, 70; and Dion, 194. We have purposely omitted from this enumeration ^soj/s Fables, as an authority so chrono- logically uncertain, that a dissertation would be required to determine the precise age to which it is to be ascribed. Mark now the consistency of Dr. Carson's professions with his practice! He professes, in citing his testimo- 90 MODE OF BAPTISM. nies, to close with the hour of the baptismal institution ; yet we detect him, when engaged in the actual produc- tion of his evidence, wandering two hundred, three hundred, nearly four hundred years beyond the land- mark which his own hand had deliberately planted. But while we justly expose the inconsistency of the author's proceeding, we have no objection to recognise the testimony of these later witnesses, believing it to be, upon a principle which shall be presently stated, not only admissible in the circumstances, but highly impor- tant in its bearing on the final issue. We refer to the subject, in the meantime, as more than confirmatory of our position, that the New Testament writers have a claim to be heard in evidence of the sense of /Sa-rr/^^y in the commission, inasmuch as there surely exists an equally valid reason for receiving the witness of Paul and John, as of Porphyry and Heliodorus. 3. The testimony of the fathers, and of the later writers generally, to the meaning of ^wrriZfo, we hold to be exceedingly valuable. We have had frequent occasion to notice the interesting fact, that no man appears to despise patristic testimony, when it proves favourable to the cause, in the advocacy of which he is embarked. If an author commence some learned chaj^ter with sage cautions and warnings, against being led away by the authority of the fathers, the reader may, without the aid of " visions," predict that the sentiments thus introduced do not bask in the sunshine of Christian antiquity. On the other hand, we are free to acknow- ledge, that the value of this venerable testimony may be unduly exaggerated. We cannot perceive, however. EXAMINATION OF BAHTIZn. 91 that there exists any insuperable obstacle in the way of reviewing, without partiality or prejudice, whatever testimonies are found in the fathers, relating to the mode of Christian baptism. Dr. Carson roundly assures us that, " without exception, they use the word [bap- tism] always for immersion;" and he professes the utmost readiness to receive " their testimony as it regards the meaning of the word at the time of the institution, or commencement of the rite." If the former part of the statement be founded, the more thoroughly patristic evidence is sifted, the greater will be the acces- sion of support to the views of the Immersionist. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that he will attempt to seal a fountain, from which may issue streams for the refreshing of his own section of the Christian Church. With regard to the nature of evidence from the fathers, to the sense of /Sa-rr/^iw, at the time of the institution, we have only to express our regret, that the author should even seem to couple the professed admission with the practical exclusion of their testimony. No father could be a competent witness on the subject in question, unless he had lived and wi'itten before the close of Christ's ministry on earth; and as this condition does not obtain, in the case of any of the fathers, their evidence must be disposed of by a wholesale rejection. Will it be affirmed that a patristic comment on the institution may recognise immersion, as the mode of the ordinance at that period, and thus present evidence in favour of the doctrine of our opponents ? But who does not see that this is no evidence at aU? It conveys the judgment formed by an interpreter in a later age, 92 MODE OF BAPTISM. but can neither exemplify nor attest the usage prevalent, when Christ delivered, or the Evangelists recorded, the Apostolic Commission. The high value, in our own view, attaching to patristic testimony, may be explained and defended in two obser- vations : — (1.) Acquaintance with the Greek fathers enables the student of Scripture to understand and appreciate more fully the style, diction, and matter of the New Testa- ment. It is no small advantage to the sacred expositor to be familiar with that phase of the Greek language, which is presented to him in the writings of Evangelists and Apostles. But this advantage is largely accessible in the fruits of patristic erudition. In the works of the fathers, we are encompassed by Christian thoughts and feelings, we breathe a Christian atmosphere, we are presented with Greek itself, to some extent, in Christian costume. We do not question, nay we affirm, the immense utility of a comprehensive knowledge of clas- sical Greek to the Christian interpreter. But we also contend for the great value of such works as those of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Chrysostom, as a supplementary agency, well calculated to clear away obscurities, and to give to our conceptions of the sense of the original more freshness and life. The adept in patristic literature will feel increasingly happy, and at home in the New Testament. " Shadows, clouds, and darkness," will gradually melt away, leaving the sky of his hermeneutics brighter and more beautiful. Some may decry this as a very general sort of benefit, less definite than could be desired ; still it will not be under- EXAMINATION OF BAnTIZXl. 93 rated by any who are in the habit of studying the word of God in the light of patristic antiquity. (2.) When the fathers refer indirectly to the sense of (iaxriZco, we consider their testimony to be peculiarly worthy of acceptation. We deny that classical usage binds this verb to mode, and our view we shall endea- vour to sustain by detailed evidence. On this point we maintain, moreover, the existence of perfect harmony between the testimony of the classics, and the testimony of the fathers. With respect to the value of the latter, in this instance, we have been led to entertain strong views. That baptism, in the ancient church, was gene- rally administered by immersion, frequently by trine immersion, with some additional ceremonies, rests upon the uniform and consistent testimony of ecclesiastical writers. With this mode the fathers were necessarily familiar, and the fact of its prevalence must have exerted some influence on their interpretation of (^cc^rtZco. If, then, subsequently to the Apostolic Commission^, the meaning of the term underwent any change, the circum- stances of the church of the early centuries must have given to that change a direction more decidedly and exclusively modal. The immersion of patristic baptism, as a Christian ordinance, must have had a powerful tendency to identify baptism in all its occurrences with " dip, and nothing but dip." Now, if we find the fathers, in defiance of this strong ecclesiastical bias, employing the term, when it does not denote the Christian ordinance, with greater latitude of significa- tion,— if they call by the name of baptisms, applications of water from which immersion is plainly excluded, we 94 MODE OF BAPTISM. are disposed to attach the highest value to that part of their testimony. But this is no mere hypothesis. There does exist a discrepancy between patristic prac- tice in the administration of baptism, and patristic usage of the term baptism, as applicable to ablutions in general. How are we to account for this discrepancy? Clearly on this principle, that, though in its ecclesiastical use, chained to one mode by the common practice of the church, the term baptism asserted its freedom in the Greek language at large. The liberty which it compa- ratively lost in the ordinance was, as we shall show, retained and used in various other applications. Some may propose to reverse this order, taking the immersion of the ordinance as the true and only meaning, and what we have styled the freedom of the term, as a departure from the standard. But this could not have been the view of the fathers; else they would never have employed baptism in any other sense than that of immersion. It is evident also, that had not the verb originally denoted the application of water in diverse ways, the immersion of the ordinance would have speedily brought all its occurrences within the limits of modal exclusiveness. Still it may be asked, how came the ordinance to be so restricted, if the term baptism rejoiced in a wider latitude of signification? We reply generally, it is as common to stereotype the mode of an ordinance, as it is uncommon to stereot3rpe the meaning of a word. That the Scriptures do not enjoin immersion we expect to prove; and that immer- sion may have originated, in common with trine immer- sion, in misconception of the divine requirement, is EXAMINATION OFBAnTIZn. 95 easily supposable. In all ages, the spirit of will-worship, the universal concomitant of human nature, has busied itself in rendering more operose and cumbersome the simple rites of our holy faith. When Christ proposes to wash the feet, this spirit is sure to exclaim, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Antiquity does not supply materials for tracing histori- cally the early rise and progress of immersion. Nor is this course necessary to our object. If the Scriptures, instead of enjoining immersion, leave the mode of the ordinance free and unfettered, we are justified in main- taining our Christian liberty, whatever the practice of the fathers may say to the contrary. At the same time, the patristic application of baptism, to ablutions in general, without regard to mode, affords evidence, in our judgment, equally decisive and disinterested, in favour of the greater latitude of meaning, which we are prepared to ascribe to ^a.'rriZcti. Having thus sketched, chronologically, the boundaries of the evidence to be produced, and referred, in general terms, to the character by which it must be distinguished, and to some of the principles recognised in judging of its admissibility and force, we are prepared to enter upon the examination of classical testimonies, bearing- more directly on the mode of baptism. CHAPTER SEVENTH. EVIDENCE FROM THE GREEK CLASSICS. MEANING OF BAHTIZa. — GENERAL STATEMENT SUSTAINED BY THE VIEW OP DR. GALE. INSTANCES FROM PLATO EXPLAINED IN ASt's LEXICON PLA- TONICUM. INTERESTING EXAMPLE FROM ARISTOTLE FULLY CANVASSED. TESTIMONY OK HIPPOCRATES — OP DIODORUS SICULUS. BAnrizii IN CON- STRUCTION WITH EIS CONSIDERED. DR. CARSON's EXAMPLES FROM HIP- POCRATES, JOSEPHUS, PLUTARCH, AND HELIODORUS, DISCUSSED. CLOSING REMARKS ON THIS CONSTRUCTION. BAHTIZn WITH THE DATIVE : INSTANCES FROM HERACLIDES PONTICUS PROM THE LIFE OP HOMER ASCRIBED TO DIONYSIUSOF HALICARNASSUS. — MISCELLANEOUS EXAMPLES SYBILLINE VERSE CITED BY PLUTARCH. — ITS IMPORTANCE DEVELOPED. DISTINCTION BETWEEN BAHTii AND BAnTIZIi EVINCED BY DR. CARSON's OWN RENDERINGS. — INSTANCES FROM POLYBIUS AND STRABO. — SUM- MARY VIEW OP CLASSICAL EVIDENCE. Our general statement is, that the verb (BuTrriZfo, unlike ^octttm in its primary sense, is not tied to any exclusive mode, but embraces a wider range, and admits of greater latitude of signification. Let the baj^tizing element encompass its object, and in the case of liquids, whether this relative state has been produced by immer- sion, affusion, overwhelming, or in any other mode, Greek usage recognises it as a valid baptism. Thus, the sea-coast is baptized when the tide flows over it, cattle are baptized when the rush of an " overflowing EVIDENCE FROM THE GREEK CLASSICS. 97 flood " comes upon them and drowns them, and the altar built by Elijah was baptized, when his attendants poured upon it the required quantity of water. Some- times the action of the verb applies to the whole, some- times to a part of the baptized object; this information, however, is not conveyed by the term itself, but must be learned from the context, and generally from the surrounding circumstances. In attaching to the verb this generic sense, we take our stand upon the solid foundation of the usage of the Greek language through all periods concerned, including the Classical, the Bibli- cal, and the Patristic. The view of j^octttIZo) now presented, is not confined to writers who advocate the administration of the ordi- nance, by sprinkling or affusion. It claims the support of respectable Baptist authority. Among others. Dr. Gale, probably the most learned author on that side of the question, felt constrained to attach to the verb a sense which any Psedobaptist might safely adopt almost without modification. " The word (Sa-rr/^fy," he observes, " perhaps does not so necessarily exp^^ess the action of putting under water , as in general a thing's being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the tvater, or the water comes over it; though, indeed, to put into the water is the most natural way and the most common, and is, therefore, usuaUy and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily implied." — Reflections, p. 122. These words contained an instructive lesson to succeeding immersionists. Dr. Gale "rowed hard" to bring lyiodal exclusiveness safe to land, but finding it a troublesome passenger, amid the storm of theological H 98 MODE OF BAPTISM. controversy, he adopted the more prudent course of throwing it overboard. With him the verb does not signify " dip, and nothing but dip : " — on the contrary, it may be used without even necessarily implying immer- sion. The careful reader will observe, that in explaining the word. Dr. Gale has in view those cases by far the most numerous, in which it is constructed with nouns denoting fluid substances; but there is no difficulty in generalizing the definition, so as to make it co-extensive with the actual usage of ^aTrriZco. A word respecting Dr. Carson's view of this verb, before proceeding to adduce evidence from the Classics. Whatever may become of the mode of Christian bap- tism, the philologist will perceive at a glance that one solitary example ma?/ annihilate Carson's entire theory. According to him, ^aTrriZpj, in all its occmTences, denotes to dip, from which meaning it never, in the slightest degree, departs. In the Classics it denotes to dip, in the Scriptures it denotes to dip, and in the Fathers it denotes nothing but to dip. A solitary instance, there- fore, of a different usage, from any quarter^ is sufficient to explode the whole theory, and necessitate the recon- struction of the meaning of the verb, on some other principle to be furnished by the philosophy of language. It will be our business, in the sequel, to show, from a variety of instances, that the modal restriction, so strenuously advocated by Carson, is utterly visionary and untenable. We commence our examples with Plato, in whose writings, according to the highest modern authority, ^ocTTTiZco is not to be found in the sense of immersion. EVIDENCE FROM THE GREEK CLASSICS. 99 It is affirmed by Dr. Carson, that there exists among Greek lexicographers the most complete harmony in representing dip as the primary meaning of ^dTrroj and jSaTr/^iy; but we shall be under the necessity of intro- ducing some discordant notes into this fancied harmony. In the Lexicon Platonicimi of Ast, on which he expended the literary labour of a lifetime, the primary sense of (odiTrTM, in the writings of the Grrecian philosopher, is expressed by immergo to dip, to immerse, — that of ^avriCpo, by ohriio, opprimo, to overwhelm, to oppress, having no reference whatever to the action of dipping. The instances cited by Ast are confessedly figurative, but this does not materially affect the character of the testimony they furnish, as will appear when we come to discuss tropical occurrences of the verb. At present we merely adduce the following example, — Euthyd. 277, D. 'E7, far from being uniformly found an exact fit, has often to undergo straining or amputation, in order to accommo- date its dimensions to the Procustes bed of the Dippers. Figure is not always available ; in various instances fact imperiously demands recognition, in assigning a sense to this verb, while compliance with the demand is not easily reconciled with the exclusive patronage of plunging. The correctness of this assertion is best vindicated in the writings of our most learned advocates of immersion. Nay, more, it is beyond all question, that the ability and critical acumen of these authors, taxed to the uttermost, have not succeeded in accom- plishing the object, even to their own satisfaction. In the translation of those passages, which constitute the chosen testimony of Baptists to the truth of their system, how often do they shrink from what we should conceive to be the bounden and dclightfid duty of honestly placing before an intelligent Christian public, the English dip, as the representative of the Greek ^a'JcriX^co ? How often, as if haunted by the conscious- 132 MODE OF BAPTISM. ness of some secret misgiving, do they substitute other words, not altogether synonymous, if not to relax the stringency of their doctrine, at least to render the mode of its exhibition less unnatural, and more palatable? Dip has all the ground to itself in their theory, but it can seldom find a resting place for the sole of its foot in their translations. The fruit of our criticism goes to evince a greater latitude of application in the Greek classics; and, in this respect, it will be found that several of the instances we have yet to canvass are, if possible, still more decisive and satisfactory. When, therefore, the evidence which they contain, shall have been fairly and fully developed, we have no hesitation in anticipating that grounds will be laid for the deep and enlightened conviction, that the baptismal service of our Church is a reasonable and Scriptural administra- tion, in blessed accordance with that high commission, which, in its generous provisions of infinite wisdom, contemplates ultimately the evangelization of the whole world. CHAPTER EIGHTH. EVIDENCE FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS. REASON FOR INTRODUCING JOSEPHUS EARLIER THAN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WOULD WARRANT. HIS TESTIMONY POSSESSES NO VERY DETERMINATE CHARACTER, AND RELATES TO MATTERS UNCONNECTED WITH THE CERE- MONIAL ABLUTIONS OF THE JEWISH LAW, OR THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. INSTANCES ; BAPTISM OF ABISTOBULUS, WHICH ISSUED IN DROWNING ; BAPTISM OF SHIPS AT SEA UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. — REFERENCE TO AN INTERESTING FIGURATIVE APPLICATION. GENERAL REMARK. The testimonies already adduced, we follow up by a specific notice of the usage of (^ocTrriZpi), in the writings of Josephus. In bestowing on the evidence supplied by this learned Jew, an earlier consideration than the order of chronology would warrant, we are influenced, in some degree, by the fact that his use of the term is intimately aUied to that exemplified in " the works of several Greek authors, particularly those of Hippocrates, Lucian, Polybius, and Dion Cassius. Josephus was, indeed, contemporary with most of the penmen of the New Testament, and in his Jetvish Antiquities he travels over the gi'ound occupied by the historians and prophets of the ancient economy; yet, in no instance, does he designate any Jewish purification a haptism, and, as is well known, he never In-eathes the name of the initiatory 134 MODE OF BAPTISM. ordinance of Christianity. Under these circumstances, as a mere matter of arrangement, we deemed it more suitable to take the testimony of Josephus before that of the Septuagiut and Apocrypha, leaving the latter to form a more appropriate introduction to New Testament evidence. Some have considered the silence of this distinguished author, respecting the subject of Jewish proselyte baptism, destructive of the pretensions of that observance to an antiquity more remote than the Christian era. We admit the circumstance, as it is commonly stated, to be indeed singular; while, on reaching that branch of the controversy, we may probably discover that it is not altogether unaccoun- table. By Baptist writers the modal application of the verb is supposed to be triumphantly established in two passages of Josephus, both narrating, under different aspects, the murder of the high priest Aristobulus, by order of Herod the Great. In the history of the Jetvish War, Book I., chap. 22, § 2, Josephus, speaking of Aristobulus, then in his eighteenth year, informs us that " the youth was sent by night to Jericho, and there he died, v-TTo r&jv VaXarm (BccTTiZp[Mvog h k,oXv[Jj^'/i0^cc, heing baptized by the Galatians in a pool." Had this account of the guilty tragedy stood alone, the faithful inter- preter would probably have felt constrained to regard it as fiu'nishing a veritable example of /3a9rr/^a). President Beecher, who, to some extent, combats this philological novelty of the Baptist author, refers to a passage of Euripides, in which vittco is applied to the " bathing of a whole herd of oxen in the sea^" and here, as he justly observes, " friction, hand-washing, &c., are all out of the question." Sophocles, Oed. Tyran. V. 1228, referring to the dark deeds perpetrated in the Theban Palace, says, that " neither the river Ister, nor Phasis could — vi-^ai — wash away its secret abomina- tions." Here, again, it is the powerful stream of water, and not a hand, that performs the action denoted by the verb. But as this point is of little moment, and has no du-ect bearing on our subject, we dismiss it by merely stating, for the information of the general reader, that the distinction adopted by Dr. Campbell, from the older lexicogTaphers, is still substantially in force among our best Greek scholars, who yet acknowledge, with all candor, that the exceptions are neither few nor unim- portant. The meaning of the term \ovu demands a fuUer inves- tigation, inasmuch as it sustains obvious and intimate relations with the mode of Christian baptism. We see no ground for objecting to the general principle, that 154 MODE OF BAl'TISM. when the verb is employed, without any regimen expressed or implied, the washing is not confined to a part, but comprises the whole body. In the Lysistrata of Aristophanes, for instance, persons are spoken of who must be — KsXou(jAvovg — tvashed, bathed; and as no part is specified, and none appears to be excepted even by implication, the washing is not partial, but must be understood of a total ablution. Of this usage, the appropriateness of which commends itself to the good sense of mankind, numerous and pertinent examples from the classics have been produced, and especially by Dr. Carson. But with this unquestioned fact, to which the practice of the Grreek language bears decided testi- mony, he has unaccountably mixed up a species of antiquarian fiction, the product of a crude and incautious philosophy. We say unaccoimtahly, because, admitting that Xovco does not necessarily express mode, he yet contends, from what he conceives or assumes to be the known cu'cumstances of the case, — though these circum- stances, as we shall prove, have no foundation in reality, — that it generally implies the action of putting the body into the water, and uniformly requires it to be covered with the water. " The application of this word to baptism," he says, " shows that this rite was a bathing of the whole body ; and, as immersion is the usual way of bathing, baptism must have been an immer- sion." On these assertions and inferences, respecting mode, we are directly at issue with the author, and feel prepared to convict him of ignorance of the ancient usage which he makes the basis of his argument, and on which he erects a specious, though tottering, superstructure. EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 155 In tracing the signification of "kovoj, and its derivatives, the main difficulty encountered by the interpreter is not connected with the extent of the ablution as partial or total, but relates to the mode in which the cleansing element may have been applied. Were this view chal- lenged, the nature of the case would form its complete justification. A writer, such as Hippocrates, in his great work on medicine, may have frequent occasion to prescribe washing or bathing; but the process being perfectly understood by those for whom his prescriptions are intended, he does not consider it requisite to describe the bath as used by his countrymen. The same remark will equally apply to the medical writings of our own age and country, or, indeed, of any age and country. StiU we are happily in possession of valuable facilities for ascertaining in what manner the people of ancient Greece availed themselves of the luxury of the bath. The Greek author, to whom we have now referred, is a standard witness with Dr. Carson, and, therefore, the sense in which he employs Xovoj is a point of some con- sideration. Now, if we consult the Greek lexicon to Hippocrates, by Galen, who flourished A. D. 164, and whose attainments — as a scholar and physician, and the author of esteemed works in the Greek language — entitle him to occupy a high position, in expounding the writings of the father of medical science, we shall find his judgment directly at variance with the dogmas of our modern critic. His explanation of the term in dispute is as follows ; — Kovv\ ov (movov to \omiv, ocXka, Koci TO alovav. — "^ how denotes not only to wash or bathe, but also ciiovav to moisten, foment, pour, or sprinkle." 156 MODE OF BAPTISM. Whichever of these senses may be adopted in any occur- rence, especially if the passage consist of a medical prescription, we must readily perceive that the term denotes the application of the water to the object, and not the immersion of the object in- the water. The leading signification of cclovav, according to Erotianus, another Greek authority of the second century, is to foment, an operation which, all will admit, was not performed by plunging into a bath. Thus, in the evidence of men, to whom Greek was vernacular, and whose professional studies made them thoroughly acquainted with the writings of Hippocrates, we are supplied with solid grounds for affirming that, in the usage of that distinguished author, the sense of dipping did not belong to Xovco, either directly, or by implica- tion. On this point, however, we are in capacity to produce testimony stronger and more pertinent than the lexical expositions given by learned Greeks, who were yet certainly acquainted with the meaning of their own language. In instances unnumbered, indeed, the references of classical writers to the use of the bath, furnish no clue whatever to the ancient mode of enjoying or administering that luxury, common to all ages. From mere general allusions, nothing specific, of course, can be gathered. Still we have the pleasing- fact to record, that literary industry and antiquarian research have recently opened up several valuable sources of information. In the age of Homer, the vessel for bathing went by the name of mot^ivdog, and among Greeks, of a somewhat later age, it was called 'TrvsKog. EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 157 Occasional references are also found in the writings of both periods to the act oi going into the bath, and coming out of the bath. Such expressions Dr. Carson is careful to italicize, obviously with the intention of suggesting to the reader a strong incidental argument in support of immersion. Nothing could be more delusive or unfounded. We are not aware that a solitary particle of evidence can be drawn to the cause of immersion, from the mode of bathing practised by the ancient Greeks, while, on the opposite side, there is presented a very large and conclusive mass of testimony. In the excellent Dic- tionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, published some years since, under the able superintendence of Dr. W. Smith, — a work practically illustrating the advantages of division of labour, — the article on Baths presents us with the following clear and important statement, respecting the mode of using the k(Ta(i,iv&og. — " It would appear, from the description of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Circe, that this vessel did not contain water itself but was only used for the bather to sit in, while the warm ivater was poured over him, which was heated in a large cauldron or tripod, under which the fire was placed, and when sufficiently warmed, was taken out in other vessels, and poured over the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the kaa^iv&ocr From this pregnant instance the advocate for dipping may learn an instructive lesson. It is no proof of immersion, that a party is represented as going into the hath, and coming out of the hath. In the case of Ulysses, the descent and ascent are both distinctly recorded ; while the author expressly informs us, that the ablution was 158 MODE OF BAPTISM. performed hj pouring or affusion, and not by immersion. This testimony must tell on every discerning mind. Writers may produce, from the Greek classics, hundreds of vague allusions to the ancient practice of bathing ; but when we come to close quarters, — when we bring forward a case which specifies the modus operandi, the mode of operation, — when the practical details are furnished, and that too incidentally, the proof of dipping, so confidently affirmed or anticipated, becomes less than nothing, being converted into a negative quantity on the side of our Baptist friends. As we are averse from the withholding of authorities, we refer the reader to the Odyssey, B. X., vv. 359-365, for an account of the affusion-])2iih of Ulysses, in the palace of Circe. That this instance, as may be expected, is not soli- tary, and that the views we advocate possess a claim to intelligent acceptance, we proceed to evince, by proofs which will bear the scrutiny of the severest logic. The bathing-vessel, styled anciently a,(Ta(jbiudog, and in later times TvBkog, we have reason to believe, was little used among the Greeks^ for many ages anterior to the intro- duction of Roman manners and customs. On this point, we have evidence, if possible, more satisfying than any mere statement from the pen of classic antiquity. If our judgment is to be swayed by the most unexcep- tionable of all testimony, the sculptured representations of Greeks, actually enjoying the bath, as exhibited on the ancient vases, we must of necessity believe that the immersion system was entirely excluded. We do not overstate the case, as against the doctrine of our oppo- nents. In the Dictionary/ of Antiquities, already quoted. EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 159 it is broadly asserted, that so far as this important class of witnesses is concerned, not even a solitary testimony has been discovered, tending to identify the ancient mode of bathing, with that which is so generally preva- lent in our own times. We extract the words ; — " On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, ive never find any thing corresponding to a modern hath, in which persons can stand or sit ; but there is always a round or oval basin (Xourrig or Kourrigiov), resting on a stand (vTroffTdTov), hj the side of tuhich those who are bathing, are represented standing undressed, and zvashing themselves.'^'' The writer appropriately introduces, in illus- tration of the preceding statement, an interesting wood- cut, taken from one of the vases in Sir Wm. Hamilton's collection ; and its value is greatly enhanced by the fact that, in this instance, the Xovryj^ has inscribed on it the word hyi(jb6(rta, public, showing it to be no private concern, but one of the ordinary public baths of Greece. Here, again, is bathing — public bathing in the customary manner, — but where is immersion ? Can we conceive of evidence more convincing ? The representation on the vase does not point to " a possible way of bathing," but to the mode commonly practised by the people. It may be added, that this evidence possesses the advan- tage of being perfectly disinterested, as the author was evidently unaware of the bearing of his views on any doctrine or observance of Christianity. In connection with the bathing-vessel, presented in relief on the ancient vases, we may notice the Kovr/i§sg and vi'TTTrj^ig, a species of basin, which were generally placed in the porticoes of Christian churches, during 160 MODE OF BAPTISM. the earlier centuries. On the meaning of these terms respective!}^ there is, as usual, some difference of opinion between Dr. Carson and President Beecher. With reference to the several purposes served by these " wash- basins," as the terms have been rendered, the former author says, " They might be called either Xovrrj^zg or vi-TTT^^zg, because the hands might be either bathed or washed.^'' In reply, Mr. Beecher shows, on the authority of Julius Pollux, Leg. Lib. 10, cap. 10, that Xouryj^ or Kovrri^tou was employed to denote a vessel in which to ivash the face and hands, and that it is used in pointed antithesis to the Greek term for a bathmff-Yessel. The example, enforced and illustrated by the reasonings of the learned President, appears to have turned the forces of his daring opponent, Avho, at all events, did not renew the assault in that part of the field. We feel satisfied, however, that evidence bearing still more pointedly on the question at issue, may be derived from the allusions of the fathers to these purifications of Christian anti- quity. If the distinctive meaning of Kovoj and Xovr/]§, affirmed by Dr. Carson, were, in point of fact, recognised in patristic Greek, on what principle could the inter- preter dispose of the following passage ? Chrysostom, 0pp. tom. vi. Hom. LXXXII., says, — "As the Xovrrjosc, filled with water, stand before the church-doors, — im vi-xpj^g rag x€i^ag gov — that you may wash your hands," &c. Here, a Greek author, familiar with these Christian ablutions, connects Xovtti^ with vittoj, the verb which is confessedly expressive not of hand-bathmff, but of hand- washing. The worshipper, at the entrance to the church vi'TTTzi vmshes his hands in the Xovtt;^. Had the usage. EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 161 for which Dr. Carson contends, really characterized the language, with whose principles Chrysostom was so intimately conversant, he must either have employed viTrrj^sg, in the former clause of the sentence, or "kouarig in the latter. But as the phraseology stands, the Greek language, in the hands of this eloquent father, is mani- festly at variance with the distinction laid down so positively by our modern controversialist. Dr. Carson had deliberately asserted, in his First Reply to President Beecher, that " \ovoo, like our word hathe^ applies to animal bodies only ;" as " we do not," said he, " speak of Ijathing cloth." In his rejoinder, the latter produced detailed proof of its application to ivood^ to clothes^ to a couch, and to a cloak ; at the same time playfully observing, that these were not surely animal bodies ! The Second Reply of Carson contains a very brief admission of his former error, while, in regard to the import of the verb, he still hazards a bold assertion, the truth of w^hich we have already, in a great measure, disproved. — " The examples," says he, " produced by Mr. Beecher, prove that 'kovu sometimes applied to other things besides animal bodies ; but none of them prove that the thing so washed was not covered with the tvater. This is all w^e want : the water might be applied by sprinkling, or by pouring, or in any way." By the expression — " Covered with water," we presume the author intended to represent the body, as placed in a bath or other convenient receptacle, where it is covered with w^ater, as the result either of immersion, or of an affusion so copious, that every part is over- whelmed : — in fact, that the body is covered, as the M 162 MODE OF BAPTISM. sea-coast is covered by the full tide. This, we are confi- dent, indeed, is the meaning which he designed to convey, as it appears also to be the idea most naturally suggested by his language. Now, when the Greeks bathed in a standing posture, beside the Xovr^§, having water out of that vessel poured upon them by the atten- dant TupaxOrrig, as has been incontestably e\dnced from the representations on the ancient vases, we would gladly be informed how large an affusion would have sufficed for covering their bodies, so as to exemplify the modern Baptist signification of the verb. The sculptured testimonies, happUy preserved from the wreck of time, exhibit, in the Grecian bath, the pouring of water on the body, but no immersion of the body in water ; they present from real life the details of cold and warm bathing, but no covering of the body with water. It is not then matter of fact, though Dr. Carson has stated it in strong and unequivocal terms, " that immersion is almost always the way of bathing." It may be so in our own age and country, and if this furnished the standard of comparison, no doubt his cause would be triumphant. But, in regard to the baths of the ancient Greeks, his statement utterly fails, and failing in that quarter, it is nothing to his purpose. The Grecian bath, and not the Irish or British, must determine the appli- cation of Xovoj. The common practice in Greece is incidentally, though very strikingly, referred to by Plutarch, in his Ethical Treatise against Colotes. After stating that you may see some persons using the warm bath, others the cold, he adds, — 'O/ ^/Av ya^ -^vx^ov, 6i ^s h§iJjOv s'Tn^dKksiv EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 163 xsXevovai, — " For some give orders to apply it cold, others hot." The force of i'^tpdXkstv strongly corroborates the views which we advocate, and indeed constitutes an independent attestation. It appears to be borrowed from the ordinary mode of administering the bath, by pouring water upon the person. The prevailing prac- tice has become as it were ingrained in the Greek language ; and, accordingly, the term employed by Plutarch instantly calls up before our minds a lively portraiture of the -Trccgaxvryjg, dashing or pouring the water upon the parties who surrounded the Xovrri§. The value of this testimony is greatly enhanced by its exact correspondence with the representations on the Greek vases, thus suppl}dng one of those undesigned coinci- dences, which carry conviction to the candid mind, in a manner equally pleasing and impressive. In the preceding statements and illustrations will be found, we apprehend, irresistible proof that the ordinary system of bathing, prevalent in ancient Greece, knew no immersion^ and embraced no covering of the body with water. We are now prepared for tracing the connection of these interesting facts with the applica- tion of Kovcu, and its derivatives in the later Greek, not without ulterior regard to their import in the diction of the New Testament. It might be supposed, on a cursory view of the circumstances, that having adduced evidence of the classical usage of these terms, we have merely to transplant that meaning from Athens to Alexandria or Jerusalem. The koOoj of Greece, it may be hastily concluded, is the XoOco of Judea and Asia Minor. There is a principle, however, involved in this ] 64 MODE OF BAPTISM. summary procedure, which must be narrowly scanned, before it is entitled to adoption ; for it were unworthy of the cause of truth, to gloze over any difficulty, with the view of securing a temporary triumph. We know that after the subjugation of Greece by the arms of Rome, in due time many of the manners and customs of the victors were adopted or imitated by the vanquished. The change, we may easily imagine, was slow and gradual, owing to the embittered feelings gener- ated in the mind of the Greek, by the sacrifice of his ancient liberties. Still there may have been points in which the manners of " the mistress of the world " could claim a decided superiority ; and in regard to these the glitter of power, combined with intrinsic excellence, could not fail to present to the more opulent Grecian cities, an irresistible attraction. The remark applies to the Roman baths, especially as they flourished under imperial patronage. It is an ascertained fact, that before the time of Lucian, who died A.D. 180, the bath of ancient Greece had been superseded by the bath of Italy, at least among those whose means enabled them to ape the luxuries of the conqueror. Accordingly, the statements of this author, respecting the facilities pro- vided, in his day, for securing personal cleanliness, exhibit to us not the bath of the Greek vases, but that of imperial Rome, in which immersion acted a more conspicuous part. Still it is higlily improbable that, over the country at large, the new mode of ablution would extensively prevail, particularly as the apparatus which it required, involved considerable expense. Again, independently of this historical fact, the mere EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT iVND APOCRYPHA. 165 adoption of the Greek language b}^ the Jews, at what- ever period that literary revolution occurred, could have produced no very extensive change in their own peculiar habits and practices. This remark naturally restricts itself to the Jews resident in Palestine, or in any other country, where their numbers may have been so great as to secure for their own customs unrestrained preva- lence ; for, where they formed the minority of the population, as in Greece or Egypt, such ablutions as were not of a religious character, would be almost necessarily modified by the practice of the people among whom they sojourned. The native of Palestine would not, indeed, perpetrate the folly of altering his mode of bathing, in order merely to conform it to the language which constituted the new vehicle of thought. On the contrary, whether his person were w^ashed by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, that process would be simply denoted by the term which the Greek language employed for bathing. That a people may alter, or abandon wholly, some particular custom, we do not deny; but their conduct, in that case, is dictated by the relations which the custom sustains, not to language, but to convenience, comfort, or necessary accommodation to the usages of those with whom they may come into contact. Such changes are founded in reason, not in speech. The reader may be reminded, however, that the New Testa- ment usage of Kovo), and its derivatives, is not entirely controlled by the mode of Jewish ablutions. When these terms refer to legal purifications, we naturally look for some connection, more or less remote, with the Mosaic ritual ; but when the allusion is to bathing in 166 MODE OF BAPTISM. general, ancient Grreece will be found the more frequent and fruitful source of illustration. To any one fully acquainted with the Apostolic Epistles, which are chiefly concerned with the usage in question, it will be unne- cessary to waste a word in proving, that the sacred writers have drawn copiously from the fountain of Grecian manners and customs. Of this state of things, the early progress of the gospel in Greece and Asia Minor, coupled with the education of the most laborious and honoured of the apostles, furnishes an adequate account. It may be instructive to contemplate the practice of ancient Egypt, which has been partially brought to light by modern investigation. The mode of bathing in that country^ so far as it has been ascertained, stands opposed to the exegesis of those who understand Xovco commonly to imply immersion. When Greek struck its roots in the land of the Pharoah's, the Imvu of Greece would of necessity denote the bathing of Egypt ; and by recent discoveries, we are furnished with proof as unexpected as it is conclusive, that this bathing was performed by affusion. Among the paintings in an ancient tomb at ThebeS;, is one containing the representation of a lady enjoying the luxury of the bath, and attended by four domestic servants. The precious relic of former art is thus described by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his elaborate work on TJie Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,Yo\. III., p. 388: — " One [attendant] removes the jewellery and clothes she has taken off, or suspends them to a stand in the apartment ; another pours water from a vase over her head, as the third rubs her arms and EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 167 body with her open hands ; and a fourth, seated near her, holds a sweet scented flower to her nose, and sup- ports her as she sits [on a mat or carpet]. The same subject," Wilkinson adds, " is treated nearly in the same manner, on some of the Greek vases, the water being poured over the bather, who kneels, or is seated on the ground." This testimony, though a solitary one, appears obviously to preserve, as if embalmed by Egyptian art, the prevailing custom, at least, among the middle and upper classes ; and its pre-eminent value partly consists in the remarkable circumstance, that it identifies the mode of bathing in Egypt, with that of ancient Greece. In both countries, affusion, or pouring, was largely the practice ; and hence Xovoj, when transferred to Alexandria, required no modification, in order to adapt its meaning to a new usage. But it will be asked, what has Egypt to do with the diction or allusions of the New Testa- ment? We reply, by pointing to the earliest Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the influence which it confessedly exerted on the language of evange- lists and apostles. The translators of the Septuagint would naturally adopt the common or accredited sense of the verb, — a sense which the custom of the country does not seem to have associated with the act of immer- sion. And thus we trace, through varied influences, another interesting link in the chain of evidence, which vindicates for \ovot), and its derivatives, the practical freedom, of which Dr. Carson would rob them by impli- cation. Will it still be argued, that dipping is indirectly countenanced by the use of these terms, in relation to 168 MODE OF BAPTISM. the ordinance of baptism ? The argument, wc feel satis- fied, will not be taken for more than it is worth by those who have studied the subject, by comparing the classics of Greece with the brighter disclosures of her monu- ments of antiquity, and by investigating the connection between custom and language, in the birth-place of the Septuagint translation. This course of research will convince those who prosecute it, that their under- standings are trifled with, and that speech is abused, when pouring water on the bather, the mode practised in the public baths of Greece, is referred to as merely a possible tvay of bathing. Yet the view we combat will not be without weight among those who are accustomed to substitute analogies, ignorantly borrov/ed from the habits of our own age and country, for an examination of the real facts and evidences, as they are presented on the page, or preserved in the artistic memorials, of remote antiquity. A careful, and not very limited inquiry into the subject, has guided us to the deliberate conclusion, that the classical and scriptural relations of ^w^riZpi) with Xovoj, bring no contribution to the alleged modal signification of the former. From the Septuagint use of Kovrrj^, some assistance may be derived in ascertaining the principal applications of its primitive and cognates. This term we find employed in Exod. xxx. 18, 19, to denote the brazen laver which Moses, by divine direction, constructed, and placed in the tabernacle, for purposes of ritual purifica- tion. Were Dr. Carson's theory to direct our judgment, we should unquestionably conclude, that the Xouttj^ was so designated, because the priests' hands and feet were EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 169 bathed therein, thus suggesting, as the obvious inference, that the ablution was performed by immersion. Such, however, was not the fact : for the literal rendering of the nineteenth verse from the Greek is, — " And Aaron and his sons shall wash theii* hands and feet with water — 1| kvrov — Old of iV The practice, according to the Septuagint, clearly was to perform the prescribed washings with water, drawn from the laver, into some smaller vessel. This view, we hold to be in strict cor- respondence with the meaning of the original Hebrew ; nor are we greatly disturbed by the different represen- tation, for which Dr. Geddes and some others contend, on the alleged authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The question before us, it should be observed, is not, what is the correct interpretation of the Original? — but the question is, What are we to regard as the true appli- cation of the term in the Septuagint ? Now, according to that translation, not only is Xovrri§ the name of a vessel, in which there was to be no dipping or immer- sion of the objects to be washed ; but it is surrounded with a context, which distinctly negatives all idea even of implied dipping or immersion. The vessel is called Xovrri^, simply because it contains the water requisite for the enjoined purifications ; while the passage explicitly informs us that the hands and feet of the priests, instead of being plunged into it, were washed with water taken out of it. They may have been immersed in another vessel, or, as was more customary among the Jews, they may have been cleansed by pouring the water upon them, or the operation may have been accomplished in some way now unknown. But of this we are certain. 170 MODE OF BAPTISM. that here is an occurrence of Xovrrj^, with a sense corres- ponding substantively to the Greek mode of bathing, as exhi]3ited on the ancient vases, — the washing, whether total or partial, being performed not in the bathing-vessel, but with water supplied from its ample store. The extensive prevalence of immersion-bathing among the Orientals has been considered highly improbable, on account of the general scarcity of water, and the conse- quent necessity of using it with the strictest regard to economy. Oui' knowledge of the East, it is urged, whether relating to the days of Abraham, or fixing upon the fulness of the times, teaches us that water was precious, in the same sense as " the word of the Lord was precious " in the days of Eli. It is further stated, that a considerable saving of water would be manifestly effected, by substituting the system of pouring for that of immersion. We merely suggest these considerations, however, as the groundwork of a presumptive argu- ment, which has been regarded more or less forcible, leaving its value to be estimated by every candid inquirer. Having akeady dwelt at considerable length on the meaning and various applications of \ovca, we shall only stop to exemplify its construction from the Septuagint, and to notice the use of its derivative Xovr^ov, by one of the fathers of the Christian Church. In Ezek. xvi. 9, where we encounter one of the singularly bold and impressive personifications of this prophet, God is intro- duced, as thus addressing his ancient chui'ch : — "I w^ashed thee with water — ikovad ai h vhan — and anointed EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 171 thee ivitli oil — \v ikaiuP In this example, the parallelism of structure is highly important. The anointing with oil, and the washing with water, are presented to us without the slightest alteration in syntax. In both cases, too, the circumstances are such as to conspire with the construction in upholding the idea of pouring or affusion, as at once the most probable, and the most appropriate. Nor can it be objected, with any shadow of reason, that the specific meaning of Xovoo is indepen- dent of the probabilities which may arise for or against a particular mode of application. President Beecher has adduced two striking instances of Xovr^ov, the latter of which we select, as illustrating the usage of this term in the hands of one of the leading Christian fathers. " Basil," he observes, " applies the term Xovr^ov to a clinic baptism, by sprinkling or affusion. The praetor Ariantheus, converted by his wife, was also baptized by her on liis dying bed. Of this Basil says, letter 386 — ' He washed away aU the stains of his soul at the close of his life, by the washing of regeneration, — Xovt§m 'TTccXi'yys/sG'iocg.'' There was no bathing or immersion ; but sprinkling or affusion." The example requires little comment, beyond the brief remark of Mr. Beecher. That the use of Kovr^ov, in this patristic testimony, is neither unwarrantable, nor even singular, wiU be mani- fest to all who attend to the evidence we have brought forward, respecting the ablutions of ancient Greece and Egypt. Let us now glance at the general result, in order to pave the way for oiu' farther progress. When the Greek language was purest and most influential, we 172 MODE OF BAPTISM. have seen that the practical application of \ovoo involved no immersion. On the contrary, an unexceptionable certificate, in favour of pouring or affusion, is given by the Demosia, or public baths of Greece. That different ablutions were performed in the same manner by the Jewish people,, is matter of history, while the operation is denoted in Greek by the same comprehensive term. In the ordinary washing of the hands, for instance, an attendant poured water upon them, as is evident from 2 Kings iii. 11, — a passage which Dr. Gale has ^dolently, though vainly, laboured to explain away. In fact, the Greek term for bathing, in the estimation of Dr. Carson himself, is too generic to denote immersion; and, according to our view, which is sustained by decisive testimonies, its ordinary usage did not embrace mode, even by implication. We may now advantageously revert to 2 Kings v. 10, 14, the passage which gave rise to the preceding discus- sion. On these verses, Dr. Halley supplies the following comment. — " ' Naaman went down and baptized himself seven times in Jordan.' Dr. Carson says he dipped himself; his opponents say, because, according to the law of his purification, the leper was to be sprinkled seven times, — he sprinkled himself. Agreeing as I do with Dr. Carson, for the Mosaic law of the leper is inapplicable in this instance, I can see nothing in the passage to determine the sense of the word. Prove from other passages that it means to dip, and there is no objection to admit that sense in this verse. Naaman was commanded to wash ; and to ascertain the meaning of the word ' baptize,' we must look elsewhere, for there EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 173 is nothing to expound it in the clause, ' he baptized himself seven times in Jordan.' Let baptize mean to dip, or to sprinkle, or to purify, or to do any thing in Jordan, — this verse will not explain it." — p. 480. The passage is very fully, and, in some respects, ably discussed by Mr. Godwin; but his argumentative process is, in our judgment, vitiated by its reference to the Mosaic law of purification from leprosy, which we cannot reasonably suppose to have influenced the prescription of the prophet, or the obedience of the Assyrian General. From this occurrence of the verb (3a^r/^j with that of jSa-rr/^iy. It will not, we presume, be insinuated that in either case the renderings were dictated by ignorance, or influenced by loose and inaccurate conceptions of the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew. The character of Jerome, and that of the Syriac version are sufficient, in the view of every competent judge, to shield themfrom so unmerited an imputation. If, then, we have reason for recognising in these versions, not the violation, but the reflection of the ums loqiiendi of the periods in which they were severally executed, then* testimony should inculcate on all a lesson of controversial humility. It is to usage that we uniformly attach the highest import- ance, satisfied that etymologies, however philosophically traced, and general theories of language, however well constructed and beautiful, when opposed to usage, " are less than nothing and vanity," Such considerations will not obtain a fair hearing from the man who lays it down as a doctrine, fixed and unalterable, that in aU its occurrences (SaTrr/^sy denotes dip, and nothing but dip. Those, again, who regard the meaning of the verb as an open question, — who take for their motto, — " Adhuc sub judice lis est," — wiU receive and weigh, with deli- berate attention, the testimony borne by the ancient versions of Scripture. But in whatever manner this particular instance may be disposed of, we respectfully submit, that, in the estimation of those who enter into the details of the Greek system of bathing, the cause of immersion will not be served by the application of N 178 MODE OF BAPTISM. \ox)co^ and its derivatives, to the ordinance of Chiistiaii baptism. The only additional occurrence of (Bk'^tiZoo, in the Septuagint, is found in Isaiah xxi. 4, where it is used with a tropical acceptation. In this verse, instead of the clause, — '^' Fearfulness hath affrighted me," the Greek has — ^ ocvo[jjta (Jjs (^oiTrri^si, — " Iniquity baptizes me." The passage does not admit of extended discussion. " Iniquity sinks me in misert/,^^ — is Dr. Carson's proposed rendering, his preconceived views supplying at once the required regimen. " Iniquity overwhelms me," is the translation adopted by Professor Stuart, and by Drs. HaUey and Gale, the view of the last mentioned, in this instance, involving him in a virtual abandonment of the exclusively modal sense of ^ot'xriZpj. Mr. Godwin says, " There is [in the passage] no reference to dipping, nothing even to suggest the idea ; but its common classic sense, when applied to mind, to press doivn, or overwhelm, is exactly suited to it ; aU the evidence coincides with this conclusion." A similar interpreta- tion is supported by Edward Williams, in his Anti- pcedohaptism Examined, a work of varied learning, and extensive critical research. Having adduced from Scrip- ture a number of examples, in order to prove that pouring out is the common expression, figuratively appro- priated to the inflictions of divine anger, and having argued from Mat. iii. 11, compared with Acts xi. 15, 16, that a heavenly communication, of a beneficent or merciful nature, is explicitly styled a baptism, this writer arrives at the following conclusion, which we give in his own words. — " If the pouring out of God's EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 179 merciful influence be properly called baptizing with that influence, for the like reason it must be equally proper to call the pouring out of his 'punitory and avenging influence, a baptising with that influence. Whereas, for iniquity, or vengeance, to plunge the offender into a wmething not expressed, as the contrary opinion supposes, is an idea equally inelegant, confused, and unusual in the sacred writings." — Vol. II., p. 48. The analogical argument thus traced appears to possess some force ; but this is one of those occurrences of the verb which confessedly cannot prove their own meaning, while a little ingenuity is sufficient to elicit from them the favourite sense of any philological theorist. From the nature of the case, the character of the construction, and the views we have already established regarding (^uTTTiZco, we conceive it to be abundantly manifest that the idea of ovenvhelming, not that of dipping, constitutes the foundation of this bold figure. Evidence from the Apocrypha. — The evidence to be gleaned from the Apocryphal books is equally scanty with that furnished by the Septuagint, the examples in each collection being two in number. The first of these we find in Judith xii. 7, " And she went out every night to the valley of Bethulia, — Ka/ l/SaTr/^sro zv rri '7rcc§S[^(ooX^ I'TTi rrjg VTiy^g rov vhocrog, — and baptized herself in the camp at the fountain of water." This is adduced by Stuart, as an occurrence of the verb, in the sense of washing or cleansing ; and he accordingly renders the clause, — "She washed herself in the camp." The unseemliness of a lady submitting to nightly immersion 180 MODE OF BAPTISM. in the midst of ti camp, and at the fountain from which, it is considered probable, an army derived its supply of water, has staggered most interpreters, and even tested the nerve of the majority of controversialists. But to the mind of Dr. Carson, the case presents no difficulty, and he is fully convinced that " the most scrupulous and even romantic delicacy is provided for in the retirement of a lady in a fountain in a valley." On the other side, observes Dr. Ilalley, — " To me her bathing in such a situation is about as incredible as is her cutting off the head of Holofernes, or the other incidents of this most ridiculous tale, in which no attention whatever seems to be paid to the verisimilitude of the narrative. What- ever others may be able to do, I can learn nothing from such a use of the word." — p. 481. Still it must be observed that, whether true or false, the narrative repre- sents a certain action, as having been performed by Judith ; and the question demanding solution is, what was the exact nature of that action. It is an undoubted instance of immersion, and nothing but immersion, argues Dr. Carson. On what ground ? Simply because the verb (iccTrriZfo is alleged to have this meaning, and no other. This forms the Alpha and the Omega of all his reasoning upon the subject. Upon this unqualified dogma, he falls back in every case of obscurity or emer- gency, even while gravely engaged in the examination of his witnesses. This evidence, he avers, must be of a certain stamp, hecause all the evidence is so, thus con- straining an individual witness to adopt and give forth, as his own, the testimony of the multitude. " Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 181 king with one mouth ; let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good." In the inductive process requisite for establishing the sense of a word, our assertion of its meaning, in the language generally, should not be permitted to outstrip the instances and evidence adduced ; for it must be manifest to every tyro in exegesis, that, in such a process, to stretch out preceding proof, so as to cover a new and disputed occurrence, is of the very essence of assumption. If we have shown, in ninety-nine cases, that a word has a certain signification, that fact, how- ever strong, wiU not warrant us to conclude, without examination, and perhaps in the face of difficulties, that the hundredth occurrence of the word presents no variety of meaning. Even were the sense, so numer- ously attested, admissible in the new instance, there may yet be circumstances demanding a different shade of thought, as is frequently exemplified in the changes which terms imperceptibly undergo in the history of language. Our objection, however, is not confined to the use which Dr. Carson makes of a general dogma to control the meaning of the examples along the whole line of his inductive process. We challenge the correctness of the dogma itself. In opposition to his theory, we affirm that the modal sense of ^a-rr/^o; is not proved " by the authority of the whole consent of Greek literature." Of a different application, we have akeady produced from the classics a number of instances, and in the sequel we shaU find New Testament and Patristic Greek furnishing occurrences, that are utterl}^ irreconcilable 182 MODE OF BAPTISM. with Dr. Carson's interpretation. In the meantime, we notice that the construction of this example affords him no aid, as Judith baptized herself, not in the fountain, but at the fountain of Bethulia. Had the preposition h or ilg been employed, instead of st/, the advocates of immersion would have laid much stress on the construc- tion ; and unquestionably if the writer had intended to represent this Jewish lady as plunging into the fountain, he would have employed language calculated to convey that idea. We do not agree with Mr. Ewing, that immersion could not have been performed at a spring or fountain; but convinced that that act is not at all necessitated by the use of (^octttiZm, and holding it to be opposed to all the surrounding circumstances, physical as well as moral, we contend that the record, whether fact or fiction, does not necessarily bind Judith to the plunge-bath, in performing her nightly ablution. This exposition is supported by the ancient Syriac, which renders the verb by a term signifying, in general, to tvash, and on the evidence of which, regarding a point of greater moment, we shall have some remarks to offer, when we come to discuss the baptismal commis- sion. The remaining Apocryphal passage is found in the Wisdom of Sirach xxxi. 25, (30,) " When one is — (ia'TTTfZpiJbsvog ocTTo vzK^ov — baptized from a dead hody, and touches it again, of what avail is — rco \ovr^S) — his washing?" In this passage many writers believe they have detected an unquestionable proof that baptism is synonymous with purification. To dip from a dead body, they naturally contend, is unmeaning or absurd ; EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 183 but to purify from a dead body is held to be manifestly indicative of the procedure which, in cases of this nature, the Mosaic ritual enjoined. From Numbers xix, 13, 19, it appears that the process of ceremonial cleansing embraced both sprinkling and bathing, as equally indispensable. Now, as the entire process is styled, in Scripture, purification, and as (^uTrriZpy^Bi'og seems to denote that process, it is maintained that a foundation is thus laid for identifying baptise with piirif?/. Others, again, including Dr. Wall and Mr. Williams, contend that this baptism points mainly, if not exclusively, to the practice of sprinkling upon the unclean person the water of separation, because the Mosaic law regarded such sprinkling as at least the most essential part of the prescribed purification. Dr. Wall intimates, that if there were a washings in addition to the sprinkling, ^ocTrriZp^zvog will include both ; and Dr. Gale admits that at one period he considered this participle to have an especial reference to sprinkling. Mr. Williams proceeds so far as to exclude immersion altogether from the rites appointed for removing the ceremonial defilement ; but a careful and candid exam- ination of the passage in Numbers, will prove him to be incorrect in this view. It may be thought more difficult to show cause for not accepting, in this passage, imrificaUon as the syno- nyme of baptism. On a first inspection, the case seems strong for President Beecher, and the entire class of purifiers, who certainly occupy a respectable position in the baptismal controversy. But whatever ma}- be its apparent strength, we apprehend it labours under the 184 MODE OF BAPTISM. fatal defect of want of evidence. We are able to produce what we conceive to be decisive instances of the use of ^ocTrriZco, where there is and can be no immer- sion ; but never, even in a solitary instance, have we encountered it in the sense of purification. That meaning, as it appears to us, cannot be extracted from the verb, without recourse to questionable analogies and reasonings, which betray a larger measure of theological ingenuity than of philological acumen. The case on behalf of purification, we think, therefore, might be equitably disposed of by the Scottish verdict of " not proven," — thus leaving the way perfectly open for the reception of any new evidence, which its advocates may have it in their power to bring forward. That their writings contain some striking illustrations, of the sense for which they contend, is freely admitted ; but we are not aware that they have hitherto succeeded m proving ^ by clear examples, the existence of that sense, and thus constructing a legitimate basis for their illustra- tions. We have been led to view the question in a consider- ably different light. Purification, in our judgment, is not baptism ; though it may be, and often is, the imme- diate result of baptism. A contrary result, however, far from being impracticable, we find occasionally exemplified, as in Aquila's translation of Job x. 31, 'Ei> liccipOopa, (occTrriZitg jW/g, "Thou baptizest me in corruption." One such instance, even apart from the obvious nature of the case, proves that the result will be defilement or purification, according to the character of the baptizing element. Consequently, if we would avoid the absurdity EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 185 of attaching opposite meanings to the same term, we must employ the verb to denote simply the process, without including the result, which is necessarily implied in purification. With this distinction, the usage of the Greek language appears to be strictly harmonious. Whether the baptizing element overwhelms its object, or simply opens to receive it, or presents any other variety of application, a certain process takes, which may issue in great diversity of result, the result to be collected from the context or the general circumstances of each occurrence. Now, the question arising on the passage before us is, What process did the writer design to indicate by the expression, baptism from a dead hody? If we rest the answer on the historical basis furnished in the book of Numbers, we should say that sprinkling and bathing were combined in this ceremonial baptism. As this answer, however, may be misunderstood, it is requisite to add a word of explanation. The baptism, then, we observe, may include the entire cleansing process enjoined in the Mosaic law, without involving the false principle that the verb denotes the two distinct acts of sprinkling and bathing. Such a double sense would be utterly incompatible with the universally admitted laws of language. On the condition already specified, the verb must refer generically to the process of applying water for the purpose of cleansing, while the details of the process demand the use of other terms, by which they may be appropriately designated. The man is baptized from a dead body, — that is, water is employed for his cleansing ; but the mere baptism does not inform us of the manner of application. That information we 186 MODE OF BAPTISM. derive from the law, in this case made and provided, which exhibits the process in detail. And that this ceremonial baptism includes all the use of water, which the law demanded, seems manifest from the conclusion of the verse, where the writer asks, " Of what avail is his washing?" The baptism and the washing are not indeed strictly synonymous, — still both comprehend, though under diiferent aspects, the entire process of this ritual cleansing. This view is sustained by the judg- ment of Schleusner, in his Lexicon to the Septuagint, who renders the words — (^aTriZoiMvog cctto vzk^ov, — qui aUiiit se a mortuo; and also by Robinson: and what is of more importance, the construction, and all the circum- stances, historical and ceremonial, are favourable to it, while the opposing evidence consists in the pertinacious assertion of the exclusively modal sense of (icc'^TiZ,co. CHAPTER TENTH. JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. ALLEGED RELATION OF PROSELYTE BAPTISM BY THE JEWS TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. PRIORITY OF THE JEWISH RITE ADVOCATED BY DIFFERENT AUTHORS, PARTICULARLY BY SOME OF THE LEADING ORIENTALISTS. TESTIMONY OF THE TALMUD, AND OTHER RABBINICAL WRITINGS. — LATER ORIGIN OF THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES THE DOCTRINE OF CAKPZOV, LARDNER, AND OTHERS. — AMOUNT OF SUPPORT IT DERIVES FROM THE STATE OP THE EVIDENCE. ESTIMATE OF THE COMPARATIVE SOUNDNESS OF THESE OPPOSING VIEWS, IN A SERIES OF CONNECTED OBSERVATIONS. t. THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF THE RITE HAS NOT A CLEAR HISTORICAL BASIS. 2. YET ITS OBSERVANCE PRECEDED THE DATE OF THE EVIDENCE ON ITS BEHALF, BY SOME CONSIDERABLE PERIOD. 3. JEWISH WRITERS ASSERT THAT IT AROSE BEFORE THE DAYS OF OUR SAVIOUR. 4. THE SILENCE OF SOME ANCIENT AUTHORS HAS EXERCISED TOO MUCH INFLUENCE AGAINST THE IDEA OF ITS EARLY ORIGIN, — 5, WHICH APPEARS TO BE IJIPLIED IN VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 6. REMARKS ON THE MODE OF JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. Having reviewed the Septuagint and Apocryphal testimonies, it may be desirable, before we canvass the evidence supplied by the New Testament, to consider briefly the unsettled and somewhat intricate topic of Jewish proselyte baptism. Many have supposed this observance, whatever may have been the mode of its administration, to sustain a sort of parental relation to 188 MODE OF BAPTISM. the ordinance of Christian baptism. This view is, of course, founded on the fact or assumption, that baptism formed part of the ritual imposed on a proselyte to Judaism, prior to the introduction of Christianity. " It is evident," observes Dr. Wall, " that the custom of the Jews before our Saviour's time (and, as they themselves afl&rm, from the beginning of their law) was to baptize, as well as circumcise, any proselyte that came over to them from the nations. This does fully appear both from the books of the Jews themselves, and also of others that understood the Jewish customs, and have written of them. They reckoned all mankind, beside themselves, to be in an unclean state, and not capable of being entered into the covenant of Israelites, without a washing or baptism, to denote their purification from their uncleanness. And this was called the baptizing of them unto Moses." — Histori/ of Infant Baptism, Vol. I., p. 4. ^ This extract may be regarded as conveying the senti- ments entertained by the majority of critics and theolo- gians, both the older and more recent. The antiquity of proselyte baptism can produce the suffrages of some of the most distinguished Orientalists and Rabbinical scholars, as Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Selden, Ainsworth, Danz, Buxtorf, Michaelis, Hammond, and many others. Among the numerous writers, of a more recent date, whose investigations have conducted them to a similar conclusion, may be mentioned the names of Kuinol, E. G. Bengel, Neander, Gieseler, Matthies, Dr. Halley, and Dr. Alexander in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia. The direct evidence, in support of the antiquity of proselyte JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 189 baptism, we derive chiefly, as may be anticipated, from the ecclesiastical literature of the Jews, on which industry has been unweariedly employed, though with incommensurate success. The ample tomes of the Jeru- salem and Babylonian Talmuds have been ransacked, the ceremonies to be observed by proselytes to the Jewish faith nicely scanned, and every particle of testi- mony, which learned and zealous research could lay hold of, turned to account. To understand the case clearly, it will be necessary to adduce some quotations from Rabbinical authors, though we have no intention, nor is it essential to our object, to enter minutely into details. The substance, indeed, of all the evidence bearing directly and intimately on the subject, might be intelligibly conveyed in a few sentences. The Babylonian Talmud supplies full and indisputable testimony to proselyte baptism, as a veritable rite, imposed on converts to the Jewish faith. In the Gemara, Codex Jevamoth, fol. 46, 2, as cited by Light- foot, on Mat. iii. 6, we read, — " As to a proselyte^ who is cii'cumcised, but not baptized, what of him ? Rabbi Eliezer says : ' Behold he is a proselyte ; for thus we find it concerning our fathers, that they were circum- cised, but not baptized,' &c. But the wise men say : ' Is he baptized, but not circumcised ; or^ is he circum- cised, l3ut not baptized ; he is not a proselyte until he is circumcised and baptized.' " Were tliis the only e-vidence, it would establish incontestably the fact of the baptism in (juestion ; but that it does not touch the aniiquity of the observance must be admitted, when we reflect that the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud is a ] 90 MODE OF BAPTISM. compilation of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. See Stuart on Baptism, p. 63. As the Jerusalem Talmud belongs to an earlier period, its testimony, on this subject, is justly entitled to a higher degree of consideration. The Geniara, or Com- mentary, of this collection, which was composed in the latter part of the third century, refers to the case of Roman soldiers on guard at Jerusalem, who are said to have partaken of the passover, having been baptized on the evening of that solemn festival. De Wette has attempted to explain this, as one of the customary Jewish ablutions ; but it is almost universally acknow- leged to be an instance of proselyte baptism. The observance of the rite before the close of the third century, we may therefore recognise as credibly attested. We now proceed a step higher. About the year of our Lord 220, the Mislma, or Repetition, which constitutes the text of Both Talmuds, was composed by Rabbi Jehudah Hakkodesh. According to the Jews, it con- sists of traditions, which had descended uncorrupt from Moses, and could thus rightfully claim divine authority. " From this work," says Stuart, " which contains such an almost infinite number of Jewish superstitions, usages, and rites, I have, as yet, seen but one passage produced, which seems to have any direct bearing upon our ques- tion. It runs thus : — ' As to a proselyte, who becomes a proselyte on the evening of the passover, the followers of Shammai say. Let him be baptized (bnito) and let him eat the passover in the evening ; but the disciples of liillel say. He who separates himself from his uncir- cumcision, separates himself from a sepulchre.'" — Tract. JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 191 Pesah, Cap. CVIII. § 8. E. G. Bengel, though an advo- cate for the antiquity of proselyte baptism, strangely enough considers this testimony to be of little or no weight ; but Stuart, who is on the opposite side, can- didly admits that the reference is to that Jewish obser- vance; and as his view is borne out by the obvious import of the words, we thus trace the existence of the rite up to an early part of the third century. At this stage, however, the plain historical evidence fails us, and the point of a more remote original is chiefly depen- dent on certain allusive statements, assertions, and pro- babilities of various character and cogency. Those who impugn the antiquity of proselyte baptism marshal against it a host of difficulties, supposed to be insurmountable. Had the observance, they argue, obtained in the days of Philo and Josephus, there is a moral certainty that it would not have passed without notice. But these authors, though referring largely to Jewish ceremonies and customs, regard it with profound and ominous silence. The same remark applies to other early witnesses. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, now generally associated with the commencement of the Christian era, know nothing of proselyte baptism. Had it been an established rite of purification for the convert from heathenism, is it probable, is it even possible, that its name should not be once breathed by these Jewish authorities? In view of all the difficulties, several critics and theologians maintain the rise of the obser- vance to have been subsequent to the opening of the Christian dispensation. This hypothesis numbers among its supporters John Owen, Wernsdorf, Carpzov, Lardner, 192 MODE OF BAPTISM. Ernesti, Paulus, De Wette, Stuart, and Schneckenburger. The last named author has devoted a treatise of consi- derable ability and research to the elucidation of Jewish proselyte baptism. From the subjoined summary by Stuart, we may understand the views generally advo- cated by this class of writers, who can certainly muster an imposing array of negative evidence. " We are destitute," says he, " of any early testimony to the practice of proselyte baptism, antecedently to the Chris- tian era. The original institution of admitting Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcision. No account of any other is found in the Old Testament ; none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jona- than, Joseph the blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo- Jonathan, whose work belongs to the seventh or eighth century. No evidence is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. How could an allusion to such a rite have escaped them all, if it were as common, and as much required by usage as circumcision?" — Mode of Baptism^ p. 69. Having now obtained possession of the opposing views, we are prepared for estimating their comparative soundness. The results may be presented in the fol- lowing order. — 1. We admit that the existence of Jewish proselyte baptism, as a distinct religious rite, at or prior to the commencement of the Christian era, does not rest on a foundation of clear liistorical evidence. So far as antiqua- rian industry has ascertained, it is not mentioned by any JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 193 writer, Jewish or Christian, belonging to the first century. Even to the close of the second, any scattered references to it are so few in number, and so vague in character, as to afford ample apology for hesitation. It is only when we travel down to the Rabbinical compo- sitions of the third century, that the observance stands out before us in well defined and unquestionable shape. In this acknowledged state of the evidence, it may be naturally demanded, what good authority we can pro- duce for assigning to proselyte baptism a considerably higher antiquity ? None, is the emphatic reply of Stuart, who accordingly proceeds to argue, with much zeal and learning, in support of the view which contem- plates a later original. We conceive, however, that in his elaborate discussion of the question, great, though unintentional injustice, is done to the important Rabbi- nical testimonies which he has cited. That the rite existed in the second or third century is admitted universally, both by the opponents and advocates of a more remote antiquity. Thus far the Mis/ma has made sure of its existence, to the conviction of all parties. But while the documentary evidence puts us in possession of this as a fixed point, it does not thereby exhaust its strength. In the mind of the candid inquirer, it is still sufficiently potent to work indirectly the assurance that an earlier origin is dis- tinctly and indubitably implied. 2. We proceed to show that the age of these testi- monies is necessarily later than the commencement of prosel}'te baptism. Recorded evidence of the obser- vance of any institution, of course, necessitates the 0 194 MODE OF BAPTISM. belief, that the institution existed when the record was composed. A Rabbinical work, of the second or third century, notices, for instance, a certain existing mode of receiving into church communion those who were converted to the Jewish faith. If, then, the evidence furnished in that document be indeed credible, its imme- diate and necessary effect will be to convince us of the existence of that particular mode, as early as the second or third century. But the full force of the testimony may not be expended on the proof of that particular fact. Had the writer described the ceremony as of very recent growth, and still more, had his narrative pointed to it as originating, under his own observation, doubt- less, in that case, the document and the observance must have been regarded as nearly coeval. Of a very difiFerent stamp, however, are the Rabbinical references to Jewish Proselyte baptism. Even the earliest of these testi- monies exhibit the observance as already in operation, thus, in the most emphatic manner, recognising its antiquity to be superior to their own. Passing by later testimonies, let us advert to the passage cited from the Mishna, which represents the followers of Shammai as enjoining the baptism of a proselyte, in order ritually to qualify him for partaking of the passover. The collection, in which this injunction is found, belongs to the earlier part of the thu'd century ; and Jewish tradi- tion informs us, that Rabbi Shammai flourished about forty years before the advent of our Saviour. But apart altogether from the traditionary element, which we admit to be a doubtful commodity, the prior existence of Proselyte baptism is essentially involved in the testi- JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 195 mony itself. The compiler of the Mishna found that observance already enrolled on the list of Jewish purifi- cations, and especially supported by the disciples of an influential Rabbi of former times. How long it may have been in existence anterior to the appearance of the Mishna, other evidence is confessedly requisite to deter- mine ; but unless the period was considerable, the rite could not easily have obtained a footing in the stand- ard collection of the traditions of the Jewish church. Though not among the advocates of an early original, Mr. Stuart, influenced by analogous views of Rabbinical testimony upon the subject, says, — " The Mishna, certainly for the most part, only reduces to tvriting what was before extant in traditions orally preserved. It is probable, then, that the custom, in a greater or less extent of baptizing proselytes, must have existed in the second century, and possibly still earlier." 3. The evidence for the existence of Proselyte bap- tism in the third and subsequent centuries, is usually accompanied with the assertion or assumption, that it preceded the rise of Christianity. In the Talmuds, as we have seen, this observance, by necessary implication, lays claim to an antiquity more venerable than that of any of the testimonies adduced on its behalf. It is older than the Gemara, older than the Mishna. These witnesses attest its operation as an ecclesiastical rite ; but they are too young to tell of its origin. They point us to the flowing stream, while they are not travelled enough to have reached the distant fountain. Many of them, however, do not hesitate to affirm, that the usage of their own day, in regard to proselytes, had 196 MODE OF BAPTISM. characterized the polity of Judaism during the entu-e course of its history. "/?z all ages^'' observes Maimonides, who wrote in the twelfth century, " when a Gentile desires to enter into the covenant, and gather himself under the wings of the majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the law, he must be circumcised, and baptized, and bring a sacrifice." These views he endea- vours to base on Num. xv. 15, as follows: — "As it is written, As you are, so shall the stranger be. How are you? By circumcision, and baptism, and bringing a sacrifice. So likewise the stranger (or proselyte) through all gene- rations ; by circumcision, and baptism, and bringing a sacrifice." Perhaps the confidence of Maimonides, in the primeval antiquity of Proselyte baptism, is in the inverse ratio of his proximity to its original. At aU events, the evidence which preceded, by many centuries, the age of this writer, is generally less explicit and decisive on the principal point at issue. Yet we find the Talmud, Tract. Repudii, announcing, with respect to Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, that " he was made a proselyte by circum- cision and baptism." Such statements may seem to present an air of extravagance, robbing them to a considerable extent of the power to produce solid con- viction. But it wiU not fail to strike the reflective mind, that in a matter of this nature, Jewish Rabbis most probably would not have hazarded these assertions, if there had not existed among the people a general and deep-rooted persuasion of the antiquity of the rite. It is certain, at least, that in all testimonies of this class, its origin is associated with a period preceding " the fulness of the times ; " and the important question JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 197 naturally arising is, What amount of credibility do such testimonies legitimately possess? If the alleged practice betray in its character nothing ^ ery extraordinary or improbable, and if the affirmation of its high antiquity is met by no opposing testimony, then it would seem altogether unreasonable to withhold our assent. With respect to the former, we confess our inability to discover, in the baptism of proselytes, any incongruity to the spirit and established ritual of the ancient dispensation. On the contrary, we should expect that the economy which imposed on the Israelites them- selves so many ceremonial ablutions, would not admit Gentiles to the sacred fellowship of its privileges, without undergoing symbolic purification. Regarding the latter, we observe — 4. That instead of opposing testimony, which cannot be produced, those who reject an eaii}^ original, are compelled to take their stand mainly on the absence of confirmation, where, as they allege, it might be rationally and even confidently anticipated. If proselyte baptism formed one of the observances of the Jewish Church in the first century of the Christian era, why, it is demanded, do we find in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, no allusion whatever to its existence ? Why has Josephus, amid detailed accounts of Jewish sects and peculiarities, left unnoticed a leading rite of initia- tion into the Church of the Hebrew fathers ? To such inquiries, it may not, perhaps, be practicable to furnish a satisfactory answer. Some "svriters, it is true, have applied the chemistry of criticism to the extraction of evidence, from one or two passages in Josephus ; but 198 MODE OF BAPTISM. the result of the analysis seems to have brought no solid conviction, even to their own minds. The extreme dearth of evidence, in connexion with this early period, is apparent from the fact, that a veteran scholar of De Wette's attainments, has adopted the hypothesis that the Jews borrowed theii* Proselyte ablution from the ordinance of Christian baptism. Mr. Stuart, Drs. Halley and Alexander, and others, stamp this view as opposed to all probability, on the ground of the implacable hatred which the Jews cherished towards the Christians. But if the baptism of the latter became a popular and attrac- tive observance, might not the Jews, with all their known enmity to Jesus and his followers, have been tempted quietly to appropriate what they deemed to be an instrument of ecclesiastical power and extension ? Distinguished for wisdom in their generation, they might, at least, with such an object in view, have invested their own proselyte washing with the name and attributes of baptism ? Against the acceptance of De Wette's untenable hypothesis, a more solid argument is suggested by the fact, that, on this subject, the early Christian records prefer against the Jews no charge of a breach of the eighth commandment. Had they, in reality, stolen this rite from the Christians, it is in the highest degree improbable that the sacrilege would have been permitted to pass without gi*ave crimination. To the mere silence of Josephus and the Targumists, however unaccountable it may appear, we should beware of attaching an importance which it does not righteously possess. The absence of testimony should never be confounded with contradictory testimony. We may JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 199 consider it very extraordinary that the author of the Jewish Antiquities, and of the Wars of the Jews, himself a Pharisee, should make no mention of the initiatory ablution imposed on a proselyte to the Jewish faith. But to contend against the existence of the rite in that age, on such slender grounds, and without a particle of positive evidence, would be to occupy a very exposed position. After its institution in Paradise, the Sabbath is not once mentioned in the book of Genesis, though that section of the sacred narrative covers a period of more than 1500 years. Even subsequently to the trans- action at Sinai, and after the death of Moses, a similar silence characterizes several centuries of Israelitish history. It is a case still more in point, that in some of the early patristic writings, we discover almost no definite allusions to the ordinance of baptism, though an institution of equal unpressiveness, and incalculably more frequent observance. On this point, therefore, we do not feel warranted to attribute much weight to the mere absence of testimony, in certain Jewish docu- ments, nor wiU the circumstance be likely to weigh with discerning men, unless reinforced by considerations of a positive character. 5. The prior existence of proselyte baptism seems to be evidently implied in different passages of the New Testament. All admit the practice of diverse ablutions by the Jewish people themselves, from the very founda- tion of their polity. These observances were, by divine authority, incorporated with the national religion, as symbols of the purity required in the true worshippers of God. The Jewish ritual refused to dispense with its 200 MODE OF BAPTISM. significant washings in the instance of the most pious descendant of Abraham ; and is it to be supposed that a GentUe could enter the hallowed precints of the cove- nant, without submitting to some rite of purification ? Had ceremonial washing been utterly disregarded in the circumstances, we should almost consider the neglect as in some degree compromising the character of the Mosaic economy. In accordance with the sjDirit of this view, the Jewish doctors, as we have seen, identify the origin of proselyte baptism with that of the Mosaic ritual, and apply to the observance such passages as Numbers XV. 15. Now, the strong presumption thus created, we main- tain to be strikingly supported by New Testament evidence. When John the baptist entered upon his public career, as the forerunner of the Messiah, the baptism which he preached and administered appears to have required no explanation. The people saw him engaged in baptizing the multitudes who flocked to his ministrations ; yet on no occasion does any one seem to have regarded baptism as a new or unintelligible cere- monial. No one appears to have sought information respecting the meaning of the rite ; no one proposed the question, What is baptism ? The same observation applies to the kindred ordinance of initiation into the Christian church. The baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, whether administered by John or the disciples of Jesus, uniformly appears in the character of a rite, which foes and followers equally comprehended. — Mat. iii. 1, 5, 6, " In those days came John the baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. * * Then went JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 201 out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." — John iii. 22, and iv. 1, " Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized." " Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." No evidence in all this, nor indeed in all the Greek Scriptures, that baptism was regarded by any of the people as a strange thing. How are we to account for this evident acquain- tance with the rite, and especially by what means was that acquaintance so universally diffused ? This is an embarrassing question for those who deny the early origin of proselyte-baptism ; and, so far as we are aware, the best, though a very inadequate, answer from that quarter is thus given by Professor Stuart. — " That the Jews of our Saviour's time entertained the idea that he would baptize his disciples, may be well accounted for, without resorting to the supposition that proselyte- baptism was already practised. Let the reader consult Isa. xii. 3, xliv. 3, Ezek. xxxvi. 25, Zech. xiii. ], and he will easily see how the Jews might have formed an opinion, that the Messiah would baptize his disciples." An examination of these passages has not, we confess, enabled us to see what this author pronounces to be so easily perceptible. Suppose it practicable for the Jews to have derived from these testimonies the vague expectation that the Messiah, or his forerunner, would receive converts by the washing of baptism, we are still pressed by the question, how was the mind of the nation at large so thoroughly leavened with this expec- tation? That there existed, at the period, no very 202 MODE OF BAPTISM. general acquaintance with the predictions respecting Christ's mission, must be conceded by all ; and besides, the mass of mankind seldom learn from books the character and object of a positive institution, — it must be presented to their senses in the reality of practical observance. On such gi'ounds, we conclude that some similar rite must have preceded the administration of baptism by John and Jesus; and we have discovered no adequate reason for refusing this station of priority to the rite of Jewish proselyte-baptism. We are aware, in fact, of no other claimant to dispute the title. A plausible objection to the result thus obtained, Stuart ingeniously derives from the question proposed by the Jewish authorities to John the baptist. John i. 25, " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" — "The manner of the question," he observes, " does obviously seem to imply, that they expected himself and his two coadjutors, Elijah and the prophet, to baptize those whom they should receive as disciples. But does this imply that proselyte-baptism was abeady in use ? So it has been thought and said. Yet I cannot see how this follows of necessity. Nay, I must even say that the necessary implication seems to be directly the contrary. What was the initiatory rite, which they expected under a dispensation, that even in their own view was to be new, and very different in many respects from the former one ? Was it to be a new rite, a distinctive sign ; or was it to be merely the continua- tion of an old practice already in common usage ? The former sm'ely seems to be the most natural and probable. JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 203 Indeed, the manner of the question put to John, abso- lutely forbids the idea, that those who put it considered baptism as a rite in common use. The necessary impli- cation is, that unless John were either the Messiah, or Elijah, or the prophet, he could have no right to baptize. How could this be said with any good degree of force or congruity, in case the same kind of baptism, which John practised, was a matter of common usage ? An appeal to this text, then, serves rather to confirm the opinion opposite to that, for the support of which the appeal is made." — The reasonings of the learned author, though very specious, appear to harbour a fallacy, which may be easily detected. (1.) That the priests and Levites, who interrogated John, understood the rite of baptism, is manifest from the form of their question. They did not ask. What is baptism ? — but. Why baptizest thou ? The question assumes their knowledge of the ordinance, and simply demands John's authority for its administration. — (2.) It appears to follow necessarily from the very terms of the question, that baptism was not, as Mr. Stuart wiU have it, a new, or distinctive sign. Had it been so, the priests and Levites must have first inquired into its meaning, as an indispensable preliminary to farther interrogation. Is not this the obvious dictate of com- mon sense? — (3.) It was not the rite itself, but the object coupled with its administration, which awakened Jewish suspicion or curiosity. The question put to John was, Why baptizest thou ? But under what circumstances was it put ? That the baptism of John contemplated a new economy, was apprehended, not, as 204 MODE OF BAPTISM. it appears to us, from the novel character of the ordi- nance, but from the parties to whom it was administered. Had he baptized, in connexion with proselytism to the Jewish faith, his conduct, so far as we can perceive, could not have ruffled the equanimity of the Scribes and Pharisees, simply because it would not have been obnoxious to the charge of injuriously interfering with the Mosaic economy. On the contrary, they must have regarded such baptism and its results in the light of an important contribution to their own ecclesiastical influence. The accession of converts by such a baptism, would have tended only to the aggrandizement of their polity and their party. But the multitudes baptized by John were Jews — " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," — and hence the misgiving and alarm of the Jewish authorities. The Pharisees could understand the baptism of Gentiles into the Jewish faith ; but what construction were they to put on the baptism of Jews themselves? Did it not savour of a design to subvert or supersede the ancient dispensation ? And we are aware of no cause so likely to awaken these apprehensions, as the known character and object of proselyte-baptism. In the hypothesis of its previous existence, we discover a natural and adequate exponent of the motives which prompted the interested zealots for Judaism, to inquire of our Lord's forerunner, "Wherefore baptizest thou?" If j^ou are not Elias, nor Messiah, nor the prophet, by what autho- rity do you administer a rite, which is historically and practically associated with conversion to a new faith, or the introduction of a new dispensation ? JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 205 These considerations enable us not merely to reconcile the existence of proselyte-baptism with the question proposed to John; but still farther to discover the striking aptitude of that rite to form, in Jewish minds, a painful bond of association between the baptism of John, and the development of a new economy, for which they were wholly unprepared. 6. It remains for us to make a brief statement on the mode of Jewish proselyte-baptism. On this topic, several of the opponents of an exclusive immersion-bap- tism, appear to us more liberal than judicious in their frank admissions. Professor Stuart affirms it to be " on all hands conceded that, so far as the testimony of the Rabbins can decide such a point, the baptism of proselytes among the Jews was by immersion." In the hands of this author, however, the admission cannot affect the mode of Christian baptism, because he holds the Jewish rite to have sprung up after the commence- ment of the Christian era. " I feel bound in candor," says Dr. Halley, " to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt whatever ; for, that proselytes were baptized in a confluence of waters, sufficient to cover the whole body, we learn from the Talmuds and from Maimonides." Dr. Halley is right, if the question respected the mode of proselyte-baptism in the eleventh century, when Maimonides wrote, or between the third and seventh centuries, when the Talmuds were compiled. But are these facts sufficient to warrant the inference, that the mode of the rite, during the antecedent period of its history, had undergone no alteration ? If Rab- 206 MODE OF BAPTISM. binical testimouy, it may be alleged, is valid in proving the early existence of this ablution at all, it must be accounted equally valid in confining its mode to immer- sion. We conceive, however, that there is room for a distinction. To our view the evidence of the Rabbis presents the early existence of proselyte-baptism, as a fixed quantity, and its mode as a variable quantity, sustaining to each other relations similar to those which we are accustomed to trace between Apostolic baptism, and patristic trine-immersion. In the ac- knowledged absence of positive proof on either side, it is worthy of notice that the Jews were by no means distinguished for the maintenance of the tradi- tionary observances of their ritual, in a state of primi- tive simplicity. The entire system of ceremony " grew mightily" in bulk and complication, under the fostering care of a prolific formalism. In particular, did not the department of tvashings, by continued multiplication and accretion, swell out into a service so operose and burdensome, as to become almost an overmatch for even Pharisaic zeal ? It will at least be conceded, that the immersion-baptism of a Jewish proselyte, in the eleventh or third century, does not necessarily imply the prevalence of a similar mode, prior to the dawn of Christianity; and the probability of change derives countenance from the analogy of Christian baptism, the mode of which is known to have departed from the simplicity of primitive times, and become clogged with observances supplied by a fruitful but perverted inge- nuity. That the mode described by Maimonides and the Talmudists, formed an innovation upon ancient JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 207 practice, we dare not assert ; while, on the other hand, we are prevented by what we deem the strong proba- bilities of the case, from coinciding with the generous and disinterested admissions of Dr. Halley and Professor Stuart. On this point, Mr. Godwin has some statements worthy of serious attention, particularly as they appear to extract from the Mosaic law some show of evidence, in favour of sprinkling, as the original mode of prose- lyte-baptism. " In respect to the manner in which the purification of the proselyte was performed," he says, " it is to be observed that no immersion was enjoined in the law, either public or private. In some cases, the washing of the whole body was required ; but this, of course, as decency demanded, was done in private. The purification which was effected by others, — the purification which was observed in public, — consisted of the sprinkling of water by a person who was pure, upon the person to be purified. This is mentioned in the law quoted, and nothing else. The public purifica- tion of the proselytes with water was performed by sprinkling, and only thus." — Christian Baptism, p. 74. Mr. Godwin refers to Pocock's Miscellaneous Notes, chap, ix., in support of the statement that " the Hebrew equivalent for ^K'7rrKr(/jog is used in the Talmud for the purification (or washing), which was performed by the affusion of water on the hands." If this use of the term were really in evidence, it would demonstrate that so far as the legitimate import of language is concerned, proselyte-baptism may have been administered in early times by sprinkling or affusion. It would, in fact. 208 MODE OF BAPTISM. strengthen the probalnlities, to which we have already alluded, by supplying, to some extent, a philological basis for the argument derived from the ceremonial analogies of Judaism and Christianity. But the state- ment of Mr. Godwin is not, we fear, borne out by the results of Pocock's Talmudical investigations. That learned Orientalist does not appear to have positively identified baptism with the washing of hands by affu- sion, though certain occurrences of the term, in Jewish literature and in the New Testament, are regarded by him as highly favourable to that view. But while he does not prove to us the Rabbinical application of the term to a case, in which there was no dipping, his labours go to justify the propriety of withholding assent from the sweeping admission, that in all ages of its history, the baptism of proselytes was administered by immersion. In reference to the Jews themselves, Lightfoot affirms this to have been the mode of bap- tizing adults, while he pronounces it " difficult to ascer- tain that their infant children were immersed, though they evidently recognised them as baptized." — The same author, who was not accustomed to trifle with facts and evidence, assures us, " it would be easy to demonstrate, that the sprinkling or affusion of water upon any one was called baptism, no less than the act of dipping or immersion." — Harmon. Quat. Evang. Tom. I., fol. p. 449. Amid the uncertainties which cloud the original of Jewish proselyte baptism, and hover around the mode of its early administration, one point has been happily discovered, with a clearness which leaves upon the mind JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 209 no shadow of dubiety. In this initiatory ordinance, whatever may have been its outward form, the adult convert to the faith of Israel, and his infant offspring possessed a common interest. By an elaborate examin- ation of the Jewish testimonies, relating to this branch of the subject, Lightfoot arrived at the following strong conclusion ; — " That the baptizing of infants had been a thing as commonly known, and as commonly used, before John's coming, and to the very time of his coining, as any holy thing that was used among the Jews ; and (that) they were as well acquainted with infants' baptism, as they were with infants' circum- cision."— Harmon, in Joan. p. 390. In these remarks we, of course, anticipate the second leading topic of discussion ; but they are offered now, with the view to complete, as far as practicable, our brief and hasty sketch of what is known on the subject of Jewish proselyte-baptism . CHAPTER ELEVENTH. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. RESULT OF PRECEDING INQUIRIES HOW RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE GREEK SCRIPTURES. THIS EVIDENCE LESS COPIOUS THAN MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED. THE REASON ASSIGNED. TESTIMONIES ARRANGED, AND CANVASSED, IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER. 1. OCCURRENCES OF BAHTIZft, AND ITS DERIVATIVES, WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO THE ORDI- NANCE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. H. OCCURRENCES IN WHICH THESE TERMS DENOTE " THE BAPTISM OF JOHN," OR OF JESUS, AND THE INTI- MATELY RELATED BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT. in. FIQURATIVI! APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING STRICTURES ON THE PRINCIPLES AND REA- SONINGS OF LEADING BAPTIST WRITERS, IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH PASSAGES AS 1 COR. X. 1, 2; AND 1 PETER HI. 21, 22. IV. REFUTATION OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS OF THE IMMERSIONISTS. V. SUBORDINATION OF MERE MODE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ORDINANCE, AS INDICATED BY THE EXPRESSION, " BAPTISM INTO THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST." MAT. XXVIH. 19. At the threshold of this section of the evidence, the question is reiterated, was there a preestabKshed usage of ^ofTTTiZco and its derivatives, binding the sacred pen- men of the Greek Scriptures to employ these terms, in the exclusive sense of immersion ? From the range of Classical literature, embraced in the preceding part of the discussion, we have produced what we hold to be NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 211 decisive instances of a different meaning; and, there- fore, so far as the question relates to previous usage, we feel warranted to meet it with a direct and unqualified negative. On the remaining point, we deny that, even had the usage of the ancient classics presented unexcep- tionable uniformity, evangelists and apostles would have been thereby prohibited from varying, to any required amount, the signification of baptism, as the name of a Christian ordinance. To refuse them this liberty were to trench upon a privilege, which authors, in all lan- guages, have occasionally exercised, and recourse to which must have been absolutely indispensable in rendering the tongue of Pagan Greece eloquent of the new reve- lations of Christianity. We acknowledge, at the same time, that the common, or recognised sense of a term is not to be arbitrarily superseded ; and that, in the inter- pretation of a document, when we assign any peculiar meaning_, we are bound to sustain our view by adequate authority. Whether the privilege in question has any bearing on the new Testament acceptation of baptism, may be ascertained, as we proceed with our investiga- tions. With respect to the character of preceding usage, the examples hitherto canvassed, have, we conceive, abundantly established the fact, that ^ocTrriZoo and dip are not, after all, such inseparable friends as one would be led to imagine from the forcible assertions of our opponents. In several occurrences, which Baptists eagerly expound as figures, but which we are prepared to stand by as facts, the verb, with its cognate nouns, relates to cases, the physical circumstances of which 212 MODE OF BAPTISM. necessarily exclude all idea of immersion. Besides, we found the iwacUce of Baptist authors to be marvellously inconsistent with their assertions. Scarcely has the oracular announcementj that (SaTr/^^y denotes dip, and nothing hut dip, escaped thek pen, when they quietly adopt some other rendering, which may appear more correct or suitable. Some of their standard writers, we have also seen, proceeding still farther, in the course of their criticisms on one or two obstinate passages, make admissions which are manifestly fatal to the lofty claims of immersion. While the testimonies from the Greek Classics leave no legitimate room for doubt, that ^ccTrriZc*) has a latitude Df application, which does not belong to our vernacular dip, the same view is strengthened collaterally by the evidence of some of the earliest and most approved versions, such as the Latin Vidgate, and the Peschito St/riac, and also by the usage of cognate languages. The former we have repeatedly exemplified ; and we now produce an interesting illustration of the latter, from the Epistles of Caecilius Plinius. This author, who was born in the apostolic age, employs the term Baptisterium to denote, not a bath for immersion, but a vessel, or labrum, for pouring water on the person of the hather. The instance is most important, as showing that a derivative of j8a9rr/^iy was in an age so early transferred to the Latin language, with a signification entirely different from what some affirm to be its uniform and exclusive meaning. — See Smith's Dic- tionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Art. Baths. New Testament evidence, bearing directly on the NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 213 mode of baptism, we may probably discover to be less ample and specific than the superficial reader would surmise. The critical student of language, however, will instantly appreciate the nature and extent of the limitation. When ^aTrr/^^y, or any other verb, is con- structed without a regimen, though its meaning is of course exemplified, yet the construction can afford no independent evidence of that meaning. In such cases, the necessary information may be suggested by the context ; or from historical connexions, or parallel occurrences in which a regimen exists, we may learn the appropriate sense; — still the proposition holds, that the absence of a regimen expressed, or fairly under- stood, denudes the term, in any particular occurrence, of the character of an independent testimony. Now, it will be found that, in the Gospels and Epistles, many of the constructions of the verb, and not a few of the related nouns fall under this description ; and hence the examples of direct evidence are brought within compa- ratively narrow limits. The principle involved in these statements is general, and its operation will affect, more or less, every correct process of verbal exposition. In our present inquiries, the recognition of it will lessen considerably the number of passages to be sifted, and, at the same time, necessitate a more thorough examina- tion of those occurrences which furnish the requisite means of ascertaining the signification. The evidence supplied by New Testament usage, may be arranged in the following order. — I. Occurrences of jSaTr/^ii;, and its derivatives, which do not apply to the ordinance of Christian baptism. 214 MODE OF BAPTISM. II. Occurrences in which these terms denote " the baptism of John," or of Jesus, and the intimately related baptism with the Holy Spirit. III. Figurative applications, including strictures on the principles and reasonings of leading Baptist writers, in the interpretation of such passages as 1 Cor. x. 1, 2; and 1 Peter iii. 21, 22. IV. Refutation of some of the principal objections of the Immersionists. V. Subordination of mere mode to the spirit and substance of the ordinance, as indicated by the expres- sion, " baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Believing that this arrangement will facilitate the examination of the evidence, we proceed to con- sider.— I. Occurrences of (Sarr/^is;, and its derivatives, which do not apply to the ordinance of Christian baptism. Let us attend to the following details. — 1. An example, involving a distinct reference to the Old Testament ritual, is furnished in Heb. ix. 10, " Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, — carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." We cancel the conjunction before " carnal ordinances," as «a/ of the original has been very properly expunged by the great critical editors ; but with this exception, we proceed upon the rendering of the authorized version. What then were NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 215 the '^ diverse tvashings or baptisms,^'' — h(x,(p6^otg ^octt- riG(jboic — which the apostle here places in the list of ceremonies observed by the ancient Jewish church? The construction, in which the term occurs, has occa- sioned great difficulty to interpreters, as may be seen by consulting Macknight and Stuart on the Helreivs. In the judgment of the latter, " the meats and drinks," &c., form part of the Jewish ceremonial at large ; while the former restricts them to the service immediately connected with the tabernacle or temple. Guided by the context in the ninth and eleventh verses, we adopt the restricted view of the ritual allusions in the text under consideration. The chief object of the apostle throughout the chapter is to contrast " the first taber- nacle," and its services, with the " greater and more perfect tabernacle " under the new economy ; and as the tenth verse belongs to this contrasted view, and 7nay be fairly understood of the public ceremonial, we can see no reason for referring it to the more private observances of the Jewish people. We merely indicate the exposition which we consider to be demanded alike by the scope of the passage, and the compact unity of the apostle's argument; nor are we apprehensive for the result, whether its correctness is tested by the devout reading of the authorized version, or the critical analysis of the original. Regarding the (^w^rrKTiJuoig, then, as associated with tabernacle worship, we ob- serve,— (1.) That if the term denote immersions, the epithet different — ha(p6§oig — seems bereft of its customary force and distinctness. Had the writer connected it with 216 MODE OF BAPTISM. meats and drinks, the application would have been obvious and natural ; but what purpose it can serve as modifying immersions, which could not be very diverse from one another, it is not so easy to .discover. This difficulty does not press on the interpretation of Stuart, who understands by the baptisms, Jewish ablutions in general. In Rom. xii. 6, hoc,(po§a, characterizes the gifts imparted to the early Christian teachers, these gifts being of different kinds, and, therefore, qualifying them for various departments of ministration. The Septua- gint employs the same term, in its version of the prohi- bition, Deut. xxii. 9, against sowing a vineyard with diverse seeds, that is, seeds of different kinds. Here, alsO;, the sense is transparent. In like manner, if by (ia'TrrtdiMoig we are to understand tvashings, as translators and lexicographers very generally maintain, the modi- fying term is at once intelligible : but if it denote immersions, we confess our inability to enter into the meanings or appreciate the force of the expression. (2.) The diverse ^ocTrriG^oig, whatever ablutions they designated, obviously applied to the persons of the worshippers. " The phrase," says Dr. Carson, " aUudes to the immersion of the different things that by the law were to be immersed.'''' But is this interpretation in keeping with the Apostle's design, and with the reasoning of the passage ? The baptisms are classed with the meats and drhiks, and in common with them are styled hzKiu^Kroc aoc^icog, ordinances of the flesh, that is, ordinances pertaining to the body, as distinguished from the sold. On this ground we contend, that the washings, no less than the meats and drinks, are limited NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 217 to the persons of the worshippers. Besides, these observances are noticed with special reference to their declared insufficiency to accomplish what was needed for the conscience of " him who did the service." Now, was it requisite, or would it have been natural, to assure the Hebrews, that the immersion of a pot or cup could not wash away the stains of the immortal spirit ? An external ablution might be substituted by the superstitious for internal cleansing; but surely none were so ignorant and besotted, as to confound the washing of a basin with the purification of a conscience. The meats, drinks, and baptisms, then, belong alike to the persons of those who engaged in the tabernacle service. (3.) We have no proof that immersion was even included in these baptisms. In the Mosaic law abun- dant provision is made for diverse ablutions, in connec- tion with the public service of God ; still we search in vain for any distinct command enjoining immersion, either upon the priests, or the people. From Exod. XXX. 19 — 21, we learn that God required the priests, through all their generations, before officiating in the divine service, to wash their hands and feet at the brass laver, which stood " between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar." A more general ablution was indeed imposed, at the period of their solemn inauguration, as in the case of Aaron and his sons, whom Moses washed with water at the door of the tabernacle. Yet, in regard to the entire circle of taber- nacle rites, it is certain, as Mr. Godwin has affirmed, " that no terms, which any Hebrew scholar will pre- 218 MODE OF BAPTISM. tend, had the signification of dipping, are ever used, in reference to any of the ceremonial purifications of the person." K Baptists, therefore, will still insist on immersions, as the meaning intended by the Apostle, we must respectfully ask them to point out some of these immersions in the service of the ancient taber- nacle. The diverse baptisms we have shown to have been personal, and we defy our opponents to produce evidence of personal immersion. (4.) The subsequent reasonings of the Apostle prove, that by the baptisms we are to understand ceremonial washings, without regard to immersion. The correct- ness of this position, it will be observed, is not contin- gent on the limitation of the " carnal ordinances " to the tabernacle service. Dr. Wardlaw had stated, that among the " diverse washings," were included the rantismata, or sprinklings, which were the most numer- ous. In reply. Dr. Carson asserted that, even admitting the sprinklings to be included in the things here men- tioned by Paul, they might be referred to the carnal ordinances. In this, however, the learned author betrayed ignorance of the true reading in the original, which employs the term carnal ordinances, not as expressive of something additional to the meats and drinks and baptisms, but merely as another name for the same ritual observances. According to the Greek, the meats and drinks and diverse baptisms go to com- pose the carnal ordinances. Dr. Wardlaw had farther maintained that these " washings " surely included aU the various modes of Jewish purification ; — a ^dew which is also defended by Professor Stuart. To which Dr. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 219 Carson answered, " This is not said here nor any where else in the Scriptures. There is no necessity to suppose that every thing enjoined in the law must be included in the things here mentioned. The Apostle designs to illustrate merely by specification, not to give a logical abstract." Without conceding, we shall suppose that Dr. Carson has rightly scanned the intention of the sacred writer. What follows ? The Apostle here speci- fies; but of what, we ask, does his specification consist? Ai'e we to imagine that he excludes from his list of ceremonial observances that particular rite which stands out so prominently in the succeeding part of his argu- ment? The Apostle specifies; but surely his specifica- tion comprehends the legal purification, which forms one side of the subjoined contrast, between the cleansing efficacy of Judaism, as confined to the flesh, and the cleansing efficacy of Christianity, as reaching the con- science. In the tenth verse, meats and drinks, and diverse baptisms, are styled ordinances of the flesh ; and in the thirteenth verse, the sprinkling of the unclean is said to sanctify to the purifying of the flesh. Does not the comparison of these verses distinctly identify sprinkling as 07ie of the ordinances of the flesh ? — and if so, it must belong to the class of diverse haptisms, unless our opponents should prefer the alternative of consid- ering it a meat or a drink! Let the Baptist strain every nerve to confine the carnal ordinances within the narrowest possible limits, and we will still contend that the term possesses sufficient extension to cover that ceremonial sprinkling, " which sanctifieth to the puri- fying of the flesh." The grounds are manifest. If the 220 MODE OF BAPTISM. reader wiU take the trouble of examining closely the argument of the passage, from the eleventh to the fourteenth verse inclusive, he wUl be constrained to recognise in it an impressive contrast, founded on the previous specification, and this alone is required for the triumphant defence of our exposition. The general sentiments here advocated will be found ably sustained by Dr. Halley, who, however, appears somewhat undecided, respecting t]\Q personal application of the diverse baptisms. After duly considering all that he and Drs. Gale and Carson, with some other writers on both sides, have urged upon the subject, we can discover no reason for abandoning, or even modifying, the views at which we had previously arrived. 2. Heb. vi. 2, " The doctrine ^ccTri(T[jb&iv of baptisms." The chief obstacle in the way of ascertaining the mode of these baptisms, arises out of the obscurity attending the reference of the term. If, with Schoettgen, Rosen- miiller, Vater, and others, we include the ritual ablu- tions of the Jews, in the Apostle's baptisms, we shall be compelled to admit variety/ in the mode of adminis- tration. " But what has the Apostle to do here," inquires Mr. Stuart, " with Jewish ceremonial rites, as the first elements of Christian doctrine ? " We find a reply in the fact, that this Epistle was addressed to the Hebrews, whose elementary instruction in Christianity involved certain principles and practices embodied in the Jewish system. For instance, the repentance and faith, referred to in the first verse, were, in many respects,, the common property of both dispensations. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 221 In a slightly modified form, the same statement holds in relation to the baptisms. The religion of Moses had its ablutions, the religion of Christ had its one baptism ; but when these are considered under the same designa- tion, the plural is appropriately employed to compre- hend both. This view we greatly prefer to that of Stuart, who appears to understand these baptisms of the Christian ordinance, and refers to the PMlologia Sacra of Glassius, for an explanation of the plural, instead of the singular. The entire doctrine of Glassius, on this point, evinces little acumen, while its proposed appli- cation, by Stuart, to the example before us, is not shown to be either necessary or warrantable. Recourse to such grammatical substitution, for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty in exegesis, we contemplate with suspicion and alarm. It is also to be observed that, in the New Testament, (ici'TrTKTfiioc is the term appropriated to the initiatory rite of our religion, which is not once denoted by ^wTcrKTiLog. For these reasons, we cannot interpret the Apostle's language, to the exclusion of Jewish washings ; and we recognise, of course, no antecedent necessity, and can discover none in the circumstances of the case, for identifying the doctrine of baptisms with the doctrine of immersions. 3. A class of examples, somewhat different, we find in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. — Mark vii. 3, 4, 8, " The Pharisees, and aU the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from market, lav ^/j^ ^avriGuvToci, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, 222 MODE OF BAPTISM. as puTcria^ovg the ivashing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and tables, or couches. * * * Ye hold the tradition of men, as ^wTrrifffLovg the washing! of pots and cups." — Luke xi. 37, 38, " A certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him : and he went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- velled that he had not first — l^ocTria&n — washed before dinner." If the term baptism foreclosed inquiry, respecting the mode of these washings, the labour of the interpreter would be comfortably abbreviated. But as that position is, in our view, untenable, we are forced to occupy different ground. Vagueness of historical reference forms the great difficulty to be encountered in searching after the character of Pharisaic baptisms. In our exam- ination of the first passage from Hebrews, we found sure footing in the recorded connexion of the " diverse washings," with rites prescribed by the divine law, and practised in the service of the tabernacle. But these texts from the Gospels point to ablutions which were largely the fruit of will-worship, and they thus bring us into contact with the traditionary ceremonies so zealously patronised by the scribes and Pharisees. The authorized version renders these baptisms, tvashings, — a term which manifestly conveys the substantive import of the observances mentioned by the sacred penmen. In the cases specified, washing seems to be indispensable. Where defilement is contracted, whether it affects the whole person, or is confined to the hands ; whether a brazen vessel, or a couch requires purification^ the cleansing process will be performed, not by simple NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 223 immersion, but by washing. As these passages, how- ever, have been too sedulously contested in the discus- sion, to be put off with a perfunctory notice, we are under the necessity of entering into a somewhat detailed and critical examination. The views we entertain may be thus stated. (1.) There is a marked difference between the washing of the hands, and the baptism referred to in Mark vii. 3, 4. Dr. Boothroyd seems to identify in meaning the verbs f/Vr^y and (Bcc'7rriZ&) ; but he adduces no evidence in support of his exposition. He notices, indeed, the well-known various reading, which, though not entitled to supersede that of the text, should not be overlooked. For (BciTTiffoovTat in v. 4, the Codex Vati- canus, with eight or nine MSS., in cursive character, substitutes ^avriacovrai. But were the variation of suffi- cient value to displace the received text, instead of destroying, it would obviously sustain the existence of a distinction between the two ablutions. Our business, then, is with the language as it stands in the Textiis receptus, and deservedly obtains the sanction of the critical editors ; and as this language clearly involves the fact, our main inquiry must be directed to the character, of the distinction. Are the washings to be regarded as different in kind ; or, does the one embrace a total, while the other is limited to a partial ablution of the person ? The only remaining supposition is, that both mode and extent may possibly enter into the distinc- tion recognised by the evangelist. Dr. Campbell applies both washings to the hands, the cleansing process being accomplished in the one case by 224 MODE OF BAPTISM. perfusion, and in the other by immersion. Accordingly, his translation of the verse is as follows : — " For the Pharisees * * eat not until they have washed their hands by pouring a little water upon them ; and if they be come from the market by dipping them." In the view of Olshausen and others, the baptism of the text applies not to the Pharisees themselves, but to the things which they purchased in the market, — an exe- gesis on which we would deem it foolish to waste a refutation. Though not alluded to by Campbell, the distinction for which he contends derives some counte- nance from ascertained Jewish customs. Rabbinical writers mention the D^n^ nb^'ta^, or washing of hands by affusion, and the d^'T nb"'2t2, or washing of hands by immersion, as the expressions are rendered by learned Orientalists ; while the code of tradition specified the process to be observed in each of these rites of ceremo- nial purification. More recent critics, however, have thrown up strong objections against Dr. Campbell's exposition, in which he followed Lightfoot, Wetstein, Bishop Pearce, and others. Referring to its advocates generally, Fritzsche says, — " lUorum ratio explicandi non cadit in verba Graeca," — meaning, that had the sacred writer intended to confine the washing to the hands, he must have connected roic %g/fa?, in syntax with {^wTTriacovrai, the absence of a regimen, except in peculiar cases, being inconsistent with a partial ablution. Having already concurred in the assertion of this prin- ciple, we can perceive no just grounds for opposing its api)lication to the case before us, particular!}- when we consider that it is maintained by such critics as Krebs, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 225 and Kuiuol, who differ from those already cited, and from each other, in their view of the construction of the passage. The remaining point relates to the mode of this baptism; and here the record of Jewish customs, it must be acknowledged, supplies no satisfactory infor- mation. Had the term invariably denoted immersion, as Dr. Carson argues, its own evidence would have settled the point ; but as we have not found its meaning to be a fixed quantity, we are precluded from adoj)ting that convenient line of argument. In our path of inquir}^, we have encountered (SaTr/^sy where there was no dip, and hence it is morally impossible for us to admit Dr. Carson's conclusion. A solitary adverse instance lays his theory in ruins, and stamps its numer- ous applications as unfounded. But there are, we hold, many such instances, and, therefore, from a usage zvhich does not exist, we cannot infer the identity of Pharisaic baptism with immersion. The inadequacy of the evi- dence of the term compels us to have recourse to the probabilities of the case, and to such collateral proof as may be available ; and our Baptist friends are not slow to embrace any similar opening which logic or anti- quity may present. Thus, the testimony produced by Schoettgen, to the effect that the Jews practised immer- sion, before offering sacrifice, has been more than once paraded on their side of the question; though it is wholly inapplicable in the instance of an ordinary repast, as has been often and most conclusively replied. With respect to the import of the clause, and the character of the ablution, Dr. Bloomfield says, — " This is best Q 226 MODE OF BAPTISM. explained by Grotius and Fritzsche, ' unless they wash themselves,' i. e. their bodies (namely, in opposition to the washing of the hands before mentioned) ; because, after coming from a place of such public resort, and where people in a crowd must touch one another, they might unintentionally have touched some impure person or thing, and hence might require a more exact [extensive?] ablution, than merely washing the hands. Here, how- ever, we are not to suppose immersion implied, (that being never used, except when some actual, and not possible pollution had been incurred); but merely ordi- nary washing ; or perhaps on occasions of urgent haste, sprinkling. Hence the gloss (for it is no more) of some MSS., pccvTi(7covTKi.^^ — Tho vlow stated by Bloomfield is sustained by the authority of most of our leading Greek lexicons, which generally concur in regarding this bap- tism as a bathing or washing, not necessarily implying immersion. As an example in which the regimen is not expressed, it contains no positive evidence respecting mode ; but the record of Pharisaic customs, so far as it has been preserved, and strong probability, where the record ceases, unite in opposing the exclusive principle of the Immersionists. (2.) We are now, in some degree, prepared for dis- posing of the reference to " the washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches." In all the New Testa- ment occurrences of /SaTr/o-poV, Schleusner considers lotio, or ivasfdng, to be the primary signification ; and in this he merely echoes the finding of the great mass of lexicographers. The same meaning is assigned to the term by Olshausen, on the passage before us, and also NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 227 in Heb. ix. 10. Dr. Campbell prefers the rendering, — '^ baptisms of cups" — ^for which preference he has stated several reasons, more or less cogent. One of them is based on the alleged correspondence between certain ablutions prescribed under the Jewish system, and the ordinance of Christian baptism. This correspondence, the author contends, should be so clearly exhibited in our translations, as to enable the mere English reader at once to appreciate its character and extent. In regard to the terms in the original languages, " The Hebrew bn^," he informs us, " perfectly corresponds to the Greek (^dcTrroj and (^cctti^^Im, which are synonymous, and is always rendered by one or other of them in the Septuagint." Besides the false assertion that ^dTroj and (iccTTTiZ^iu are synonymous, this statement contains an error respecting a plain matter of fact, which deeply concerns our present inquiries. The Septuagint does not, in all instances, employ one or other of these Greek terms, as the representative of the Hebrew bnp. In Gen. xxxvii. 31, that ancient version renders ^bat?":, by the Greek word lyijoXvmv, " they stained," thus unde- niably indicating, that in the judgment of the transla- tors, the Hebrew verb is not absolutely confined to the sense of immersion. We are not to be understood as admitting that it would be so limited, even were the assertion of Dr. Campbell as true, as we have proved it to be false. Let it not be objected that the evidence, by which we upset his position, is furnished by a soli- tary occurrence. Adduced for the purpose of proving that the Septuagint translators did not consider bnto strictly uni vocal, it is as good as a thousand testimonies. 228 MODE OF BAPTISM. One such instance takes the most venerable, and, for critical purposes, the most valuable version of the Hebrew Scriptures, out of the hands of those who produce its authority for binding this verb either to baptism or immersion. It may be mentioned, that in arranoins; the sio-nifications of the Hebrew term, the Standard Concordance of Fiirst, assigns the last place to immersion, the order being rigare, tingere, perftmdere, immergere ; and that ]\Ieier in his Wiirzehvorterbuch, also regards immerse as a secondary acceptation. The arrangement of these eminent Hebraists we do not endorse as the most complete and philosophical that could be deWsed : — our object is simply to show that high authority, as well as powerful argument, must be met by those whose system requires them to advocate the exclusively modal sense of b?'^. Having shown that the connexion of the Grreek with the Hebrew does not fix, so definitely as Dr. Camphell imagined, the mode of diflerent Jewish ablutions, we revert to " the baptisms of cups, couches," &c. The language plainly intimates, that these baptisms were of a religious or ceremonial character, as they were per- formed in deference to '' the traditions of the elders," By the law of Moses, the purification of polluted vessels was efiected in various ways, as by rinsing them in water, Levit. xv. 12 ; by scorning and rinsing in water, \i. 28 ; and simply by putting them into water, xi. 32 ; which is a case of obviouiS immersion. From this evi- ience it appears, that if the Pharisaic baptisms were conformed to the ancient ritual, the process of cleansing was not only compatible with diversity of mode, but NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 229 must have exhibited diversity, as a feature expressly enjoined. It will be said, however, that as the practices, condemned by our Saviour, were traditionary and super- stitious, we have no right to assume their coincidence, either in form or spirit, with the requirements of the ceremonial law. We admit, to a certain extent, the validity of the objection. That the Pharisees unwar- rantably multiplied both the objects to be purified, and the occasions of purification, is a fact beyond all contro- versy. But though their will-worship made accessions to this department of the legal institute, Ave do not find them charged with altering, much less setting aside, these smaller matters of the law. They sinned by addition, and by the substitution of the outtvard for the inward — of ceremony for sanctity ; but their punctiliousness was too devout to immerse a vessel which the law required to be cleansed by rinsing. The nature of the obser- vances, therefore, combined with the character of Phari- saism, appears to render it morally certain, that in the manner of washing pots and cups, &c., the Jews would not fail to carry out the minutest niceties of legal prescription. On this ground the proof of diversity of mode, appears to us very strong, if not quite deci- sive. Another argument against exclusive immersion is founded on the variety of objects to be purified by ablution. Thus, while it would be natural to have recourse to immersion in the washing of cups^ it seems in the highest degree improbable that a similar process would be applied to tables or couches. Lightfoot main- tains distinctly that the baptism of the couches was by sprinkling : and the term is identified with simple 230 MODE OF BAPTISM. washing in the Syriac version, and by the leading Orientalists and commentators. Dr. Carson must have the couches dipped ; and he will take them to pieces, if requisite, rather than permit any part to escape the plunge bath. When Origen refers to Elijah, command- ing his attendants to baptise the altar, if the histo- rical reference had perished, we doubt not our Baptist polemics would have made out a case for immersion altogether satisfactory to themselves. But we know, and Origen knew, that the baptism consisted in pouring tvater upon the altar. In the instance before us, there is no record of history, we admit, to determine the mode ; but that couches were baptized by pouring or sprinkling, the nature of the case has satisfied the first biblical scholars of every age and country. (3.) Let us now consider the ablution which the Pharisee expected our Saviour to perform, Luke xi. 38. With all the dipping predilections of his philology, Dr. Campbell has thus rendered the text : — " But the Pharisee was surprised to observe that he used no washing before dinner." What kind of washing did the scrupulous zealot imagine our Lord should have used, as a preparation for sitting down to an ordinary meal ? Washing by immersion, say our opponents, because that mode, and that alone, is denoted by the verb ^ccTrriZoj. Yet, in an American translation of the New Testament, under Baptist auspices, instead of immerse, the term bathe is adopted in the rendering of this passage. By employing a word, which, as regards mode^ is perfectly equivocal in its meaning, the translators have practically evinced want of confidence in their principle of exclusive NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 231 immersion. Dr. Carson rather gratuitously applauded a prolix and uncritical discussion of the verse by Gale, as furnishing " a triumphant answer to every quibble from Dr. Wall." What the author meant by Dr. Wall's quibbles, we do not profess to understand; but of this we are certain, that if he quibbled, his example proved infectious to his learned antagonist. We feel pleasure in recommending Wall's rejoinder, which it may be charitably presumed Dr. Carson never saw, {Hist, of Infant Bapt. Vol. IV. p. 125, IF.,) for a shrewd exposure of the errors and fallacies which vitiate Dr. Gale's reasonings. Besides, Gale and Carson are directly opposed to each other on a point of some importance to the meaning of the passage. The former confines the baptism to the hands of our Saviour, while the latter extends it to his whole body. According to Dr. Gale, our Saviour would have been baptized, had his hands only been washed in a certain manner ; and hence Dr. Wall charges him with " giving up all the cause at once," by endorsing the proposition, that the language of Scripture identifies a partial immersion with baptism properly so called. In regard to the main inquiry, we observe that cir- cumstances, both of rational probability and historical fact, strongly discountenance the idea of ablution, by dipping the person. Is it at all likely that a party, casually invited to dinner, as our Saviour was, would be expected to immerse himself, preparatory to the repast? StiU farther, would it have been natural in itself, or was it imposed by custom, to perform such immersion at the house of his entertainer? Even had 232 MODE OF BAPTISM. the observance been practised by the more formal and superstitions among the Jews, was that any reason why it should be exacted of our Saviour, or astonishment felt at its neglect? He made no pretensions to the sanctimonious garb of a Pharisaic pietism. The routine of ceremonial service, which " the righteousness of man" had swelled out beyond the boundaries of divine prescription, he stamped with indignant rebuke, instead of honouring it with practical conformity. The Phari- sees knew this ; and hence it is contrary to all probabi- lity to suppose that they could wonder at his disregard of a ritual, which he publicly and unsparingly denounced. On this ground, it is maintained that ordinary washing alone could have been contemplated by the Pharisee who invited our Saviour to his table. Again, it has been observed with truth that history supplies no record whatever of the existence of immer- sion, as a Pharisaic qualification for partaking of a com- mon meal. The only proof of this nature, attempted by Baptist writers, is taken from Josephus, De Bel. Jud. Lib. II. c. 8, who states, that the Essenes bathed them- selves in cold water before dinner. This testimony refers to a practice which obtained in the days of our Lord ; but it is directly opposed to the cause on behalf of which it is produced. We accordingly claim it as evidence in support of our views. Josephus was a Pharisee. This daily immersion was practised by the Essenes. Had it formed part of the ritual observed by the Jewish people in common, and especially by the Pharisees, the learned historian would not have described it as a peculiarity of one small sect. The conclusion, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 233 then, to which the evidence points, is manifestly that, inasmuch as immersion before dinner was not customary among the Pharisees, the entertainer of Jesus could not have " marvelled" at the neglect of an ablution, which the code of Pharisaism itself did not impose. Dr. Carson condemns an appeal to external evidence, as implying that we refuse to believe the evangelist without a voucher. But this is a most unfair statement of the case. We go to the history of Jewish customs, not for confirmation of the evangelist's testimony, but for illustration of the evangelist's meaning. The evan- gelist's meaning ! It is too plain, argues the doctor, to be misunderstood. With aU its alleged plainness, we reply, the two greatest champions of Baptist views. Gale and Carson, cannot agree about the ablution which the Pharisee expected our Saviour to perform. What was the character of this ablution ? Several writers, Baptist and Psedobaptist, maintain that Jesus merely trans- gressed the tradition of the elders, by " eating bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands." Others extend the washing to the whole person, on the principle that when (^GiTriZf*) is employed without a regimen, the ablution, or immersion, is not partial but total. This principle, however, as we have already seen, requires frequent modification. In our own language, we speak of washing, mthout specifying any part, yet every one understands the ablution to be partial. The same analogy applies to other languages, including Greek, which supplies abundance of examples. When the washing is of ordinary occurrence, such as the Pharisees used before dinner, the nature of the case 234 MODE OF BAPTISM. combiues with the ascertained practice of the parties, in introducing a principle of natural limitation. The baptism referred to in Mark, we consider a general ablution, because the occasion is more uncommon, and also because it is presented in contrast with a partial wasliing. In that occui-rence, the limiting circum- stances are wanting. Whereas, in the passage before us, the ablution is ordinary, and its limited character best comports with what we know of the code of Pharisaism. Were it desirable to confirm our view by learned authorities, nothing would be easier than to adduce an array of accomplished scholars. But we forbear. The testimony of Grreek fathers is more to our purpose, as all are constrained to admit, that they knew the meaning of their own language. Now, from that unexceptionable quarter, we are sustained in understanding this washing before dinner of a limited or partial ablution. In expounding Luke xi. 38, Theophylact, as cited by President Beecher, not only substitutes Kocda^itpj for ^a'TrriZpj, which substitution does not, of course, touch the question of mode ; but also applies to the same ablution, the verb commonly appropriated to the mere washing of the hands and feet. " The use of v/Vrsc^a/," Beecher justly observes, " clearly denotes that Theo- phylact regarded the baptism expected of Jesus as a washing of the hands." See also Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar on the passage. That the limitation for which we contend rests on the established principles of language is manifest ; and that the sense assigned to ^K'XTiZpj is abundantly warranted, by New Testament NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 235 and patristic usage, will appear in the sequel with a force of evidence which we conceive calculated to carry rational conviction. II. Let us consider occurrences of (BccrriZcoy and its derivatives, which denote " the baptism of John," and of Jesus, and the intimately related baptism with the Holy Spirit. Whatever may have been the difference in design, or in general character, between the baptism administered by John, and that instituted by Jesus, these observances were alike distinguished by the external application of water. So far, therefore, as the outward rite is con- cerned, Scripture testimonies may be canvassed pro- miscuously, whether they relate to the ^preparatory ordinance, or denote the baptism enjoined in the Apostolic commission. Our examination of this part of the evidence may be prefaced with one or two state- ments, respecting the construction of the verb in the New Testament. — 1. The preposition g/?, with a word supposed to signify the baptizing element, forms the regimen of jSaTr/^o;, in one solitary occurrence. This singular fact cannot be regarded as unimportant ; for it may possibly indicate a peculiarity of usage, bearing more or less directly on the question of immersion. The unique exception, to which we refer, is found in Mark i. 9, " He was bap- tized of John in Jordan," — ll^wTrriffO/j dg rou 'lo^^ccvrjv. On this construction great stress has been laid, as if it 236 MODE OF BAPTISM. necessarily aflirmed that our lilessed Saviour toas dipped into the river of Israel. Now, suppose we admitted the affiimiation to be correct and scriptural, might not the admission operate somewhat dangerously to the bap- tismal interests of those who fancy they can read in it the triumph of theu* cause ? By the supposition, the force of the argument, in support of dipping, is derived from the construction of the verb with s/V, and the noun denoting the baptizing element. But as this construc- tion is absolutely confined to an individual occurrence in the Greek Scriptures, how is immersion to be sus- tained in the multitude of cases, from which this species of evidence is utterly excluded? This consideration shows, at least, how unsafe it would be for the Baptist to erect the passage in Mark into a main pillar of his biblical argument in favour of immersion. We are not disposed, however, to smTender to our opponents the preposition s/V, in this important testi- mony. Supported by the authority of New Testament usage, we maintain that in numerous constructions, several of them closely parallel to the example before us, ik is employed where motion is not indicated by the verb with which it stands connected, and where, there- fore, the rendering into, is totally incompatible with the existing syntax. Bruder, in his Concordance to the Greek Testament, enumerates not fewer than sixty-five instances of this construction, and among them he includes the text under discussion. The usage may be briefly illustrated. — ^Acts xxv. 15, Vivojikvov ii>ov hg 'h^oaokviMu, " When I was at, (not into) Jerusalem." Acts xxiii. 11, " For as — ^tn^jba^rv^co sic 'hgovaaXfjfii — NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 237 thou hast testified at Jerusalem, so must thou hear witness also, zlg 'V^ijjriv, at Rome." — Acts xxi. 13, "I am ready — ccxo&avziv zlg 'h^ovaaX^iJu, to die at Jerusalem." — John xxi. 4, '^ Jesus — gVr>? stg rov cclyiccXov, stood on the shore." — Luke xxi. 37, " At night, — )]vXiZ&ro zlg ro o^og TO Kockov(i>ivov 'YXocioJv, he abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives." — John ix. 7, " Go — v/^^a/ dg T^v KoXv^jj^Tj^^av rov ^tXcoa^j, wash in the pool of SUoam." We see little ground for dissatisfaction with Dr. Carson's mode of explaming instances of this class, particularly as it serves rather to confirm than invali- date the conclusion which we believe to be founded in truth. Many of his remarks, on the meaning of the Greek prepositions, are conceived in the best spirit of a judicious and enlightened criticism, and they elucidate general principles, which are essential to the right inter- pretation of language. Having, in the present instance, quoted Matthiae^ as stating that "• various verbs which, of themselves, do not imply motion, receive this sense, by the construction with g/?," he thus proceeds to develop what he considers to be a more accurate and philoso- phical view. — " I agi-ee with Matthiae as to the fact ; I differ from him as to its philosophy. * * * ^ij doctrine is, that the motion is implied in a verb which is understood, and is not properly communicated to a verb that has no motion in itself. It is absurb to sup- pose that the same verb can designate both rest and motion. It is impossible both to stand and move at the same time. What I say is, when zlg is construed with a verb in which there is no motion, there is always a 238 MODE OF BAPTISM. verb of motion understood, and which is not expressed, because it is necessarily suggested." Though the writer styles this his doctrine, and seems to introduce it as a novelty; yet we find the knowledge of it to be happily not uncommon among Greek scholars, whose works have been a considerable time before the learned world. Hemsterhusius stated it in a note on the Plutus of Aristophanes, v. 1169, and illustrated his meaning by a parallel example from another Greek ^vriter. Krebs not only applied the principle to the interpretation of Mark i. 9, but classed this particular use of dg, instead of h, among the more elegant constructions of the language. It is also found in some of the best lexicons; and among other critical authorities, Winer in his Idioms of the New Testament, and Fritzsche in his Commentary on Mark, employ it in expounding the passage under consideration. Apart, however, from the fancy of its originality, let us inquire what purpose can be served by the applica- tion of this principle to the controversy respecting the mode of baptism. The blind man was commanded by our Saviour to wash, zlg, into the pool of Siloam; that is, when we supply the verb of motion, to go into the pool, and wash there. The effect of this construction the Baptist should gravely ponder. That it separates the preposition from the verb denoting to wash, and connects it with the verb of motion understood, is self- evident. We cannot say, " Go into the pool, and wash into it ; for that form of expression would create anew the very difficulty which our criticism had manfully annihilated. Whatever action, therefore, the verb wash NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 239 is used to designate, must be performed in the pool, not into the pool. The preposition into being wholly appro- priated by the implied verb of motion, the sense of the passage, no less than the grammatical principle, impe- riously forbids the connexion of the same preposition with tvash. To join it with both would \dolate the canon, and produce a case of philological bigamy. No critic, in fact, could defend such a connexion without either abandoning the very principle on which the pro- posed construction is founded, or involving himself in an infinite series of supplied verbs of motion. The bearing of the principle on Mark i. 9, now solicits oui' attention. We have seen that some of the most learned interpreters, such as Krebs, Winer, and Fritzsche, consider this text to be a case in point. Whether Dr. Carson's view entirely coincides with theii^s, appears somewhat doubtful, as he has advanced two views, which are not particularly consistent with each other. " Jesus," he says, " was baptized into Jordan. This shows not only that the action of the verb was performed in the water, but that the perform- ance of it was a putting of the baptized person into the water." Again, he says, " The account of the Evangelist not merely asserts that Jesus went into the water, but that, when in the water, he was baptized or immersed into it." Of these statements, the former connects the preposition into with haptized; the latter supplies a verb of motion before baptized, and joins the preposition successively with both, thus compelling it to do double duty ! Against this flagrant error in sjnitax we enter our protest. The author palpably \dolates the 240 MODE OF BAPTISM. principle which he had imposingly laid down as his doctrine," and illustrated at some length. According to this doctrine, the preposition belongs to a previous verb of motion understood; and Dr. Carson so employs it when he represents the evangelist as asserting, " that Jesus ivent into the water." Thus the preposition dg, separated from i^a'7rria&7^, and joined to a preceding verb, is finally disposed of. But our author, as if he had effected no such separation, again very complacently construes the same preposition with g/3 a-rr/o-^;?, in order to prove that the baptism was into Jordan ! The simple record of such philology forms its exposure and refuta- tion. With either verb the preposition may be legiti- mately connected; but to use it with both, especially in the teeth of Carson's own doctrine, is preposterous, and indefensible. Fritzche's construction of the verse is obnoxious to censure on the same ground, and hence it does not call for a separate exposure. The conclusion, then, is irresistible, that in Mark i. 9, the introduction of a verb of motion, immediately connected with the preposition, has the inevitable effect of eliminating from the diction of the New Testament, the only instance it contains of jSa-rr/^jy, followed by dg, and the accusative of the term denoting the baptizing element. Admit Dr. Carson's principle, and haiMsm into the Jordan is neither Scriptural nor practicable. — Admit it, and Mark i. 9, as a boasted testimony to immersion is silenced for ever. Having discussed the structure and general import of this passage, we are reminded, by its reference to Jordan, of the necessity of noticing a popular objection. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. ' 241 which has more weight with some minds than the most potent argument. If baptism might have been administered by sprinkling or affusion, why, it is demanded by our opponents, did John select a river as an appropriate place for observing the ordinance? What account can l)e honestly given of the people, — of our blessed Lord, — repairing to the Jordan, unless the baptism, to which they submitted, was by immersion? Is there no hesitancy — no mis- giving of conscience^ with respect to the sufficiency of the answer which sprinkling or affusion can return to these plain inquiries? — Might we not demand, on the other hand, why the blind man was sent to the pool of Siloam to wash? Was so large a collection of water necessary to supply a few drops for his eyes? Is con- science satisfied with the sufficiency of the answer which represents him as going to a pool, in order to perform so trifling and partial an ablution? Yet we are certain, from the recorded facts, and from the use of vi'xroj, that this washing was confined to a very small part of the body. Hence it is apparent that the mere circumstance of an ablution being performed in a pool, or river, or even in the ocean, is inadequate to identify that ablu- tion with the act of immersion. Another fact, connected Avith ceremonial washings, deserves to be considered. Both among the heathen and the Jews, rivers were resorted to for purposes of purification; because running water, especially in warm countries, obtained a merited preference over that which was stagnant. Nor were the people commonly satisfied to receive the water of the river at a distance ; — they R 242 MODE OF BAPTISM. drew near to the living stream. " Thus those admitted into the lesser or introductory mysteries of Eleusis were previously purified on the banks of the Ilissus, by water heing poured upon them by the Udranos." They went to the river, and still there was no immersion. Under the Mosaic economy, also, the use of running- water was enjoined for various purifications, both by bathing and sprinkling; and in such institutions com- mon-sense and divine appointment manifestly go hand in hand. Those who are solicitous to search into the motives by which learned men suppose John to have been prompted in selecting the Jordan as one of his baptism-stations, are referred to Lampe's Commentariiis Anali/tico-Exegeticus Evangelii Secundum Joannem, Tom. I., pp. 427, 428. It must not be forgotten, however, that New Testament baptism was far more frequently administered in localities where there existed no large streams, or collections of water, to afford facilities for immersion. Indeed, the argument of our opponents on this point, as has been hinted, and shall be shown, is more popular than solid; and in their fervid appeals to Jordan and Aenon, logic is often drowned in declama- tion. 2. The prevalent, if not exclusive, New Testament regimen presents ^aTrriZco, followed by the dative, with or without a preposition. The same construction we found in the Greek classics, where, however, it occurs with less frequency. We shall examine the character of the syntax closely, having first submitted a few examples.-^-Mat. iii. 3, " I indeed baptize you — h vhan — with water: ... he shall baptize you — h TInvfjtjccri NEW TESTxVMENT EVIDENCE. 243 oi.'yicij Koci Tiu^i- — with the Holy Ghost, and with fire P The same regimen occurs in Mark i. 8, " I indeed have baptized you with tvater: but he shall baptize you ivith the Holy Ghosts See also John i. 26, 31, 33. In Luke iii. 16, Acts i. 5, and xi. 16, u^ar/, without the preposi- tion, forms the regimen of the verb denoting the act of baptism. That in these and similar instances, \v should be rendered m, is maintained by the Baptists; while the opponents of exclusive immersion muster an array of parallels, supported by a strong force of critical disquisition, in defence of the doctrine that this regi- men is what grammarians call the dative of instrument. Our views on the point may be distinctly conveyed, by taking the passage first cited, and unfolding its meaning in the light of those facts and circumstances with which it holds the most intimate relations. Mat. iii. 11, embraces John's baptism with water, and that of Jesus with the Holy Spirit. In contrast with the authorized version of the text, which has been already given, we place the rendering adopted by Dr. CampbeU, as foUows : — " I indeed baptize you in water : ... he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." The question to be solved is now apparent. Did the evangelist intend to convey the idea of immersion in water and in the Spirit; or the idea of baptism with water and with the Spirit? Is mode necessarily involved in the language: or does the character of the ordinance consist with variety of administration? Admitting that Dr. Campbell's rendering exhibits no violation of Greek syntax, we unhesitatingly claim for that of the autho- rized version, at least an equal correspondence with the 244 MODE OF BAPTISM. laws of the Greek language. It would, indeed, be waste of time to prove, by examples, that Greek, whether Classical or Hellenistic, most frequently employs the dative, with or without the preposition h, to denote instrumentality. Regarded under a different aspect, that part of John's statement which is prophetic, brings before us certain Scripture connections, calculated to open up an impor- tant vein of thought. " Jesus shall baptize you," said his illustrious forerunner, " with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Of this prophecy, the pen of inspiration has happily recorded the fulfilment, thus enabling us to ascertain definitively, whether or not baptism with the Spirit exemplifies the mode of immersion. Our blessed Lord solemnly assured his disciples (Acts i. 5), that this baptism should take place not many days after his ascension, thus repeating the promise, and preparing their minds for its great Pentecostal fulfilment. These things being so, we found on the divine record of this memorable transaction, the following proposition : — That on the day of Pentecost, there was Baptism, BUT NO Immersion. — Acts ii. 1-4, " And when the day of Pentecost was fuUy come, they were aU "with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them : and they were all fiUed with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." The efforts of Immersionists to detect dipping in this transaction, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 245 which is universally recognised as the Spirit's baptism, have produced some curious specimens of biblical inter- pretation. By the ablest of our opponents, it is alleged that, on the day of Pentecost, the disciples were dipped into the emblems of the Spirit: — and while the extrac- tion of this sense from the sacred narrative demands some expository ingenuity, the subjoined remarks will show that this indispensable commodity has not been wanting. Dr. Carson affirms explicitly, that " on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit''' " The disciples," he further informs us, " were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire ! " In a similar strain of remark, he speaks of " the wind descending to fill the house that the disciples might be baptized in it." And again, " they were surrounded by the wind, and covered by the fire above. They were, therefore, bm^ied in wind and fire." When we reflect on the character of the acute author, these expressions appear to us among the most extraordinary we have ever encountered. Only think of a man covered with the appearance of wind ! Is there a particle of meaning in the language? But this does not form our main objection. When Dr. Carson represents the wind as descending to fill the house, apart altogether from the philosophy of the case, we would gladly learn the Scrip- ture authority for such representation. Does the Bible state that the house was fiUed with wind? Is the sacred penman responsible for the airy baptisterium, which Immersionist genius has constructed? We reply with an unfaltering negative. 246 MODE OF BAPTISM. (1.) The passage supplies no ground for the assertion that the house was filled with wind, nor is the existence of wind, on the occasion, in evidence. " Sonus venti vehementis,'' says Lightfoot, in his IIo7\ Heh. in Ad., " sed absque vento : sic etiam linguae igneae, sed absque igne." The evangelist simply affirms that there was a sound — MO'TTi^ — as of a rushing mighty wind; and that the sound (for so the structure determines, see Kuinol^, and Olshausen, in loc), filled the apartment where the disciples were assembled. He, therefore, stands pledged merely for the fact of the sound, and the circumstance of its similarity to the utterance of the tempest, without implying that there was in reality any atmospheric commotion, or consequently any filling of the house with wind. On this text the Baptist can make out no case for dipping, on the ground occupied by his modern leader; or if he will persist in immersing the disciples in Pentecostal wind, he mu.st first provide that element, a solitary breath of which, so far as we learn from Scripture, never entered the chamber in which baptism with the Spirit was administered. Whe- ther, on the authority of this construction, a more adventurous polemic may undertake the defence of a " real baptism," in sound and fire, must be left to the fiiture revelations of the controversy. (2.) Immersion-baptism is not supported even by Dr. Carson's exposition of this text. There was, he maintains, a " real baptism ; " while he also admits in terms, that there was " no dipping." How singular the admission from a writer, many of whose best days were spent in asserting, against all opposition, that NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 247 (BwTTritfif means dip, and nothing hit dip! Well, it is comfortable for the Psedobaptist to think, amid the scorn so liberally poured upon his system, that, in the judgment of Dr. Carson himself, there may be a real baptism, where there is no dipping or immersion. Indeed, we could scarcely conceive of a testimony more forcible, as against identifying immersion with baptism. The disciples having come together, the wind, if you will, and fire, as emblems of the Spirit, entered the place of their assemblage; and thus was administered that heavenly baptism which had been predicted successively by John and by our Sa\iour. The emblems came upon the disciples ; the disciples were not dipped into the emblems. " Their baptism," says Carson, " consisted in being totally surrounded with the wind, not in the manner in which the wind came;" and we take leave to add, certainly not in the manner in which the disciples came — ^into contact with the wind. If language have meaning, here is a baptism without regard to manner or mode, and admitted to be so by an author whose funda- mental position is, that " ^ci'tctiQ*) never expresses any thing hut modeV An attempt is made to reconcile these contradictions, by alleging that, in reference to the Pentecostal effusion, the term baptism is used in a catachrestic or figurative acceptation. But does not this virtually abandon the dogma of a "real baptism" in the emblems of the Holy Spirit ? — and where is the consistency of presenting for our acceptance a reality on one page, and on the next disappointing us by trans- forming the reality into a catachresis, a figure of speech ? This procedure we pronounce extraordinarj^ and unjus- 248 MODE OF BAPTISM. tifiable. It leaves on our mind the impression that figure has been summoned to the rescue of fact, because a real immersion is found incompatible with Dr. Carson's own exposition. (3.) The correct interpretation discovers in the pas- sage only one emblem of the Spirit, and thus completely explodes Dr. Carson's catachrestic immersion. That the place was filled with wind, is an unscriptural and groundless fancy; — that it was filled with a certain sound is clearly expressive of the means by which God attracted the attention of the disciples to the approach of the miraculous blessing. When the Lord makes himself known in the way of supernatural disclosure, the manifestation is commonly preceded by some prepar- atory circumstances of an impressive character. Thus, in the wondrous epiphany made to Elijah in the cave at Mount Horeb, wind, and earthquake, and fire succes- sively went before that " still small voice," in which the prophet reverently recognised the immediate presence of deity. In like manner, a sound as of the rushing tempest precedes the appearance of those tongues of fire, in which every man instantly perceives the appro- priate emblem of that wonderful gift of tongues, by which the Spirit qualified the commissioned Apostles for the evangelization of the world. The sound was preparatory ; the divided tongues, as of fire, constituted the significant emblem. On this ground, then, we dispose of the last vestige of a catachrestic immersion ; while we reiterate Dr. Carson's statement and admission, that there was a " real haptism,''' though there was " no dipping.^'' NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 249 (4.) The strength of the argument against exclusive immersion, derived from the Pentecostal baptism, admits of fuller development. We are charged by Dr. Carson with confounding things that differ, when we call the outpouring of the Spirit a baptism; and though the charge remains unproved, he has attempted to explain it. " Water," he says, " is poured out into a vessel in order to have things put into it. But the pouring out of the water, and the application of the water so poured out are different things. Water is poured into a bath in order to immerse the feet or the body, but the immer- sion is not the pouring. Now^ our opponents confound these two things. Because the Spirit is said to be poured out in order to the baptism of the Spirit, they groundlessly conclude that the pouring is the haptismP Such are the positions taken by Dr. Carson, and that they are utterly indefensible we are prepared to show, by the evidence of Scripture, respecting the baptism of the Spirit. Let the following remarks be duly weighed. — {a) The Pentecostal baptism does not exemplify the two operations of pouring and immersion. Water, we are told, is poured into a vessel, in order that the body may be wholly or partially dipped. This process we can understand, — the two parts of which it consists are clear as a sunbeam. But on the day of Pentecost we encounter only one part of the process, while the other is not merely omitted in the narrative, but cannot be reconciled with the recorded facts. The Holy Spiiit descends in a peculiarly instructive emblem, and the disciples are baptized in the apartment where they had assembled. What is the mode of this baptism? We 250 MODE OF BAPTISM. are charged with confounding things that differ, — with failing to discriminate between pouring and immersion. But in this instance, where is the immersion ? What- ever may have been the emblems of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they descended upon the disciples ; — the disciples were not dipped into them. Water is poured out in order to immersion ; but the Spirit was poured out as a baptism, and not in order to immersion. It is easy to perceive what process would have realised the Baptist view of this solemn transaction. The emblems of the Spirit must have fii'st filled the apart- ment, as the water is poured into the vessel ; and then the disciples must have been let down into this bap- tizing element, as the body is dipped into the poured out water. Now, the day of Pentecost exhibits the descent^ or the pouring, — for both terms are applied to it, — ^while we search in vain for the immersion. The part of the operation which consists in pouring presents itself to every eye ; will our opponents be good enough to produce the part which consists in immersion ? God testifies to the descent of the emblems of the Spirit upon the disciples ; but God has not testified to the immersion of the disciples into the emblems of the Spirit. The former, therefore, we receive as the testi- mony of God ; the latter we repudiate as the groundless teaching of man. We believe in Pentecostal baptism, as the fulfilment of the prediction uttered by John, and reiterated by Jesus ; we reject Pentecostal immersion, because there was " no dipping," and nothing, in fact, which can be tortured into an act of immersion. {h) Other Scripture allusions to pouring or affusion, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 251 as the Spirit's baptism, leave no room for immersion. This baptism is introduced in Acts ii. 16, 17, as the fulfilment of the prediction by Joel; — "In the last days, saith God, I wiU pour out of my Spirit upon aU flesh." In V. 33, the same blessing is said to be shed forth, or poured out, by the Saviour then exalted at the right hand of God. Chap. x. 45, represents the gift of the Holy Ghost as " poured out on the Gentiles ;" and when the Holy Ghost /e^^ on the Gentiles, xi. 16, Peter remembered " the word of the Lord, how that he said, Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost T Let us now ascertain whether the pouring, mentioned in these testimonies, corresponds with Dr. Carson's view of the Spirit's baptism. " Water," says he, " is poured into a bath in order to iaimerse the feet or the body." But what saith the Scripture ? Is the Spirit emble- matically poured into some receptacle, in order that the candidates for baptism may be immersed in his influences ? On the contrary, the baptizing element is uniformly represented as poured out upon the object to be baptized. "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all fleshP " On the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Spirit is not poured out in order to immersion ; but the Spirit is poured out directly on the objects to be benefited by his gracious influences. The pouring takes place under circumstances which leave no room for immersion. Dr. Carson imagines a process, for which the Scripture affords no warrant, when he distin- guishes the pouring from the baptism. There is not, and there cannot be, an immersion into the poured out emblems of the Spirit, simply because these emblems 252 MODE OF BAPTISM. are poured out upon the parties who receive the Spirit's baptism. Here, therefore, is a baptism administered by pouring, in such circumstances as utterly preclude the possibility of dipping. (c) Our reasoning is not disturbed by the fact, that the agency of the Spirit is represented under a variety of emblems. As a dove, he is said to alight ; as dew, he is said to distil ; as water, he is said to be pom^ed out or sprinkled, and so on. Now, we are challenged to produce a reason for applying to baptism any one of these modes in preference to another. Why not baptize by some process resembling the gentle distillation of the dew, or the flight of the dove, and its alighting on its chosen perch? Our answer is at hand. We reject the mode of gentle distillation, because the appointed element in baptism is not dew ; we adopt the mode of pouring or sprinkling, because the appointed element is water. This mode, however, we do not advocate on the principle that it symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit ; for we entirely agree with Dr. Carson, that an emblem of an emblem is opposed to the laws of lan- guage. Our view is simple, and we apprehend, will not be easily overthrown. The emblematical outpouring of the Spirit upon the subject is the Spirit's baptism ; why not, on the same principle, recognise the outpour- ing of water upon the subject as water baptism ? The Spirit, we may be told, accommodates himself to the emblem ; but this does not affect the reality of baptism by pouring : — and indeed we are aware of no Baptist argument powerful enough to dislodge us from our posi- tion. Dr. Carson affirms that the Spirit was poured out, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 253 in order that the disciples might be immersed ; but the Scripture informs us that the Spirit was poured out upon the disciples, — thus holding forth to all ages the solemn act of baptism without immersion. (J) Pentecostal baptism teaches authoritatively the great lesson that immersion is not of the essence of the ordinance. On the day of Pentecost, God exemplified a " real baptism ;" but there was " no dipping." This baptism, most dignified in itself, and most momentous to the interests of the Church, the Great Head of Zion took under his own immediate superintendence. Why, then, did not he who possesses all power, administer the 7'eal haptism with the emblems of the Spirit, by a real dipping into the emblems of the Spirit ? However we may account for it, the fact is undeniable. One reason appears to be, that in the eye of infinite wisdom, the Christian Church, at the very hour of her nativity, needed an impressive lesson against the encroaching tendency of modes and forms. The day of Pentecost bore witness to God's estimate of the necessity immer- sion in baptism. It told the disciples, it tells the world, that Jesus Christ fulfilled his promise to baptize with the Holy Spirit, by an observance in which the act of dipping had neither lot nor part, and mode of any kind occupied a very subordinate position. The lesson thus taught we are not disposed to confine to one deno- mination of Christians. Were any sect to advocate pouring or sprinkling, as the exclusive mode, and to identify it mth the essence of baptism, we should regard that sect as embracing views equally limited and erroneous with the creed of those who are inces- 254 MODE OF BAPTISM. santly ringing in our ears the oracular dictum, that baptism is immersion, and nothing but immersion is baptism. 3. We request attention to some additional circum- stances, calculated to illustrate the construction of ^wTTTiZfo with the dative. Every one feels that there is a marked difference between dipping in water, and baptizing with water. The former refers to a definite mode, which is one and unalterable ; the latter, while it brings before us a certain religious ordinance, is manifestly compatible with diversity of administration. That the exegesis which cannot bind the ordinance to modal exclusiveness, is sustained by the Spirit's bap- tism, has been demonstrated in our preceding inquiries. Now, it is a fact that the record of water baptism presents exactly the same construction; — (ou'Trri^n/ h TTvevfjijccrt, I baptise with the Spirit, being the one formula; and (^K-TTTiZiif h vhcx,ri, I baptize with water, the other. Professor Stuart is very decided with respect to the import of this construction. " When the dative^" he observes, " is used after the verb, either with or without a preposition, the expression does not designate the manner of the baptism, but only the kind of element by which this baptism is effected." And again, with the exception of Mark i. 9, " We may say, in all other cases in the New Testament, the mode of baptism is left undetermined by the original Grreek, so far as the language itself is concerned, unless it is necessarily implied by the word ^ocTrritco ; for in aU other cases, only the element by which, not the mode in which, bap- tism is performed, is designated by the sacred writers." NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 255 Having already examined so fully what is implied in ^ocTTTtt^aj, we consider it superfluous to renew that part of the investigation. We firmly reiterate the conclu- sion, to which a variety of decisive examples has conducted us, to the effect, that the verb is employed with a latitude of meaning which forbids us to force the sense of dipping upon a reluctant construction. To baptize with water is both sense and grammar; to dip with water would be regarded as barbarous or unmeaning. This remark enables us to perceive how far Baptist writers are supported in their appeal, on behalf of dipping, to the German translation of the Scriptures by Luther. The illustrious reformer, we admit, was prejudiced in favour of that mode of baptism, and expressed a desire for its adoption in the church which he had been the instrument of organizing. Under these circumstances, the construction which he deliber- ately sanctioned, furnishes a triumphant answer to those who found an argument for immersion on the German rendering of (BccTrrtZco. Tauffen, say our oppo- nents, means to dip, being as completely modal as the Greek verb of which it is the representative. This may be true ; but it is equally so, that the German word, like the English baptize, has acquired a greater latitude of application. This is shown by the connection in which Luther places the verb. His formula is — Tauffen mit tvasser, to baptize tvith, not in, water ; and thus, in defiance of his predilections in favour of dipping, his translation recognises the correct Greek construction. It may be stated, in passing, that this prince of Refor- mers did not insist on mode as essential to the ordi- 256 MODE OF BAPTISM. nance, and also that the Lutheran Church shared not the preference for immersion entertained by its distin- guished founder. 4. In the majority of New Testament baptisms, the probabilities are decidedly against administration by immersion. We feel, and shall endeavour to make it apparent, that in the instances of baptism recorded by evangelists and apostles, the hypothesis of exclusive immersion labours under serious, if not insurmountable, difficulties. To the magnitude of these difficulties, it is evident, Dr. Carson was not insensible ; but he held them to be of no avail in opposition to what he regarded as the uniform and accredited sense of /Sa^r/^^y. Con- vinced, as we are, on the other hand, that the verb is employed again and again where there is no dipping, and no possibility of dipj^ing, we distinctly maintain, not only that circumstantial evidence is admissible, but that it cannot be lawfully refused. The question of mode is an open one, and we hold the probabilities of the case entitled to a candid and dispassionate hearing. This position may expose us to obloquy. We may be charged with assailing an institution of our Lord, or impiously labouring to release conscience from Christian obligation. Instead of meeting such charges with protestations of innocence, good intention, and so forth, we simply state that we are producing another branch of the evidence, which goes to prove that, in regard to mode, the baptism of Scripture is less hide-bound than the baptism of our opponents. The chief points of probability, to which we would solicit attention, are connected with the places of New NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 257 Testament baptism, the circumstances of many to whom it was administered, and the great mimhers of the bap- tized. (1.) ThQ places in which the ordinance was dispensed throw formidable obstacles in the way of immersion. ]\Iaking every allowance for our own ignorance, and the silence of the sacred narrative, we conceive we have stUl materials here for the construction of a strong probability. Let the value of each cu'cumstance be fairly estimated, and let no argument, positive or pre- sumptive, be pressed a hair's breadth beyond the boun- daries of " truth and soberness." («) The argument for immersion founded on the places, has always appeared to us to be feebleness perso- nified. Yet that Baptists do allege this consideration in their own favom" is unquestionable. How stand the facts of Scripture history? Out of nine or ten localities specified in the New Testament, as the scenes of the administration of baptism, only two, Aenon and the Jordan, possessed a liberal supply of water. This fact will be found to grow in importance, the more it is pondered, especially in connection with the efforts of Baptist writers to turn it to the account of immersion. Had the Scripture instances uniformly associated the ordinance with "much water," or had this condition been realized in the majority of cases, their argument would have been plausible, if not convincing. But the divine record presents the reverse of all this. Much water is the exception, little water the rule. The ordi- nance could indeed be administered in the river Jordan, and at the many streams of Aenon ; but so simple was s 258 MODE OF BAPTISM. the rite, that its performance appears to have been equally convenient in a private house, a prison, or a desert. If, then, the volume of the Jordan is requisite to pour vigour into the Baptist argument for immer- sion, how sapless and feeble must that argument become, when its nutriment is drawn from the stinted supply of a prison, or the thu'sty soil of a wilderness? The very stress laid on the small minority of instances apparently favourable to immersion, certifies for the strength of the opposing view, which claims for its basis the decided and overwhelming majority. (b) In reading the New Testament, we are impressed with the perfect facility of administermg baptism in all variety of cii'cumstances. When residents in Jerusalem believe, they are instantly baptized. When inhabitants of Samaria turn to the Lord, tlicj are at once received into Christian fellowship by the same sacred rite. As the Apostles go from house to house, and travel from city to city, wherever there arc converts, baptism is administered promptly, and without any apparent incon- venience. To the universality of this statement, so far as we are aware, there exists no exception. Let the character and bearing of this general fact be candidl}^ estimated. Will truth permit the assumption that the cities and houses, within the range of Apostolic labour, were more copiously supplied with water, than cities and houses among ourselves at the present day ? Some ancient cities, we are aware, both Eastern and Western, could assert their superiority; but that the average supply was greater over the entire field of primitive evangelization, few will be disposed to affirm. If, then, NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 259 the matter were put to the test of experiment, would not the administration of baptism, by dipping, in numer- ous places and houses, be attended with difficulties almost insuperable ? Would it not, in many instances, be impracticable to immerse a convert instantly, and on the spot ? Yet, in New Testament baptisms^ the admin- istration, in every variety of scene and cii'cumstance, wears the appearance of the most perfect ease and convenience. It must be remembered, too, that during this early age, there were no houses of worship, no baptisteries, and, in a word, no ecclesiastical facilities for immersion. 2. The circumstances of many of the baptized appear totally inconsistent with the idea of immersion. A native of Judea resorts to the ministry of John the baptist, and conscience-stricken by the preaching of that faithful man, is prompted to join the ranks of his disciples. When he left his home, he had no more thought of baptism, than of undertaking a voyage round the world. It would be, therefore, preposterous to suppose that he had made any preparation for an observance, which could not possibly have entered into his previous calculations. Curiosity may have drawn him to the forerunner of Messiah; but before returning, he feels it a solemn duty to be baptized " in the name of him who was to come." The description does not present the case of a solitary individual — ^like a general term it embraces its tens of thousands. Now, on the hj'pothesis of immersion, we take leave to ask, were such parties dressed or undressed^ in submitting to the ordinance ? The question is a plain one, and should be 260 MODE OF BAPTISM. met with a plain answer. It suggests the only practic- able alternative, of baptism with their garments on, or baptism in a state of nudity ; for no one wUl imagine that the audience of John came to his ministrations, provided with the bathing dresses of modern Baptists. Let our opponents bring to the rescue of their system, from this matter-of-fact dilemma, a spirit of manly candor and Christian moderation. Dogmatism will not serve the purpose. Arising out of simple practical details, the difficulty cannot be removed by supercilious theorizing, or the lofty announcement of general prin- ciples and laws of phUology. The adverse cause does not gain in credibility, when we apply the same illustration to the public baptism of females. The modesty and retiring character of woman, as reflected in Eastern customs, must have forbidden the exposure of public immersion. From Lightfoot, on Mat. iii. 6, we learn that when Proselyte baptism was administered to a female, the Rabbis who rehearsed to her the precepts of the law, while she remained in the water, retired as she immersed her head, leaving her in sole charge of attendants of her own sex. She was not, in fact, baptized by the ministers of the Jewish sanctuary, — the hand of man was not permitted to press even her head beneath the water ; and hence such proselytes were said to have baptized themselves. Can we reconcile with the feelings of delicacy which dictated this course of extreme reserve, the supposition of men and women publicly, not to say promiscuously, submit- ting to baptism by immersion in the Jordan ? Do we not instinctively recoil from the idea of connecting a NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 261 practice so indecent, with the purest and most refined system of moral conduct ever promulgated to the world? If the difficulties of the case, as they will crowd on every reflective mind, are not insuperable, we ask, with all sincerity, how are they to be overcome ? Was immer- sion the mode? — were the females dipped in their ordinary garments ? — or how ? We know the administration of that ecclesiastical antiquity to which the immersionist so fondly appeals. The testimony of Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom, place it beyond controversy, to use the language of Stuart, " that all candidates for baptism, men, women, and infants, were completely divested of aU their garments, in order to be baptized," Having adduced, in detail, patristic evidence of the reality and prevalence of this revolting procedure, Stuart concludes in these words : — " Enough of this most unaccountable of all the practices of the ancient Church. I am ready to thank God, for the honour of the Christian religion, that the New Testament contains no intimation of such a usage ; nor even any of the earlier father's. How it was possible that it could prevail, is a problem of difficult solution." Yet, on the hypothesis that baptism was uniformly administered by immersion, the usage in question must have been often merely a choice of difficulties; as dipping, without divesting themselves of their garments, would, in many instances, have been an operation equally uncomfortable, and dangerous to health. 3. The large numbers to whom baptism was admin- istered must have rendered immersion difficult, if not 262 MODE OF BAPTISM. impracticable. This branch of the argument is ably sustained in Mr. Godwin's Christian Baptism, pp. 82, 83. The historical facts on which it rests, are mainly collected from the record of the administration of the ordinance by John the baptist. Though it is con- fessedly impossible to ascertain the exact number of persons, who embraced the doctrine, and submitted to the baptism, which John preached, yet that they con- stituted a great multitude is the invariable conviction of every reader of the Gospel narrative. In the interpretation of popular language, intended to convey a general idea, statements of an indefinite or apparently universal character, we admit, are not to be pushed to the full extent of their literal meaning. But, making due allowance for this principle, we are still satisfied that great masses of the people were contemplated in the affirmation that " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, were baptized by John." Whether — with Mr. Thorn, in his Modern Immersion not Christian Baptism, we estimate these masses at two millions, or content ourselves with a more moderate computation, it seems obvious that the rite was of very simple and easy performance. Mr. Godwin reduces the probable numbers of the baptized to three hundred thousand — an estimate sufficiently low — and yet shows that their immersion by one man must have covered a period of ten or twelve years, " supposing him to have been engaged every day in this laborious and unhealthy occupation." When we consider these numbers, coupled with the fact, that John's ministry lasted not more than a year, wc are forced to conclude that it would NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 263 have been physically impossible for him to administer baptism to " Jerusalem, all Judea, and the region round about Jordan." as it is administered by our modern immersionists. The baptism of three thousand in one day by the Apostles, must have appeared to Abraham Booth a very formidable difficulty, when he attempted its removal or mitigation, by the following singular parallels. — ^"Mr. John Fox informs us, that Austin the monk ' baptized and christened ten tJiousand Saxons, or Angles, in the West river, that is called Swale, beside York, on a Christmas day.'" Another instance from Robertson's Hislori) of South America. — " A single clergyman bap- tized in one day above five thousand Mexicans, and did not desist till he was so exhausted by fatigue, that he was imable to lift up his hands." These feats, however, were completely eclipsed by the dipping energies of Francis Xavier, among the Indians, who, if we may credit the testimony of Salmero, " baptized fifteen thou- sand in one day." To what order of mind, we ask, can these extravaganzas afford satisfaction ? The man who receives them will require no preparation for swallowing the absurd miracles performed by all the saints in the Romish calendar. Does Mr. Booth really mean to affirm that Xavier immersed with his own hands fifteen thousand in one day ? No ; for he does not credit the fable himself. Was it then warrantable to employ, for the removal of a difficulty arising out of Scripture truth, a mere legend, — a statement which the author mani- festly regarded as incredible ? It is not by such eluci- dations that Christian doctrine and ordinances can be 264 MODE OF BAl'TISM. cleared of obscurity, and commended to the acceptance of earnest and truth-loving minds. Booth's Mexican and Indian baptisms are exposed to another fatal objection. Unless administered by immer- sion, it is evident, they could not serve the author's purpose ; and in appealing to them, he plainly assumes that they were so administered. Now, what is the fact? These baptisms occurred under the agency of Rome, at a period when baptism by affusion prevailed almost universally in the Western Church; and as the mission- aries of Rome were not distinguished for imposing on their converts a burdensome ritual, we submit, that in these cases the hypothesis of immersion is utterly groundless. The difficulty, therefore, with regard to the multitude of the baptized, still remains a difficulty, which the immersiouist, so far as we can perceive, has discovered no practicable means of surmounting. We take leave of this section by simply reminding the reader that the argument against immersion, founded on 'places, circumstances, and numbers, is strictly cumula- tive, and must consequently be viewed as a whole, in order to comprehend its character, and feel its cogency. III. Figurative applications of joocxriZciJ, including strictures on the principles and reasonings of leading Baptist writers, in the interpretation of such passages as 1 Cor. X. 1, 2 ; and 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. We enter upon this part of the inquiry with the fullest admission, that, in ascertaining the meaning of NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 265 a term, it would be culpably unsafe to elevate mere figure into a standard, to which the literal sense is to be bent or accommodated. Tropical applications cannot legitimately lie at the basis of interpretation, much less supersede a meaning which is grammatically and historically established. This admission, however, does not warrant the infer- ence, that the province of figurative language is entirely subordinate and servile. A figure may serve to confirm the literal acceptation, where its evidence is defective ; and it is even competent to preserve and prove that acceptation. The character of figure sustains our state- ment. When we emplo}^ a term figuratively, the literal sense is recognised, not indeed as a reality addressed to the judgment, but as a picture intended for the ima- gination, and conveying the impression in a manner calculated at once to instruct and gratify. Thus, the term serpents, applied tropically by our Saviour to the Scribes and Pharisees, still retains its literal sense ; and it is this sense, in fact, which invests with significance, and force, and rhetorical beauty, the awful denunciation. The correctness of this view is instantly appreciable in the event of external objects furnishing the materials of our figured representations; but when the interpreter has to deal with actions, or with conceptions of the mind, conveyed through the medium of tropical lan- guage, the relation between letter and figure may not be so easily discernible. Not that we consider the difiiculty very perplexing. A moderate share of hermeneutical sJagacity, we are convinced, will suffice for eliciting from any example of figure, in whatever department it 266 MODE OF BAPTISM. may be found, the same implied recognition of the gram- matical sense as its foundation. On the general topic to which these observations refer, see Glassii Philologia Sacra, Vol. I. p. 813, ed. Dath. To reduce to modal unity the literal meaning of (owTrriZ^iso, we have shown to be an undertaking which no immersionist has hitherto been able to accomplish. Dipping has been proved to be too narrow for baptism, when both terms are expounded literally ; and we are now prepared to prove that this general conclusion holds in regard to tropical usage. We fearlessly carry into the region of figure the leading principles which have been established and exemplified in the field of fact. When the verb is constructed with the preposition g/V, and the word denoting the baptizing element, whether the occurrence is figured or literal, we freely admit that the formula indicates immersion. This construction in the literal sense, though rarely encountered either in the Classics, or New Testament, does yet exist, and may, therefore, constitute the basis of figurative usage. A pertinent instance is furnished by Clemens Alex- andrinus, when he speaks of drunkenness baptizing persons — zlg utpov — into sleep, — a figure the foundation of which is manifestly laid in the act of immersion. The peculiar relation of contact between an object and any baptizing element, which the verb expresses, may be secured in a variety of modes, from which that of immersion is by no means excluded ; and consequently the tropical application may select sometimes one, and sometimes another for its basis. Against the diversity here affirmed, our leading opponents manfully contend ; NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 267 but its existence is established by the following testi- monies, which we have endeavoured to classify according to their true affinities. 1. Baptism in the sense of overwhelming forms the literal basis of sundry figurative applications. We had occasion to notice this usage in the Septuagint render- ing of Isa. xxi. 4; and in the wi'itings of Plato; — and we now produce other examples in which the connection tends to render the fundamental idea clearer and more prominent. Chrysostom speaks of persons who were — 'TToKkdig TrKVTccy^o^iv ^wnrTiZp^zvoi 'Tr^wyiJjdrcov KV(jja,(Ti — " baptized by numerous waves of business from all quarters." The language presents a strong figure of easy comprehension. Our imaginations are pointed to the victim of hopeless toil, as a man overwhelmed by a formidable succession of billows. This ckcumstance of repetition, implied in the term ^y/ooao-;, we consider essential to the right understanding of the author's meaning. Had the effect been traced to a solitary wave, the Baptist might have argued that the expres- sion was intended to convey the idea of immersion into the deep by the force of the wave. But the exposure of the object to a succession of billows appears to pre- sent to the mind an image of a very different character. It is not dipping, but overwhelming, which is thus figuratively indicated. The waves sweeping on succes- sively administer the destructive baptism, and them- selves constitute the baptizing element. The case is one of overwhelming, and not of immersion. Accord- ingly, sound disinterested scholarship, both in the patristic and classical department, expounds the figure 268 MODE OF BAPTISM. on the principle to which we have referred. Thus, SuiCER in his Thesaurus, renders the passage, — " Nego- tiorum undis undiquaqiie obruti f and the same image is similarly rendered from the Greek by Ast, in his Lexicon Platonicimi. The meaning for which we contend will be brought out more distinctly, by canvassing an example from Plutarch's Treatise on Education. — " As plants," he observes, " are nourished by moderate, but choked by too copious watering; in like manner the mind is strengthened by labours commensurate with its powers, but — jSa-rr/^sra; — is baptized by such as are excessive." Br. Carson maintains against Ewing, that in the former part of this simile there is no allusion to pouring, as the customary mode of watering plants ; and he also affirms that the effect could be equally produced by dipping the plants in water, and allov/ing them to remain there. " The plants are injured," says he, " when water is sufiered to lie about them in too great abundance, in whatever way it has been applied." Supposing this view to be substantially correct, we ask, what is there to hinder its extension to the second part of Plutarch's fine image ? In the case of choking the plants, if the effect alone is contemplated in the figure, must we not, on the same principle, limit the representation to the effect alone, apart from all reference to mode, in the case of the baptism of the mental powers ? This is more than insinuated by Dr. Carson, when he states, that " the author compares the choking of a plant, or the extinction of vegetable life, to the choJcing, or the extinction of the mental powers."" Mode is here uncere- NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 269 moniously dismissed from both sides of the simile ; while the most superficial glance at the passage will suffice to discover, that the choking of the mental powers is not Plutarch's idea, but Dr. Carson's. A more important view of the figure seems to have escaped the acumen of this critic. By looking carefully into the passage, we perceive that the too copious watering sustains to the plants the same relation as the excessive labour to the mental faculties. The plants are choked by the watering; the mind is baptized by the labour. In the destruction of the plants the simile presents no element but water ; and in the baptism of the mental powers it records no agency but that of excessive labour. These points being accurately noted, we are prepared to inquire into the precise action which constituted the figurative baptism. The mind is hap- tized — v'TTo — hy too much labour : — but is it dipped or immersed? If so, there must be some other element expressed or understood, into which excessive toil immerses the mind. No such element, however, is expressed, and the mutual relations of the two parts of the simile do not appear to admit of its being under- stood,— the water being the sole element in the one instance, and in the other, the labour. Unless, there- fore, we fall into the absurdity of assuming that the excessive labour dips the mental powers into itself, we are manifestly shut up to the alternative of ovenvhelming. In this baptism the mind is not figured as immersed into any element ; but the element is figured as coming upon it or around it, so as to accomplish its destruction. Under this view, the simile exhibits some interesting 270 MODE OF BAPTISM. points of resemblance to the Pentecostal baptism, which consisted not in the immersion of the Apostles into the emblems of the Spirit, but in these emblems coming upon the Apostles in the upper room where they were assembled. By the line of observation now traversed, we are guided to a right understanding of many analogous examples. Chrysostom and Justin speak of baptism — VTTo [Jbidrig or [x>s0yi — h?/ drunkenness, — a figure which equally demands for its literal basis the sense of bein^ overiv helmed. To the tropical use of /SaTr/^ijy, to denote intoxication. Dr. Carson fancies he has discovered a complete parallel in the corresponding acceptation of the Latin Sepelio, as in Virgil's beautiful verse ; — Invadunt urbem somno vinoque sepultam. — " They attack the city buried in sleep and wine." But vTro (AO'/jg ^arriakig exhibits a construction which is inconsistent with the alleged parallelism, and cannot be rendered dipped in drunkenness, but evidently conveys the idea of being baptized (overwhelmed) by drunken- ness. Besides, learned controversialists should remem- ber that, whatever may be the comparative poverty of the Latin language, it possesses more than one figure for intoxication. Madidmn vino found among others in Plautus, and denoting moist or drenched with wine, con- veys an image which we hold to be more closely allied to the Greek — hito \jJi&ri<; ^ocTrritrdsig. The two figures are not, indeed, identical, the one presenting drunken- ness under the idea of an object thoroughly pervaded and moistened by a fluid, while the other, in order to NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 271 give vivid expression to the same thought, exhibits the fluid as overwhelming its unhappy victim. We refer of course to the same class, and are prepared to expound on the same principle, the figurative use of (iaxriZ^co, in relation to the oppressive or overwhelming burden of debts, taxes, and, indeed, of calamities in general. In effecting even an apparent reconciliation between this tropical usage and his favourite system, Dr. Carson is compelled to resort to a considerable variety of terms, such as plunge^ immerse^ hury^ and especially sink, which last often performs a very import- ant part in keeping his theory afloat. As for plain dip, even his critical powers seem to have despaired of carry- ing it through the varied phases and applications of a figurative baptism. 2. Christian antiquity makes us acquainted mth a figm'ative use of baptism, founded on the literal sense of pouring or affusion. To what extent this usage may involve departure from the radical, or even ordinary meaning of the verb, is not the question, — the inter- preter being concerned with the simple reality as it is found in ancient documents. An example, furnishing the rare combination of the proper with the tropical, has already come under our consideration, in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to the aspect under which it is contemplated, the Pentecostal baptism is a figure, or a reality. Viewed in relation to the emblems of the Spirit, it is a " real baptism," as Dr. Carson himsehf maintains ; — and this baptism we have proved to be by affusion. Viewed in relation to the Spirit personally, it is a figurative baptism ; and affusion, as we have shown, 272 MODE OF BAPTISM. forms the foundation of the figure. From baptism with the emblems of the Spirit (Acts i. 5 ; ii. 1-3,) immer- sion was utterly excluded ; yet that transaction chal- lenges our regards as the most exalted and effective baptism which it is competent for God to administer, or for man to receive, on the terms of the covenant of redemption. In the patristic enumeration of baptisms, we find two which clearly belong to the figurative department, the one designated a baptism by blood, the other by tears. The baptism by blood the fathers regard as exemplified in the sufierings and death of our Saviour, and in the early martyrdoms of Christianity. With this accepta- tion the term occurs in Mark x. 38, "Are ye able to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" Also in Luke xii. 50, "I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished ! " What is the mode of this baptism ? That exposure to crushing calamities is often represented under the figure of sinldng in deep waters, of descending into " pits and darksome caves," we are fully aware ; and the Bible is perfectly familiar with this species of terrible imagery. It is possible, therefore, that the baptism of blood and martyrdom may not so entirely exclude the idea of immersion, as some writers have imagined. In endea- vouring to reach the foundation of the figure, and comprehend the principle upon which it should be interpreted, we shall confidently avail ourselves of the lights of Christian antiquity. The fathers, as on most other points, vary in their explanations of the baptism by blood. In the instance NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 273 of our Saviour, the great majority appear to regard it as receiving the name of baptism from the efficacy of his death, to accomplish a spiritual washing or purifica- tion. Theophylact on Mat. xx. 22, and Mark x. 38, says, " Christ calls his cross or his death a baptism, because it purifies us all, or purges away our sin." Chrysostom observes, in Horn. LXXY., that, " as the baptized are washed with water, so the martyred are washed with their own blood." These extracts indicate what seems to have been the prevailing view, and they are highly important in guiding to a correct knowledge of the baptism by blood. Patristic literature, it is obvious, did not generally associate this baptism with the idea of sinking in distress and death. It was an image altogether different which the language presented to the mind of early Christianity ; and hence we should be slow to adopt the Baptist interpretation of the figure, contrary to the understanding of wiiters to whom Greek with all its imagery and peculiarities was vernacular. We have admitted that the testimony of the fathers on this point is not uniform ; but that cii'cumstance, be it remembered, cannot affect our reasonings, though it must prove fatal to the views of those who maintain that (iccTTTtZiij, through all its occurrences, literal and figurative, denotes nothing but immersion. Another testimony of Chrysostom, from the same Homily (LXXV.) will more fully illustrate this figura- tive baptism in its general bearing. "Wonder not," says he, " that I call martyrdom a baptism, for there also the Spirit descends in rich abundance, and there is the remission of sins, and an amazing and incredible T 274 MODE OF BAPTISM. purification of soul." In this language the baptism by blood is associated, not with the idea of sinking in cala- mity, much less with any effect produced by the literal shedding of blood, — but directly with the abundant gifts of the Spirit, and with pardon and purification. In effect, it seems to contain a tacit allusion to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, in that great emblematical manifestation, by which the infant Church was so divinely refreshed and invigorated. It may be questioned whether some of the fathers do not understand literally the baptism by blood, as denoting the effusion of the martyr's blood upon his own person. Thus, Cyril of Jerusalem, as cited by Dr. HaUey, says, — " The Saviour, when his side was pierced, poured forth blood and water, because in times of peace men Avould be baptized with water, in times of persecution luith their own hlooclP As a literal baptism, this is self-evidently incompatible with immersion. Dr. Carson holds it to be an impossibility in fact, and an absurdity in speech, to dip a lake in the blood of a frog; and the attempt to immerse a man in his own blood would on trial prove equally unsuccessful. Yet, the Greek fathers must have used language which was perfectly intelligible and proper, when they spoke, as frequently they did, of the martyr being baptized with his own blood. The majority of such allusions we hold to be tropical ; but in some instances it appears difficult to assign satisfactory reasons for departure from the literal exegesis. Baptism by tears is another figure well known in the church of the fathers, and its import demands from us NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 275 only a passing notice. No one conversant with patristic language will be disposed to harbom^ the idea that this baptism was intended to convey the extravagant image of a penitent immersed in his own tears. " The sprinkling of clean water," spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, is repeatedly applied to baptism, by Theodoret, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and others ; — will any Baptist on this ground essay the identification of sprinkling with immersion ? The accomplishment of the enterprise will involve a Hermeneutical miracle; yet it may be boldly undertaken by the author who has " made full proof" of his competency to extract dipping from the baptism by tears. 3. Our attention is solicited by the evidence con- tained in 1 Cor. x. 1,2; " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The character of Israel's baptism on this occasion is still contested, some alleging it to be an instance of figure, while others argue for the literal interpretation. Without figure the cause of our oppo- nents is indefensible, inasmuch as there was no real immersion of the tribes in cloud and sea; yet some Baptist authors are valorous enough not to shrink from the letter of the Apostle's declaration. In his recent work on Christian Disciplesliip and Baptism, in reply to Dr. HaUe}^, by the Kev. Charles Stovel of London, the writer holds language which is inconsistent with a figu- rative exegesis. " When the nation," says Mr. Stovel, p. 70, " was baptized, initiated into Moses, being 276 MODE OF BAPTISM, immersed in cloud and sea, they entered under an authority, the exercise of which was destined to secure the glory of the God to whom they were subject." As a specimen of sacred Hermeneutics, this comment pre- sents a very unfavourable view of the author's acquain- tance with language, and of his powers of discriminati-on. He first identifies the baptism of the text with initiation into Moses ; and next he proceeds to apply it in the same occurrence to a supposed immersion in cloud and sea ! No sound interpreter will need to be told that this is most unwarrantable. In expounding the term baptised, Mr. Stovel may make his election between initiated and immersed ; but to represent ^wrri^co as standing for both, and doing two-fold duty in the same instance, is arbitrary and apocryphal. It is disowned by the canon of interpretation. Still the dexterity of the author is not altogether causeless : for had he honestly announced to us that the fathers of the Jewish church were dipped into 3Ioses, in cloud and sea, the doctrine would scarcely have gone down even with the most resolute immersionist. Besides, the expression, " immersed in cloud and sea," which he appears mani- festly to employ in a literal sense, is in direct anta- gonism to the record of facts in the book of Exodus. It is not true that the Israelitish fathers were im- mersed in cloud and sea, and hence this part of the exposition, destitute of a historic basis, is groundless or fanciful. Dr. Carson's comment on the passage evinces, as may be expected, more learning and acumen ; yet it bristles with inconsistencies which we defy mortal ingenuity to NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 277 reconcile. We learn from him that Israel's passage through the Red Sea " is figuratively called a baptism," while he subsequently asserts that " it was a real immersion," and even undertakes to specify the ele- ments and actions which composed the strange reality. Now, if it was a real immersion, and if, as the author stiffly maintains, immersion and baptism are synony- mous, it follows demonstrably that it was a real haptism. Again, Dr. Carson affirms that the passage through the sea is figuratively called baptism, because of " external similarity " to the Christian ordinance, and " because it serves the like purpose," and " figures the same event." But if it constituted of itself a real baptism, apart fi:om all foreign considerations, why should it be compelled to borrow that name from an institution of the New Testament ? As a real immersion, it is entitled, on the ground of its own intrinsic character, to demand the designation of baptism ; and, therefore, it will not con- sent to become a mendicant at the door of Christianity, for that which is its own inherent and inalienable right. 'Baptism and dipping, however, maugre all the strong affirmations to the contrary, are not always identified by our opponents ; nay, are sometimes as emphatically distinguished from each other, as the most devoted advocate of sprinkling or affusion could desire. When Dr. Carson informs us that " the Israelites, by being under the cloud, and passing through the sea, were baptized into Moses," is it not obvious that he uses the term baptized in an appropriated acceptation, of which dip or immerse does not form the true exponent ? Let the substitution be tried ; — " The Israelites, by being 278 MODE OF BAPTISM. under tlie cloud, &c., were dipped into Moses f^ — and will not common discernment instantly recognise the wide difference between these two expressions of pre- tended identity ? Dr. Carson's attempt to give the Israelites a real dip at the Red Sea is more amusing in itself than compat- ible with the facts of Scriptui-e history. " The sea," he says, " stood on each side^, and the cloud covered them." From what source he derived this piece of intelligence we know not ; but in vain have we searched for it in the ^v^itings of Moses and Paul. The former represents the pillar of cloud as behind the Israelites during their whole passage through the sea, its dark frown fixed on the pursuing Egyptians ; and though Paul asserts that the fathers were under the cloud, he is not pledged to the gloss that this occurred simul- taneously with then* passing through the sea. Dr. Carson's view of this baptism is, in fact, a conceit for which there exists no foundation either in the Pentateuch or the Epistle. He admits, indeed, that " it was not a literal immersion in water ; " but the admission is one which no disputant who understands his business will accept. The Red Sea baptism ivas not a literal immersion in any thing, — it was no immersion at all. The fathers of the Jewish Church were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; but the recorded facts of the case stand insuperably and for ever opposed to the hypothesis of their immersion. Dr. Wardlaw, animadverting on the Baptist view of this passage, had expressed surprise at the idea of " a dry baptism;" — to which Dr. Carson replied, "Be NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 279 patient, Dr. Wardlaw : was not the Pentecost baptism a dry baptism?" The reply is unworthy of a sound and critical thinker. The Pentecost transaction was a dry baptism, because tongues as of fire, and the sound as of rushing wind — the emblems employed in its administration — were dry. But if the Israelites had a real baptism in the sea, there would have been no dryness there. Still more unfortunate is this author's attempt at illustrating Israel's national baptism by an alleged parallel from Campbell's Ode on the battle of Hohenlin- den. The poet sings — Few, few shall part where many meet; The snow shall be their winding-sheet. " Would any Goth," cries the Doctor, " object that the snow cannot be a winding-sheet, because it does not wind round the whole body of the dying soldier ? And is he not a Goth who says that the Israelites could not be buiied or immersed in the sea, because they were not covered with the water ?" Fearless of hard names from tongue or pen, we feel bound to stamp this as one of the least judicious specimens of criticism, sacred or profane, which it has been our lot to encounter. Are the pencillings of Thomas Campbell's fancy to be placed on a level with the eternal verities of the word of God ? Is the lyrical conversion of snow into a winding-sheet to be accepted as a parallel to the solemnly recorded fact of Israel's baptism in the cloud and in the sea? Had the poet, with all the gravity of an old Chronicler, informed his readers that the slain " on Linden" were all buried in winding-sheets, the announcement would 280 MODE OF BAPTISM. have doubtless startled many a lover of the marvellous ; and if whetted curiosity had afterwards discovered that these winding-sheets were formed of snow-drifts, all, except Goths, must have felt marvellously edified by so pure a specimen of the sublime. The truth is, that Campbell's pleasing fiction is wholly uncongenial to the weighty fact contained in the narrative of Paul; — the Hohenlinden winding-sheet supplying either to Goth or Greek, no elucidation whatever of the Red Sea baptism. In Scripture exegesis, we do not object to figured parallels borrowed from the poetry of ancient or modern times. Far be it from us to place under bann the beautiful models of classic antiquity — ^those exquisite developments of Greek and Roman mind. ■ Nor would we interdict judicious reference to any branch of that splendid imagery which has grown up in unpruned luxuriance under an Eastern sky. These are fountains which must remain unsealed ; while, at the same time, care should be taken that they send healthy streams through the region of biblical exposition. Still we should consider it singular, were an interpreter of Scripture to find his richest harvest of illustration in the field of literary fiction, — were Homer, Virgil, or the modern poets to honour largely his drafts on their stock of parallels, while the great masters in history, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy, and those who now wear their mantles, appeared in a condition bordering on literary bankruptcy. This state of things we could, however, fully appreciate, if with De Wette, we believed the Pentateuch to be the great epic poem of the Hebrew nation ! NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 281 It is difficult to ascertain the precise physical action, which took place in the baptism of Israel at the Red Sea. There was no immersion in the waters of the sea, nor any dipping in the cloud. There was no immer- sion, properly so called, in any baptizing element what- ever, yet there was a real baptism; for the Spirit of God explicitly and solemnly testifies " that all our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the Sea." With the view to rescue their system from the difli- culty in which this passage involves it, our opponents commonly resort to figure, which some of them employ in a manner closely corresponding to Semler's principle of accommodation. Booth, for instance, maintains that " the term baptized is here used merely by way of allusion," and that- " as the allusive acceptation of a word should never be made the standard of its literal and proper sense, it must be very incongruous to pro- duce this passage in favour of sprinkling." What does Mr. Booth mean by his ^'^ allusive acceptation?" Does he mean to charge the Apostle with accommodating the Red Sea transaction to the conceptions of baptized Christians, by the use of a term which was not legiti- mately or correctly applicable ? It may be replied that the worthy author simply intended to represent the baptism in cloud and sea, as symbolical of the initiatory rite of the Christian Church. But this by no means removes the difficulty. If Israel's baptism pointed out typically the Christian ordinance, that circumstance cannot be regarded as denuding the type of the charac- ter and reality predicated of it by the Apostle. When the fathers " did eat manna in the wilderness," the act 282 MODE OF BAPTISM. symbolized the participation of spiritual blessings ; but its use as a symbol did not convert the eating of the manna into an unreal, imaginative process. It was still eating. Just so with the baptism at the Red Sea. That it formed a type or exhibited a figure of New Testament baptism, may be admitted, without in the slightest degree, affecting its own character as an ordi- nance administered to the Israelitish nation, under circumstances peculiarly impressive. Whatever the transaction may be employed to symbolize, it remains a solemn fact, attested b}'^ the Apostle, that " our fathers were haptized in the cloud and in the sea," — and a solemn fact, sustained by Moses, that they were not immersed in the cloud and in the sea. The view which we consider best entitled to recep- tion does not identify the passage of Israel through the sea with their baptism. The Apostle does not identify these two events ; but he distinctly intimates that the baptism in the sea took place during the passage, while his language assigns no specific date to their baptism in the cloud. That sea and cloud were somehow both concerned in this national solemnity the clear declara- tion of Scripture constrains us to believe. How then was the baptism administered? To those (and we confess ourselves of their number) who point out spray and rain as the probable agencies employed, Dr. Carson replies, — " This is quite arbitrary ; for there is nothing said about rain from the cloud, or spray from the sea. It is not in evidence that any such things existed." This statement is incorrect on a point of the highest importance. We have, indeed, no positive evidence for NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 283 the existence of spray ; but from Psalm Ixxvii. 16, we learn that, on this very occasion, " the clouds poured out water," a declaration which makes sure of the existence of rain. And as to spray, though the inspired penmen are silent, yet the " strong east wind," the " trembling earth," and the " troubled depths," afford indubitable presumptions of its existence. Indeed, the thunderstorm, the existence of which is in evidence, would to a certainty produce the spray, whose existence is doubted or denied ; and thus the agencies of cloud and sea may have combined in this great baptism. Whether this account, which we put forward as the most probable, be embraced or rejected, the great facts of the transaction remain fixed and unalterable. Israel's baptism in the cloud was no dipping in the cloud ; — Israel's baptism in the sea was no immersion in the sea. There was, indeed, an immersion on this awful occasion ; but it was confined exclusively to the host of Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen, which " sank as lead in the mighty waters." The next passage claiming our attention is 1 Peter iii. 20, 21, in which the sacred writer, referring to Noah's ark, says, — " Wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water. The like figure, whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- science toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." In the original, baptism is styled the avrirv- xog, corresponding in its efiects to the preservation of Noah and his family, which thus occupies by implication the place of the rv'?rog or type. How is immersion to 284 MODE OF BAPTISM. be extracted from this language? Does the passage contemplate any resemblance whatever between the mode of Noah's preservation by water^ and the mode of Christian baptism with water? In the sacred records generally, is the relation between type and antitype of a character so clear and definite, that in regard to the particular example before us, the actions to which these terms are respectively applied, do necessarily exhibit modal correspondence? He must be a bold expositor who will undertake to found the supposed necessity upon the usus loquendi, as ascertained by the most extensive induction : and if there is no general principle to rule the case, it simply remains for the interpreter to ascertain the meaning, under the guidance of the ordinary laws of exegesis. That the safety extended to Noah and his family by water, typified the salvation of the Christian by the baptism of the text, is evidently the substance of the Apostolic statement. In both instances, there is deliv- erance, and both employ the instrumentality of water. These are indisputable points of resemblance ; and they abundantly warrant the application of the terms type and antit}qDe. Our opponents, however, are strong for modal similarity. " What ! " exclaims Dr. Carson, " Noah not immersed, when buiied in the waters of the flood ? Are there no bounds to perverseness ? " Such sentiments are singularly extravagant, as weU as unfounded. The fancy of a modern may dij) Noah in the waters of the deluge; — it may paint his immersion and burial, as the ark floated gallantly on a shoreless ocean. Very different is the picture presented in God's word. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 285 The Apostle speaks of Noah as saved hy tvater, not immersed in loater. There was burial, indeed, and there was immersion, but not for Noah and his family. Noah and his family formed the merciful and solitary excep- tions to the immersion and burial of the antediluvian world. Had the Apostle traced an analogy between baptism and the drowning of the ungodly, with what triumph our opponents would have founded upon that analogy their doctrine of exclusive immersion. But when baptism takes for its tj^Q, not the destruction of mankind at large, but the safety of Noah, then are they forced to help themselves out of a difficulty, by recourse to figures and fancies designed to meet the exigency of the case. Where do the Scriptures speak of Noah's immersion in water? Nowhere. The patriarch was saved by water — not by immersion in water, but by a divinely appointed means for preventmg his immer- sion. Besides, had mode been prominent before the mind of the Apostle, in his reference to the flood, and to Christian baptism, we should have expected mode to influence his subjoined explanatory statement. When, for instance, he speaks of haptism noiv saving us, had mode stood as high with him as it does with our opponents, he would have necessarily added, " Not the dipping into water," &c. — Whereas his exegetical words are, " Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," thus evincing, in the clearest manner, that liis whole train of association in the passage contemplated merely the cleansing properties of water, as symbolizing spiritual purification. 286 MODE OF BAPTISM. rV. Refutation of some of the leading objections of the Immersionists. Burial with Christ by baptism into his death, as referred to in Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; and Colos. ii. 12, is not unfrequently paraded as a triumphant attestation to the necessity of dipping. We give the words from the authorized version. — " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by bap- tism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." — " Bmied with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with kirn through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The image conveyed in this language is full of meaning and impressiveness ; and, therefore, its alleged inconsistency with any mode, except immer- sion, the more imperatively demands for the passage a thorough critical examination. There are two points of a prehminary nature, to one of which we are prepared to do justice by a spontaneous admission ; while for the other we take leave to claim from the Baptist a thorough and equitable consideration. 1. We admit that, on the strength of these passages, the Greek and Latin fathers, very generally regarded baptism as a scenic representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. To produce citations is superfluous. We make the admission on broad and comprehensive grounds, embracing testimonies of early Christian wiiters, both in the Eastern and Western world. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 287 But to do justice to the subject, we must assign our reasons for attaching little weight to this piece of patristic interpretation. It is well known that in the ages of Christian antiquity, emblem and allegory knew no bounds. Not satisfied with detecting in baptism a symbolical exhibition of bm-ial, the good fathers founded on the supposed frequentative sense of (SaTr/^^y, the practice of tiine immersion, which they variously un- riddled, some referring it to the three days during which Christ lay in the grave, others to the three persons of the adorable Trinity, Were proof of this necessar}^, we might appeal to the writings of Chrysos- tom, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, and many others. In process of time, every circum- stance connected with baptism formed a symbol. The candidate entered the baptistery by three steps. His descent symbolized the renunciation of the devil, the world, and the flesh; his ascent, by the same steps, represented his recognition of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Eph. iv. 22, 24, and Colos. iii. 9, 10, the symbolist discovered another baptismal figure. The simple act of the candidate m undressing for bap- tism denoted tJie piiUing off of the old man; and after the administration of the ordinance, he was supplied with a new dress of white raiment, in token of jmUing on the neiv man, and as a type of the celestial robe of fine linen. This abnormal tendency to multiply and complicate sjnnbols of baptism, we confess, we view with gi-ave suspicion and distrust ; and that, in the case before us, it subjects patristic authority to an enormous discount, 288 MODE OF BAPTISM. will not be generally disputed. For the knowledge of Greek terms and constructions we are content to sit at the feet of the Greek fathers; but when they pour out the treasures of a too exuberant fancy in the exegesis or creation of figures and emblems, as interpreters we must exercise the privilege of seeking for ourselves " a more excellent way." 2. We entreat Immersionists to consider well the grounds on which they hold baptism to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of our Saviour. To the mere circumstance that no trace of this symbol is found except in two detached passages, we attach no import- ance ; for with us one explicit declaration of the God of truth is equivalent to a thousand. But we do consider it strange that if baptism had for its leading object the emblematic representation of Christ's burial, that momentous fact should never once enter into the direct teachings of Scripture upon the subject. We peruse the great baptismal commission, we ransack the various examples of its execution by Apostles and their coad- jutors; yet in no instance does the divine record breathe a syllable of that scenic exhibition, which enters so largely and essentially into the conceptions of our oppo- nents. On the contrary, the momentous disclosure, if it comes out at all, comes out incidentally in the writ- ings of the Apostle, under the form of an indirect and highly figurative allusion to the ordinance. But the advocate of symbolic burial in baptism must grapple with other and greater difficulties. When we examine the plain language of Scripture, its staple dis- closures point out the ordinance as a figure of spiritual NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 289 washing or i^urification. " It appears to me very evi- dent," says Wardlaw, " that the emblematic significance of baptism is to be found in the purifying nature of the element employed in it, — in the cleansing virtue of water. Almost every instance in wliich the ordinance is spoken of, or alluded to, with any intimation of its meaning, might be adduced in proof of this. The following passages are but a specimen of many : Acts xxii. 16, ^ And now why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and ivash aivay thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Eph. v. 25, 26, ' Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water, through the word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.' In this latter passage, spiritual purification is no doubt intended ; but it contains such an allusion to the ordinance of baptism with water, as leads us to conclude that this spiritual purification is what it is designed principal!}'- to repre- sent.— A similar aUusion there seems to be in Tit. iii. 5, ' Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' " — Inf. Baptism, p. 154. That these passages contain a fair representation of the teachings of Scripture, on the great design of bap- tism, will not be denied. The fact stands out with instructive prominence on the pages of revelation. If, then, spiritual washing is the leading thought symbol- ized in water baptism, is it not extremely difficult to 290 MODE OF BAPTISM. reconcile this view with the representation of the same ordinance under the emblem of a burial? ^'If we attempt," says Halley, "to unite them, we have before us the ludicrous image of a man washing in a grave, or djdng in a bath." We do not now assert that the two emblems, though betraying features of striking incon- gruity, are absolutely incompatible ; because our remarks being preparatory to the interpretation of the contested figure, we dare not employ a priori considerations, however weighty, to prejudge the testimony of the Spiiit of God. In our mind the case stands simply thus :— the emblematic view of baptism, which has for its basis spiritual cleansing, is established by Scripture testimonies at once pertinent and copious ; while the main design of the ordinance under this aspect does not limit its administration to any particular mode. On the other hand, our opponents put forward, with an obtrusiveness and frequency which are certainly unscrip- tural, another emblematic view which assimilates bap- tism to burial, and cannot, they aver, be realized unless by immersion. Whether their favourite emblem is supported by sufficient evidence, it is our present busi- ness to determine ; and in prosecuting the inquiry it will be requisite to sift the character of the alleged symbolic representation. In R-om. vi. 3, the Apostle says, " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." What are we to understand by haptism into Jesus Christ? This point may seem simple or irrele- vant, and it has been often overlooked in the discus- sion ; yet we believe it to be so vitally important that NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 291 a correct answer to the question must regulate and control the interpretation of the entire passage. 1. We observe, then, that there is no emblem what- ever indicated when the Apostle speaks of baptism into Christ. Whether, with Vitringa, we understand the words "^into Christ," as denoting — into the acknowledge- ment of Christ, or with Tholuck, — into participation in Christ, or with Haldane, — into oneness zvith Christ, or with others, including Wardlaw, and probably Carson, — into the faith of Christ, — stiU in none of its patronized or possible varieties is the import symbolically pre- sented in baptism. Haldane has indeed asserted that oneness with Christ " is represented emblematically by baptism;" but the assertion stands alone, unattended alike by evidence or illustration. In our baptism into Christ, where is the emblem of oneness with Christ? Were we even to adopt the uncouth phraseology of immersion into Christ, or dipping into Christ, still no foundation would be laid for the symbol of alleged unity, inasmuch as the object immersed is not regarded as one with the element into which it is immersed. The Israelites were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, but their baptism furnished no emblematic representation of oneness with Moses. The forerunner of Messiah baptized multitudes into repentance ; — was this baptism an emblem of the oneness of these multitudes with repentance ? In like manner, when we are said to be baptized into Jesus Christ, oiu' baptism is the public recognition and seal of relationship to him ; but of that relationship it does not, and, we apprehend, cannot present a symbolic exhibition. 292 MODE OF BAPTISM. 2. Baptism into Chrisfs death can never be fairly construed into an emblem of the death of our Saviour. " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, vrere baptized into his deaths Our baptism, according to Mr. Maclean, is to be regarded as " exhibiting the death, hurial, and resurrection of Christ." This, indeed, forms the current language of the Baptist school. It is expressive of one of the distinguishing tenets of their system, and accordingly every successive defence of their views reiterates the dogma that baptism exhibits symbolically the death of Christ. The assertion may impose upon the unthinking, but a little sound reflection will serve to detect the fallacies from which it derives its plausibility. That some palpable resemblance must exist between an object or action, and the symbol by which it is represented is the dictate of common sense. This condition appears to be indispensable to the very exist- ence of symbol. If the resemblance is not apparent, the symbol has been injudiciously selected ; and when there is no resemblance, we have, properly speaking, no symbol at aU.. Let these principles be wisely and conscientiously applied to the case under review. In baptism by immersion our opponents profess to have discovered a symbol of the death of Jesus Christ. We respectfully ask them to point out the resemblance without which the figure cannot exist. The death which Jesus " accomplished at Jerusalem " was upon the cross, lifted up between heaven and earth. The rite by which it is proposed to symbolize that death is the dipping of a believer into water ! mode being con- NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 293 sidered equally essential to the ordinance and to the symbol. Where is the resemblance? Let Baptists unfold it, if they can. Had the antitype presented an instance of death by drowning, the pretended emblem would have evinced an obvious and impressive corre- spondence ; but what extravagance of fancy will venture to trace in dipping such a similarity to death hj cruci- fixion^ as may constitute the basis of an intelligible emblem ? Will it be alleged, as a forlorn hope, that the suffer- ings of Christ are compared to floods, which ingulf and drown their unhappy victim, and that the Scrip- tures expressly speak of these sufferings as " a baptism wherewith he was to be baptized?" The objection will not emanate from any one who has learned even the A, B, c, of figurative language. Employed to denote the sufferings of Christ, baptism is itself a figure ; and we must not fall into the absurdity of converting it into the figure of a figure ! This point Dr. Carson has " settled for ever with all sober men ; " and yet without some tropical or other doubling^ the discovery of modal resemblance between baptism and the death of Christ will not, we predict, reward the hermeneutical labours of the Immersionist. Still, baptism into Christ's death is no fiction, but an all important truth, the character of which we shall presently have an opportunity of disclosing. 3. When we are said to be buried with Christ by baptism into his death, baptism is not to be interpreted as the symbol of burial. " Therefore," says the Apostle, V. 4, " we are buried with him by baptism into death," 294 MODE OF BAPTISM. that is, " into his death," as Stuart has correctly rendered it, and ably sustained the rendering in his Commentary. The relation of this verse to what precedes, and the mutual connection of fact and argument in the passage, have not, so far as we are aware, been placed in the truest or most advantageous light. As a great funda- mental fact, the Apostle states, that when we were baptized into Jesus Christ we were baptized into his death. Then follows the assertion, that " we were buried with him," on which Baptists lay the greatest stress, and which is often placed before the public as if it formed a distinct and conspicuous part of the symbolic process. If their representations are correct, the emblem must be three-fold, embracing death, hurial, and resurrection ; and unless they emblematically bury a living man, death should precede burial, as bui'ial precedes resurrection. But finding this order of suc- cession impracticable, they mix up and confound death and burial, under the common emblem of immer- sion. The symbolic exegesis, thus briefly noticed, we must bring to the touchstone of Apostolic reasoning. " We were baptized," says Paul, '^' into Christ's death. There- fore we were buried with him by baptism into his death." Is the line of argument here obscure or intri- cate ? The Apostle affirms the fact of our baptism into Christ's death, and thence draws the conclusion that by baptism into his death, we are buried with him. — See Olshausen, Fritzsche, and especially Krehl, — on Romans. — Burial with Christ, therefore, is not introduced as an additional fact or circumstance in the baptismal process; NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 295 but appears in the shape of a logical result from what had been previously established. The great fact of the passage is baptism into Christ's death, which does not admit of being symbolized by immersion; and grounded on the fact, is the momentous conclusion, that in this baptism we are " joined unto the Lord" in his burial and resurrection. From union with Christ in death, union with him in the grave follows by legitimate and necessary deduction. In the economy of redemption the death of Christ, — the unparalleled event of the Bible and of the universe — is so inseparably connected with his burial, that those who are spiritually united to him in death, must be spiritually united to him in the grave ; and whatever recognises our communion with Christ in his death, necessarily involves the recognition of our communion with him in his burial. The connection of the reasoning, however, forces us somewhat farther. Baptism into Christ's death, accord- ing to the plain tenor of the passage, may be considered as placing the baptized party with Christ in his tomb. "We are buried with him hj hajotism into Ms death;'''' not by baptism into his grave. But baptism into his death, as we have shown, presents no symbolic repre- sentation of the death of Christ. Now, if the modal resemblance, indispensable to symbol, is by the neces- sity of the case, excluded from baptism into Christ's death, is it not preposterous to look for it in our burial with Christ, which is simply the conclusion drawn from our baptism into his death ? If the main fact presents no emblem to our minds, why should an emblem be considered essential in the mere point of inference or 296 MODE OF BAPTISM. deduction? We demand a warrant, founded on the laws either of sound sense, or philosophical rhetoric, for tracing, in a logical conclusion, a modal emblem, of which there exists no vestige whatever in the pre- mises. This train of reflection seems to issue in the elabora- tion of a general principle of some intrinsic value, and calculated to bring about the adjustment of several points in this part of the controversy. The principle is, that hajjtism acknoivledges and seeds more than it symbolizes ; or, in other words, various tt^iiths recognised in this ordinance do not form the subject of emblematic representation. Without travelling beyond the range of the Apostolic commission, we can evince and illus- trate the soundness of this principle. The command to the primitive heralds of Christianity was, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here is a momentous revelation of deity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the faith of which we are baptized ; but of the truths thus disclosed baptism furnishes no symbolic exhibition. Mr. Stovel explains the construction of the text, ^ocTrriZ^uv slg, by " initiation," involving " subjection to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." But what- ever may be its meaning, the passage presents a deci- sive instance of truths acknowledged and sealed, though not symbolized in baptism. The principle constitutes an efficient safeguard against the tendency of patristic Hermeneutics to enlarge absurdly the territory of alle- gory and emblem. We are baptized into the faith and NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 297 recognition of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but of this the ordinance cannot pretend to contain any modal resemblance ; and on the same principle, when we are baptized into the faith of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, why should we imagine a necessity for modal resemblance ? In both cases great and invaluable truths are acknowledged, but not symbolized, in bap- tism. The principle cannot be controverted; and we claim the passages in Romans and Colossians, as legiti- mate instances of its application. These views derive strong collateral support from the following canon, stated and defended by Mr. Stovel, in the appendix to his work on Christian Discipleship and Baptism. " The cases in which (s/g) into occur," says this zealous Baptist, " have all, in the New Testament, a reference to the action performed by the person baptized." Let us look at Rom. vi. 3, 4, in the light of the Stovel canon of interpretation, " So many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death ; " that is, on Mr. Stovel's principle, " were baptized in water, entering into Christ's death." — " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death : " — in other words, " by entering into Christ's death, on the occasion of our baptism in water, we are buried mth him." It is not baptism in water, as the act of the administrator, that buries us with Christ, but our own entrance into his death, as is clear both from the nature of the principle, and the scope of the passage. This exposition cuts for ever the alleged symbolic connection between the mode of the ordinance and the burial of Christ. " They were immersed," 298 MODE OP BAPTISM. says this writer " (entering) into Christ, and such persons must have entered ^ into his death.' " It follows, say we, that the entrance and the haptism are distinct acts, performed by different parties ; while the former alone is available for bringing us into contact with the death and burial of Christ. Mode as a symbol is thus unceremoniously dismissed by high Baptist authority : for so far as this point is concerned, whether " they were immersed,^'' or sprhikled, " entering into Christ," the use of water is necessarily bereft of all emblematic significance. When the faith of the candi- date enters into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, on Mr. Stovel's principle, the application of water, in any mode whatever, will equally fulfil all the conditions required by the Apostle's argument and illustration. 4. The symbolic view of these passages is untenable, on grounds acknowledged and triumphantly defended by Dr. Carson. In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, reference was had to a great principle, on which this author justly places firm reliance, and which we take leave to state in his own words. " Baptism cannot be either pouring or dipping, for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance of the Holy Spirit ; for there is no such likeness. Pouring of the Spirit is a phrase which is itself a figure, not a reality to be repre- sented by a figiu^e." — On Baptism, p. 107. From the principle, thus briefly indicated, it is clear that the author's doctrine recognises, in the case of every figure, the necessity of a proximate foundation in fact or reality; and we shall discover that it takes a much NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 299 wider range than he seems to have contemplated when he applied it to the symbolizing of the Spirit's opera- tions. Whatever is of the nature of reality, and especially of reality cognizable by the senses, will admit of emble- matic representation ; and, on the other hand, whatever is itself a figure, we are bound to regard as incapable of such representation. Let the principle be faithfully applied to Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Colos. ii. 12. " Baptism," says Dr. Carson, " is a figure of the burial and resurrec- tion of Christ, which may be represented by natural things, because it{?) respects the objects of sense." But is not this statement of what baptism, in these verses, symbolizes, if it symbolize any thing, chargeable with gross partiality or unpardonable incorrectness? From Genesis to the Apocalypse there is not a solitary passage of Scripture, which at all warrants the assertion that baptism " is a figure of the burial and resurrection of Christ." The language of the Apostle, in these two Epistles, affords it no countenance whatever, as we shall endeavour to demonstrate. " To be baptized into Christ's death," Dr. Carson correctly observes, " is not merely to be baptized into the faith of his death, but of our own death with Mm." The same remark applies with equal force to Christ's burial and resurrection, when we are " baptized into Christ's death," " buried with him by baptism into his death," and raised again, the plain meaning is, that in the economy of redemption we are regarded as dead, buried, and risen with Christ, — and that baptism points to this intimate and wonderful connection. It is not simply the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that 300 MODE OF BAPTISM. are set forth in the ordinance ; but it is complexly our death, burial, and resurrection together ivith him. The burial and resurrection of Christ might be doubtless made the subject of symbolic exhibition. But that is not the point. If baptism be designed to furnish a modal emblem of burial and resurrection at all, it must he of the burial and resur?^ectwn of its subjects with Jesus Chjnst. That Christ was literally buried, and raised again, we of course admit ; but unless we were literally buried and raised again with him, that united burial and resurrection, on Dr. Carson's own principle, cannot be made the subject of emblematic representation. But our burial with Christ is manifestly a figure, not a literal reality ; and hence it follows irresistibly, that without introducing the figure of a figure, it is incap- able of being emblematically represented in baptism. " Sprinkling," observes Dr. Carson, " cannot be an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; because the blood of Christ is not literally sprinkled on the believer." Immersion, he might have added, cannot be an emblem of the believer's burial with Christ, because the believer is not literaUy bmied with Christ. As Dr. Halley has well observed, " the argu- ments on both sides for symbolizing modes of spiritual things must rise or fall together." With playful, but not groundless, severity, he subjoins, — " I am glad to have the authority of Dr. Carson, that this point is settled for ever with all sober men. How he contrives to make himself an exception, I do not surmise." Having admitted that the mass of interpreters, espe- cially among the ancients, expound symbolically the NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 301 passages in Romans and Colossians, relating to baptism, we think it right to refer to some standard authorities on the other side of the question. We do not allude to treatises on Piedobaptism, such as those of Vossius, Williams, and Wardlaw. We point rather to the inter- esting fact, that Professors Stuart of Andover, and Hodge of Princeton, the most critical commentators on Romans in the English language, are decidedly opposed to the views of the Immersionists. The exposition by Olshausen will repay a careful perusal. He appears to occupy intermediate ground, not adopting fully the symbolic exegesis, and yet not discarding the principle on which it is founded. With him, however, baptism is the figm-e of a figure ; and thus far his views are manifestly untenable. For an admirable comment on both passages, and particularly on the verse from Colos- sians, we refer to Calvin on the New Testament. 5. In the last place, we shall state briefly what we deem to be the amount of Apostolic disclosure, respect- ing the symbolic character of baptism. It cannot, we think, be doubted that the use of water in the ordi- nance exliibits emblematically the fact and the necessity of spiritual purification. " The washing of the believer in the blood of Chiist," Dr. Carson asserts, " is figura- tively represented by the water in baptism." The language is inaccurate, as it makes baptism the repre- sentation of a figure ; yet it suggests the great emblem about which all are agreed. Having previously explained the common use of this emblem in Scripture, we consider it superfluous to add a syllable, by way of proof or elucidation of the fact. But it is worthy of notice, that 302 MODE OF BAPTISM. the character of this figure fits it for general comprehen- sion, and for easy transfusion into all languages. The cleansing properties of water are known and acknow- ledged over the world ; and hence the use of water as a symbol of purification is universally intelligible and appropriate. That a similar commendation could not with truth be bestowed upon immersion, as an emblem of burial, must be conceded by all who have made themselves acquainted with the variety of modes, which sepulture has assumed in the history of different nations. Bmial is commonly associated in our minds with the act of loivering the mortal remains into the grave ; and to this accidental circumstance our opponents are largely indebted for the plausibility attaching to immersion as an emblem of interment. But how does the emblem apply to the bmial of Jesus, whose body was not lotvered, but raised to its resting place ? What would be its meaning, in the language of a people who considered burial and burning to be synonymous terms ? Can dipping sym- bolize cremation with its attendant last offices ? Other modes of burial, according to our conceptions, far more singular, have prevailed in different countries ; — some of them still less reconcilable, even by the aid of a rich fancy, with the favourite emblem of the Immer- sionists. Suppose, however, that burial in all cases supplied the modal resemblance essential to the alleged symbol, the Baptist would still have to essay the removal of another great difficulty. The Lord is a God of order, not of confusion ; and the fruit of this precious truth is NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 303 reaped in all the arrangements and institutions of our holy religion. He is confessedly the author of symbolic washing in baptism ; and that is one reason why he is not the author of symbolic burial in baptism. The washing of baptism, our minds instantly feel, cannot coalesce with the corruption of burial. The two emblems appear to us incapable of being united in the same act. With the Jew this difficulty would be greatly more formidable, inasmuch as the very touch of a gTave induced such ceremonial defilement as demanded a prescribed process of cleansing. But the difficulty is not peculiar to Jews or Gentiles ; — it is the difficulty of the human mind in all lands and ages — ^the difficulty of bringing together, under one symbol, heterogeneous and conflicting elements. We are not trenching on the province of the Bible ; for we have already shown that its autliority cannot he fairly pleaded for mailing haptism the joint symbol of luasliing and interment. How much more satisfactory, then, and, as we contend, more scrip- tural too, in dealing with the external rite, to hold to the symbol of cleansing, and to expound as truths recognised, but not symbolized in baptism, our relations to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with kindred doctrines and their implied obligations. On this simple principle, which has been sufficiently developed, all appears clear and unobjectionable ; while the neglect of it necessarily introduces confusion and incongruity into the symbolic acceptation of baptism. Passing to another point, we observe that some Baptist writers object to the sprinkling or pouring of 304 MODE OF BAPTISM. pure water, as an emblem of spiritual cleansing. This small objection was advancedj with ludicrous pomposity, in the American Debate on Baptism, between Rice and Campbell, in 1843. — " In my rich resources of evi- dence," says Campbell, " and in my exuberant liberality, I feel disposed just at this point, to tender to my friend Mr. R,., another universal proposition." After some additional remarks in this ornate strain, he continues ; — " I affirm, then, that all the sprinJclings and pourings of the law from Moses to Christ, required something more than water to effect any legal ceremonial, or typical cleansing Hence the addition of blood, or its substitute, the ashes of a blood-red heifer, was essential to every purgation in which water was sprinkled." — Debate, p. 150. This discover?/, which Campbell intro- duces with sound of sackbut, is thus commented on by Williams, in his work on Antip8edobaj)tism, which appeared in 1789. — " The trite and frivolous objection, ^ that there was no rite under the Mosaic economy which enjoined the sprinkling of pure tvater,^ hardly deserves an answer. For we have no dispute about the nature of the element; this the records of the New Testament fix without controversy : our analogical allu- sion, therefore, is not to the purifying liquid, whether water, pure or mixed, or blood, or oil, &c., but to the mode of application." — Vol. II. p. 80. The clean water which God promises to sprinkle upon his people, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25,) Mr. CampbeU understands of the water of ceremonial purification; and the view is sustained by some authorities. The other side, however, we hold to be better supported ; but it is unnecessary to enter into NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 305 the discussion. Gesenius, iu his Thesaurus, applies the phrase to common water free from physical impurities ; and this must be undoubtedly its meaning, if the pre- diction contemplates any religious observance under the Christian dispensation — unless this American Baptist can extract from the writings of evangelists and apostles some latent sanction for making Jioly ivater, by the addition of purifying ingredients to the element as we receive it from the limpid fountain. Water unmixed forms a perfect symbol of the blood of Christ; while water was combined with sacrificial blood under a less spiritual economy; and to the former the prophet mani- festly alluded. By preceding inquiries, we are prepared to meet the objection founded on the application of T^ovoo and Xovrgov to the baptismal ordinance. The use of these terms, we maintain, does not imply baptism by immersion. We have produced evidence to the fact, that among the ancient Greeks, as well as among the Egyptians, immer- sion formed no part of the ordinary process of bathing. Aoviu and Xovr^ov, it is acknowledged on all hands, are not mocM words ; but the testimony to which we refer carries the matter farther, by bringing a fusion ov pour- ing within the range of their common and accredited applications. In Eph. v. 25, 26, it is said, " Christ loved the church and gave himself for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, too Xovt^ou rov vharog, with tJie washing of ivater by the word." In this fine passage, the leading image contemplates spiritual cleansing, which is sjanbolized by the washing with water, and we have no authority for confining the symbol to any par- 306 MODE OF BAPTISM. ticular mode. The language, according to Bloomfield, " alludes to the Oriental methods of making the skin so clear and smooth, by removing all freckles, \vrinkles, or other blemishes, as to be diMoj^^ov.''^ No mere mode of applying water, it is manifest, comes up to the results conveyed in the apostolic description ; while any mode will serve as an appropriate emblem of that spiritual cleansing which is effected by the application of the blood of Christ to the heart and conscience. See also Heb. X. 22. Rev. i. 5, presents us with another interesting testi- mony. " Now unto him, \ov(j(/.vri . . . . h roj oi(Lari, that ivashed us from our sins in his own blood,'''' or by means of his own blood. The standard mode of applying blood for purposes of typical purification, was sprinkling; and hence 1 Peter i. 2, speaks of the " sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The wash- ing and the sjirinJcUng we regard as alike referring to the spiritual agencies by which God carries out the pro- visions of his covenant salvation in the holiness of his people. The last passage we shall cite in this connec- tion is Titus iii. o, " According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." The term rendered shed by our translators is s^iyjsv poured out, which literally cor- responds with the Scripture account of the Spirit's baptism. To these and similar passages the remark is emphatically applicable, that had the Author of divine revelation intended to establish immersion as the exclu- sive mode of Christian baptism, he would not have NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 307 authorized the use of such terms as washing, sprinkling, pouring, in circumstances which carry an obvious allu- sion to that important ordinance, and that, in particular, he would not have stamped the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. V. We proceed to evince the subordination of mere mode to the spirit and substance of the ordinance as indicated by the expression, " Baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Mat. xxviii. 19. 1. We have ventured to submit, as a fact of some importance, that there are truths recognised and im- plied in baptism, of which the administration of the ordinance was not designed to afford a symbolical exhi- bition. The influence of this fact in bringing down mode from the lofty elevation to which some have raised it, will readily become apparent. On the sacred page we meet considerable diversity of baptisms. The Israelites were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; John baptized into repentance, pointing the faith of his converts to him who was to come ; the apostles of Christianity baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, or into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Such forms of expression obviously indicate in the baptismal ordinance an element of immeasurably higher value than the mere mode of administration. In the instances specified, the outward rite may have been the same ; — not so its spiritual significance, or the truths 308 MODE OF BAPTISM. of which it formed the public and solemn recognition. Baptism into Moses clearly implied the acknowledgment of his official claims as a leader and lawgiver, and of the economy called after his name, — just as baptism into Christ implies the acknowledgment of our blessed Lord in his personal, and mediatorial character, and of the faith which he founded, — and as the baptism of the commission implies the acknowledgment of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now in no case does the mode of baptism, w^hether immersion or affusion, symbolize this weighty acknowledgment, which is yet of the very essence of the ordinance, and owned as such b}^ all evangelical churches. Mode, we admit, would have occupied a position of deep and permanent interest, had the Scriptures constituted it an emblem of relationship to the blessed Trinity. Were trine immer- sion, for instance, authoritatively bound up with the recognition of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the neglect of that observance would amount to a practical disregard, or denial of the doctrine. But the word of God proceeds upon a principle widely different. It has no sympathy with patristic solicitude to discover some outward repre- sentative of every truth implied in the ordinance of baptism. This is clear from the baptisms already noticed. There existed considerable difference between the truths recognised in John's baptism, and in that of Jesus respectively ; but the difference did not reveal itself in the external observance, — it found no tongue in mode. The proselyte to Judaism was baptized, the convert to Christianity was baptized ; but, though the mode may have been the same, vdio would identify Jewish NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 309 proselyte-baptism with Christian baptism? Were the mode the ordinance, as some maintain, Jewish baptism, contrary to ascertained fact, would be the same as Chris- tian baptism. Again, if mode presented an emblem of all the facts and doctrines implied in the ordinance, diversity of external observance would be absolutely indispensable. The facts and doctrines in the two cases, being widely different from each other, a corresponding difference would be demanded in the emblematic repre- sentation. But both rites may be administered by the same ablution, without let or hindrance in either to the acknowledgment of that peculiar system into which baptism may be said to initiate. We conclude, there- fore, with the utmost certainty, that as there are great truths recognised in baptism, which mode was not intended to symbolize, and which are acknowledged in common by the advocates of different modes, the ordinance possesses, in view of these truths, an essential character and significance independent altogether of varying forms of administration. 2. The meaning of baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, demands still closer inquiry. This formula, we have seen. Includes something more than the most ingenious inter- preter of symbols can discover in the outward rite. Immersion says, it is not in me; "it is not in me," re-echoes sprinkling. Baptism into Christ's death, according to Dr. Carson, comprehends baptism into the faith of his death ; and, without professing to have exhausted the import of the expression, we may safely maintain that the apostolic commission enjoins baptism 310 MODE OF BAPTISM. into the faith of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In these connections, our Baptist friends are not solicitous to obtrude upon the Christian public their favourite dip or immerse. Dipping into Moses, dipping into the name of the Father, dipping into Jesus Christ, are phrases which in general they seem purposely to eschew. The substitution of baptism for dipping is on their part a practical turning away from the boasted fruits of their philology, and taking shelter under a term the vagueness or ambiguity of which they elsewhere loudly denounce. We regard it, however, as a tribute reluctantly paid to the subordination of modej for if immersion could at aU serve the purpose, we feel assured, they would not have recourse to hajptism. When the Evangelist speaks of ^'baptism into the name of the Father," &c., the transaction, viewed in its isolated state, appears to be of a purely spiritual character. The use of water is not mentioned, though Baptist joins with Psedobaptist in maintaining against the Quaker, that it is implied. But it is not upon the ground of this ellipsis that we assign to the application of water a very subordinate place in the institution of Christian baptism. Had water been distinctly specified in the commission, so long as that authoritative docu- ment required the ministers of Christianity to "baptize into the name of the Father," we should still have con- tended that the ordinance possesses an essential character to which the use of water is merely subservient. This thought largely occupies our minds when we peruse the language of Scriptui^e on the subject \ and that Baptist treatises bear testimony to its force we shall endeavour NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. ' 311 to evince. The apostles, says Mr. Stovel, were " com- manded to initiate the disciples, for (BaTrtZ^uu stg, in such a connection, means to initiate, .... into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." — p. 193. It is true, the writer gives us a very different view in the Appendix, but that is his own affair. So then baptism is neither dipping, nor affusion, nor sprinkling; — it is initiation. The latest leader of the Immersionists assures us in express terms that " ^aTrnZ^ziv sig means to initiate.''^ Has Mr. Stovel reflected on the consequences of this specimen of Baptist exposition? If I am initiated ((BaxriZpiJjSvog sig) " into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," by whatever process, or in whatever mode, it follows as the veriest truism that I am a baptised Christian. There is no escape from this conclusion. If the baptism of the commission denotes initiation, a man may be baptized without either sprinkling or immersion ; and, in fact, without any application of water whatever. Such is the liberality of the doctrine taught in Mr. Stovel's Lectures. Were the initiation of a convert complete and Scriptural in other respects, the additional act of sprinkling or affu- sion, of course, could not invalidate it; and thus, so far as mode is concerned, our baptism is substantively endorsed by the most recent, if not the ablest, cham- pion of immersion. 3. The subordination of mode will be farther evident by comparing the structure of the commission with that of parallel passages. It has . been often observed that the New Testament gives marked prominence to the 312 MODE OF BAPTISM. design of the ordinance, while its mode appears to be studiously cast into the shade. When Paul (Acts xix. 3,) asked certain disciples, "Into what then were ye baptized?" — the answer was not " into Jordan," or "into the Sea of Tiberias;" but "into John's baptism." The design, or character of baptism, was the point of engrossing interest; while the name of the baptizing element and the mode of its application have no place in the narrative. Had these disciples understood Paul to inquire into ivTiat ihey tvere plunged or dipped^ and had their views been those of modern Immersionists, the apostle would have received a very different answer. Baptist writers with critics of some name, we are aware, labour to dispose of this peculiarity of construc- tion as a common and natural ellipsis. But this does not meet the difficulty. We read in Acts xvi. 15, that " Lydia was baptized, and her household ; " and as no regimen is expressed after the verb, all parties agree that it must be understood. Lydia was baptized in water, or with ivater. But the structure of the com- mission is widely different, inasmuch as the participle baptising is followed by the preposition ilg with its appropriate case, thus presenting a form of expression which is complete alike in sentiment and syntax. True indeed, the preposition and its case do not refer to water ; but this circumstance forms the very peculiarity of which the common ellipsis cannot give a satisfactory account. The commission enjoins baptism not into tvater, but hito the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How shall we deal with this construction? The ordinary ellipsis is uncalled for, or inadmissible. If we inserted NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 313 g/V v^cu§ after the participle, we should have — " Baptizing them into ivater, into the name," &c. — a collocation of words which, we venture to say, is without parallel either in sacred or profane literature. We have here the means of upsetting the allegation of Dr. Carson and other Baptist writers respecting the construction of i\g after ^a'xriX^o) in the New Testament. When we affirm that, in reference to the external rite, this regimen seems to be scrupulously avoided by the sacred writers, we are met with a direct contradiction, accompanied by an appeal to the form occurring in the apostolic com- mission and elsewhere. But the passages cited do not sustain the appeal. For if the verb denotes dip, and nothing but dij), the commission requires us to dip a disciple " into the name of the Father" &c. The entire force of the verb is thus expended on an act which every one must admit to be spiritual, and the construc- tion, as it stands, does not touch the use of water in baptism. That the commission is wide enough to admit both loater, and infants, though it specifies neither, we are thoroughly convinced ; and we feel no less assurance that the Baptist cannot draw from the structure of the language one particle of warrant for his mode of employing the water. In accordance with the commission, he may on his own principles dip into the name of the Father, but he cannot dip into tvater, with- out inserting a clause to that effect in defiance of all precedent. Can there be stronger proof that the use of water was meant to be subordinate, and that baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, forms the substance of the ordinance ? 314 MODE OF BAPTISM. May it not be objected that our interpretation would pave the way for setting aside the use of water alto- gether, in baptism ? We answer, no : for while the spiritual initiation constitutes, in our view, the essence of the ordinance, the recorded examples of baptism in Scripture exhibit the use of water as a sanctioned and veritable fact. These examples, being an inspired com- ment on the commission, settle the question respecting the necessity of water in the administration of the ordinance. We have then both the substance and the symbol, between which we discern the most instructive mutual harmony. Our relationship to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost must be attended with spiritual cleansing, which finds its appropriate emblem in the application of water to the body. The fact of this application enters essentially into the Scripture symbol, and is therefore indispensable in baptism ; with regard to the mode, as we intimated at the outset^ it does not appear that we are divinely restricted, any more than in the time of observing the Lord's Supper. The real ellipsis of the commission, which may be learned by consulting 1 Cor. x. 2, corroborates our view. It is stated by the Apostle that the fathers of the Jewish church '''were all baptized {dg) into Moses, (iv) in the cloud, and in the sea." By comparing the narrative in Exodus with the reference by Paul, we ascertain that cloud and sea were employed in administering this primeval baptism, — and also that the Israelites were not dipped into the cloud, and into the Sea. Expounded on the natural and obvious principle which this passage supplies, the Commission must associate the use of water NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE. 315 with its baptism into the divine name; but without either command or inference in favour of immersion. If, in administering baptism into Moses, sea and cloud could be used without immersion; may not water be used without immersion in administering baptism into Christ? The case, we submit, warrants a strong con- clusion against the necessity of immersion ; and it will remind the reflective reader of the Holy Spirit's bap- tism, which is administered by the oiitpoimng of the emblem upon its Scriptural subjects. Note : See " A Dissertation on the Nature and Administration of Baptism, Part I., by the Kev. Wm. Sommerville, A.M., Horton ;" — containing a lucid and logical discussion of some parts of the evidence canvassed in this chapter. Mr. Sommerville is a talented and respect- able missionary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. CHAPTER TWELFTH. EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. CHARACTER AND VALUE OF THE PATRISTIC ARGUMENT, AS DISTINGUISHED BOTH FROM THE MERE OPINION AND PRACTICE OF THE FATHERS. MODE OF BAPTISM COUNTENANCED BY EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS NOT NECESSARILY THAT OF THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. — TENDENCY OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES TO ASSUME STEREOTYPED FORMS. PATRISTIC EVIDENCE MOST FORCIBLE, WHEN IT RELATES TO BAPTISMS UNCONNECTED WITH THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE, CLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF THE PRIN- CIPAL POINTS TO WHICH THE FATHERS BEAR WITNESS. 1. THE BAPTISM OF CLINICS ADMINISTERED BY POURING OB PERFUSION. STRENGTH OF THIS BRANCH OP THE GENERAL ARGUMENT. H. COMMENTS BY THE FATHERS ON DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE, PROVE THAT THEY DID NOT IDENTIFY BAPTISM WITH IMMERSION. HI. THE FATHERS APPLIED THE TERM BAPTISM TO ABLUTIONS IN WHICH THERE WAS NO IMMERSION. CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART. Let us endeavour to comprehend the character of the patristic argument, with the amount of consideration which it may reasonably claim. The question is not, what was the practice of the Christian Church during the early centuries ? The question is not, what mode of baptism met the approval of the leading ecclesiastical writers of the period? We might receive full and correct answers to these questions, without being put in possession of a particle of evidence to the meaning EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 317 of the term baptism. In explanation of this branch of ancient testimony, we observe — 1. That the mode of baptism practised by the fathers has no necessary correspondence with the requirement of the apostolic commission. A change of practice, in the intervening period^, is not only possible, but to a certain extent, demonstrated. Are our opponents pre- pared to pledge themselves indiscriminately to patristic modes of administering baptism ? 2. That the liturgical department of religion has a constant tendency to assume stereotyped forms which are not always consistent with the Christian liberty secured by the word of God. Suppose our Saviour to have left the mode of baptism free and unfettered, still the Church must have sanctioned some form ; and this form would inevitably influence the thoughts and lan- guage of the fathers in expounding the ordinance. To this principle we are mainly indebted for the frequen- tative sense of (^ocTriZfo, the judgment of its early patrons being controlled not by philological, but by ecclesiastical considerations. 3. That patristic testimony to the meaning of baptism is most valuable, when it does not relate to the Christian ordinance. Tliis is no paradox. When a father speaks of baptism in the light of the apostolic commission, he is under a strong temptation to accommodate his exegesis to the practice of his age, or church. The baptism which he habitually administers he will be solicitous to identify with the baptism of the commission. Whereas, if he is employing the term in a general way, apart from its appropriated ecclesiastical use, he will be more 318 MODE OF BAPTISM. likely to exemplify its true and accredited acceptation. On this ground we reject Dr. Carson's limitation, as formerly noticed, and take a more comprehensive survey of the testimony of the Christian fathers. Our summary is as follows. — I. In cases of bodily infirmity, the early church recognised baptism by pouring or affusion as perfectly valid. Whether the recognition was right or wrong, is not our present inquiry: — we have simply to deal with the fact, as furnishing a certain amount of evidence to the patristic acceptation of baptism. An example will best elicit the force of this class of testimonies. From the Letters of Cornelius of Rome preserved by Eusebius in his Eccl. Hist. vi. 43, we learn that Novatus, on the bed from which he expected to rise no more, received baptism hy pouring, or citnimftision. Now whatever preference the ancient church may have betrayed for immersion, and however she may have attached to other modes a mark of inferiority, yet by admitting the validity of affusion-baptism, she occupies a position of direct antagonism to the principles of our modern Immersionists. Had the practice of immersion been even more general among the early Christians than history proves it to have been, still the acknowledg- ment and sanction of other modes are undoubted, and thence it follows demonstrably that baptism and immer- sion were not considered identical. The argument may be drawn out somewhat more in extenso. The Latin designation of a person long con- fined from ill health was ledualis, the Greek, yJktviKog ; and the latter is commonly applied to one baptized by EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 319 aspersion on his sick bed. Such cases were of rather frequent occurrence both in the Eastern and Western church. Clinics, as they are styled, were divided into two classes. The first embraced Catechumens, or Gen- tile converts, who, when visited with disease, evinced an earnest solicitude to be received into the membership of the church by baptism, before their death. Parties so circumstanced were generally admitted to the ordi- nance, and as generally was it administered by aspersion or circumfusion. That the validity of this mode gave rise to doubts and discussions, we frankly avow ; but at the same time we deliberately affirm that the Fathers of both churches did not hesitate to call the ordinance thus administered by the name of baptism. Among others, Epiphanius of the Greek church, and Cyprian of the Latin distinctly recognise the baptism of clinics by affusion, which they manifestly could not have done, had baptism with them been immersion, and nothing but immersion. The second class of clinics comprehended those who purposely deferred their baptism till the very close of life, because they apprehended that for sin committed after baptism the gospel provides no remission. On this sad abuse we merely remark in passing, that if Adult baptism is here " without sin," it may " cast a stone at" Infant baptism. This criminal delay appears to have been founded chiefly on a false interpretation of Heb. vi. 4 ; — the term enlightened being then commonly regarded as interchangeable with haptized. Against a practice, in which ignorance and superstition seem to have been blended in equal proportions, many of the 320 MODE OF BAPTISM. Fathers reasoned powerfully, and remonstrated warmly and eloquently; yet though it was admmistered by aspersion or sprinkling, their views of language and of Christianity did not prompt them to withhold from the ordinance the name of baptism. To the objection that these are sparse exceptions to a general rule, we take leave to reply that the strength of the argument is by no means proportioned to the number of instances in which pouring or circumfusion formed the mode of patristic baptism. In the appeal to the Fathers, the question between us and our oppo- nents is, — Do these venerable witnesses testify or not that there can be hai^tism where there is no immersion ? If we can produce from their writings one unexception- ble instance of a rite acknowledged to be baptism, though administered without immersion, judgment on the appeal must necessarily go in our favour. Let the Fathers, in a solitary case, call him on whom the sym- bolic water has been poured, a baptized man, and they stand committed irrevocably and for ever against the modern doctrine that " baptism is immersion, and nothing but immersion is baptism." We are not, however, as has been already intimated, confined to one case. Hilarius on 1 Tim. iii. 12, 13, cited by Beecher, says, — Non desunt qui prope quotidie baptizantur aegri : " There are not wanting sick persons who are baptized almost daily." The number, then, must have been very considerable; and what is of higher importance, we have the express authority of the Greek Fathers, who " knew the meaning of their own language," for applying the term baptism to the EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 321 ■ordinance, when pouring or aspersion constituted the mode of its administration. Thus on the great principle of the question, the exclusive spirit of our opponents, far from being countenanced, is pointedly condemned by the larger and more liberal views of patristic theology. Attempts having been made by some authors, little to their own credit, to degrade clinical baptism, a brief examination of its character appears requisite to the in- tegrity and conclusiveness of our argument. "Cyprian," says Dr. Carson, " even in the letter in which he defends the validity of perfusion as a substitute for baptism in cases of necessity, calls it an abridgment or compend of the ordinance." Instead of conveying the whole truth, this statement unhappily has all the effect of misrepresentation. When Cyprian employs the term compendia, it is manifestly in tacit contrast with the more operose and complicated administration of baptism which prevailed in that age, and which is known to have included something more than immersion. Besides he styles aspersion or perfusion, divina compendia, a " divine abridgment or compend," which he not only maintains to be perfectly sufficient; but in defence of which he adduces Scripture testimony, particularly Ezek. xxvi. 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean." See Cf/pr. Opera. Tom. i. p. 201. Antw. Edit, of 1542. Nor does he consider perfusion, as is asserted, to be " a substitute for bap- tism,"— on the contrary he distinctly calls it baptism, and e\ en ecclesiastical baptism, or the baptism of the church, and earnestly contends that those to whom it y 322 MODE OF BAPTISM. has been administered, should receive the appellation not of Clinics but of Christians. " Cyprian," rejoins Dr. Carson, " calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term. The persons perfused in their beds on account of sickness were not supposed to be properly baptized ; but they received the ecclesiasti- cal baptism — that is, what the church, in such cases, admitted as a valid substitute for baptism." A state- ment more completely at variance with ancient record we have seldom detected in the works of any author of character, and we are not, therefore, surprised at the strong language of Dr. Halley, when he says, " Either the writer of these assertions is not a reader of Cyprian, or he is not an honest man." " The ecclesiastical bap- tism" of this Father is too well known to form a subject of theological debate. In the best sense of the expres- sion, it is the baptism of the church, administered by her officers, stamped with her sanction, introducing to her communion, and distinguished from the baptism of heretics. Cyprian, in fact, is acquainted with no baptism higher, holier, or more scriptural than the ecclesiastical baptism. In his Epistle to Jubaianus, (1. c. Tom. ii. p. 99) he speaks of Philip as administering this baptism to the Samaritans, and at p. 107, he says, "Nee recusabunt baptizari apud nos hseretici legitime et vero ecclesice baptistno, cum ex nobis didicerint bap- tizatos quoque a Paulo eos, qui jam baptismo Joannis baptizati fuissent." Acts xix. 1 — 5. It is hopeless, indeed, for the boldest controversialist to attempt the conversion of Cyprian's ecclesiastical baptism into a EVIDENCE FROM TITE FATHERS. 323 substitute for the ordinance properly so called ; and the undertaking, as it is not likely to find talent and acumen superior to those of Dr. Carson, may be confi- dently expected to issue in humiliating exposure. The truth is, that by designating aspersion or perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, Cyprian has not only affixed to it the seal of the church's authoritative sanction ; but, in regard to the application of the term, has furnished irresistible evidence that the early Chiistians had no hesitation in speaking of baptism, when there was no immersion. On this point the utmost stretch of ingenuity can never reconcile patristic testimony with the principles and practice of modern Baptists. Accord- ing to their polity, would perfusion in the case of invalids, be regarded as ecclesiastical baptism? If truth compels them to answer in the negative, where, we ask, is the ground of their real or pretended confidence in appealing to the tenets and testimony of Christian antiquity ? Were it at all necessary to our object, there would be no difficulty in showing from a candid and careful examination of the writings of Cyprian that his views on the general subject, and especially on the symbolic natui'e of the washing in baptism, are more correct, and less trifling, than they have been sometimes represented. But we must pass on to other considerations. II. Scripture testimonies applied to the ordinance by the Fathers prove that in their minds, baptism and immersion were not identified. We have seen that in certain circumstances, perfusion was regarded as valid baptism, contrary to the dogma that immersion alone is 324 MODE OF BAPTISM. baptism. We are now invited to view patristic evidence under another, and a no less interesting aspect. In their voluminous writings, the Fathers introduce many elucidations of baptism^ especially from the Hebrew Scriptures : and an examination of the passages will generally reveal the specific object for which they are cited, and the idea of the baptismal institute, which dictated their application. Are we accustomed, for instance, to consider baptism as nothing but immer- sion?— do we belong to a community who spurn the existence of any tie, even the slenderest, between that ordinance and sprinkling? — is this state of feeling so permanent and pervading as to have become almost constitutional? The consequence may be easily anti- cipated. In that mood of mind it will be impossible for us to apply to baptism those texts of Scripture which give an emphatic prominence to the act of sprinkling or affusion. This seems to supply a fair test of the sentiments of writers, both ancient and modern, respecting the mode of baptism. Where is the Immersionist of our day who will unhesitatingly apply to baptism the precious promise, — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you ?" Yet the Fathers freely and frequently make the application, marking again and again an intimate connection between the sprinkling announced by the prophet, and the baptism administered under the New Testament economy. We have found Cyprian quoting this lovely prophecy in support of perfusion as valid ecclesiastical baptism. The same view is taken by the Greek Fathers, Theo- doret, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa and others. EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 325 We shall content ourselves with one testimony, ex ahim- dantia, accompanied by the explanatory remarks of President Beecher : — " Cyril of Alexandria, on Isa. iv. 4, vol. ii. Paris, 1838, speaks of the sprinJcling of the ashes of a heifer as a haptism. He is denying the power of mere external rites to purify the soul, and says, ^sl^cc7rriff[Jbs0oi ^h ya^ ovk h vhari yvi/jvu, a?\A' ouhl GTTohco ^ccfMuKsafg, — aXX' h 'xvivi/jocri ayiu yMi itv^i. ' We have been baptized not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a heifer, but with the Holy Spirit and fire.' This implies that externally there was a baptism by water ; and therefore, just as clearly, that there was an external baptism by the ashes of a heifer. What was this ? Let Paul answer : ^ The ashes of a heifer sp?Hnk- ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the pui'ifying of the flesh.' If any one should say there was a rite of washing or bathing connected with sprinkling; I answer — not in the case of the sprinkled person, as I have shown (§28, 11) ; and if there were, still he was not immersed in or by the ashes of a heifer, and to this the w^ord ^a'xriZco is here limited. Besides, Cyril, in a parenthetic explana- tion after }>ci\jja\iooq, evolves his own meaning too clearly to admit of denial — \y^ccv7ia^z&a ^s ir^oq y/ovriv rfjg (7u^?cog KOi^oiPOT'/iTu, KuOci (prjffiv 6 (jbUKa^iog TiuvXog. ' We are sprinkled to purify the flesh alone, as says the blessed Paul.' According to Cyril, then, the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer was an external baptism, but it did not effect real and spiritual purification, any more than a mere washing in water. The sprinkling of a.n unclean person with the ashes of a heifer was, therefore, another of the lia^po^oi |3aTr/o-|j>(/o; of which Paul speaks." — Bib. Repos. vol. ix. p. 97. 326 MODE OF BAPTISM. Passages of this nature which we find profiisely scattered over the pages of the Fathers, teach a plain lesson respecting the strong association which indubi- tably existed between baptism and diversity of mode in the application of water. To think of sprinkling as a baptism, whether in the department of history or pre- diction, evinces a state of mind in which the idea of baptism is far indeed from being absorbed in that of immersion. It is in this state of patristic mind, as it unequivocally develops itself, that the great force of the argument may be discovered. Had the Fathers iden- tified baptism with immersion, they would not have applied to it texts of Scriptm^e in which sprinkling or perfusion is the mode of employing the baptismal element. The practice of immersion in the early ages instead of disparaging, enhances our view. Feeling and prejudice would, of course, fall in with the prevailing mode ; yet in defiance of these, the Fathers repeatedly adduce instances of sprinkling under the designation of baptism. Had the native meaning of the term, been at that period brought into the modal bondage advocated by the Immersionists, it would have been utterly impossible for such illustrations to have presented themselves to the mind of Christian antiquity. III. The term baptism is applied by the Fathers to certain ablutions Jewish and Gentile, which were performed without immersion. Having noticed the latitude of patristic usage, both as regards the adminis- tration of Christian baptism, and the passages of Scrip- ture cited to illustrate its character, we consider it interesting, though not essential to our argument, to EVIDENCE PROM THE FATHERS. 327 glance ut the references of ecclesiastical writers to a different class of ablutions. This point is of some moment, inasmuch as we may anticipate from the Fathers an unbiassed testimony, when their language does not bear upon a standard ordinance of the church. Not that the remark implies an impeachment of their honesty, in other portions of their evidence. But it is an undisputed fact that the mode of any customary observance, civil or sacred, becomes so mixed up in our minds with the observance itself, that we find it diflficultj if not impracticable, to effect their separation. Under the influence of this associating principle, the Fathers wrote ; and still thek views are greatly too liberal for the exclusive dipper. This pre-occupatiou of mind, however, will be considerably mitigated, when baptism is employed to denote generally the ablutions practised by Jews and Gentiles. In such cases, the term may be expected to have its free and full scope, restrained only by those principles which regulate its application in the Greek language at large. On the subject of Jewish ablutions we confine our- selves to one striking testimony from Ambrose. " Per hyssopi fasciculum," says that Father, " adspergebatur agni sanguine, qui mundari volebat typico baptismate." He who tvished to he cleansed hy a tyincal hapUsm was sprmkled ivith the blood of a lamh, hy weans of a hunch of hyssop. Such passages (for there are many of them) prove that leading minds in the church of the Fathers could easily regard sprinkling as typical of baptism, not certainly of immersion. Nay, Ambrose explicitly recognises sprinkling as baptism — typical baptism- - 328 MODE OF BAPTISM. which he obviously could not have done except upon the fixed principle that there may be baptism where there is no immersion. The ablutions of the heathen, which were generally performed by affusion, are often referred to by the Fathers as imitations of Christian baptism. Thus Cle- mens of Alexandria detects an image of the ordinance in the rites of purification observed by Penelope and Telemachus, preparatory to the worship of the gods. For the account of these rites, the learned Father is indebted to Homer, who says of Penelope Odys. iv. 769, 'H h vh^Tivaihhri a.r.'k. "And she having washed," &c. The verb vh^aivoj is confessedly not limited to mode, and the Greek language abundantly sanctions its application to pouring or affusion, as may be ascertained by consult- ing Damm's Lexicon Homericum, or the more scientific work of Liddell and Scott. The ablution of Telemachus is thus described, Odys. ii. 261, Xet^ag vt^l/ccfjusvog -TroXtrg akog hxzr Adrjvyj. — " Having washed his hands in the hoary sea, he prayed to Minerva." On the action expressed by the verb I't'Trno, which is generally limited to the hands and feet, it is almost superfluous to offer a remark. The idea which it conveys is simply that of cleansing the hands, for instance, by the use of water poured, sprinlded, or employed in any other mode which necessity or convenience may dictate. Yet these washings, diverse as they are from immersion, Clemens does not hesitate to style 'ri hKuv rou ^ocTrriai^drog, " The image of baptism," which he regards as " handed down from Moses to the Poets." Were they the image of immersion ? All must answer in the negative. EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 329 Had these ablutions been of an uncertain character, we can readily imagine the tone and spirit of some of our opponents in turning them to account. " Here are washings," it would have been said, " in which a Greek father saw the image of baptism; and as baptism is nothing but immersion, the mode of these washings cannot be questioned. If the ablutions of Penelope and Telemachus had not been performed by immersion, they could have presented no image of baptism to the mind of Clemens." — The argument thus outlined is as potent as much of the dogmatism with which we are favoured on the baptismal controversy, and, at the same time, as inadequate to produce rational conviction. In the simple cleansing of the person, or even of the hands, in order to prepare for heathen worship, this Father could trace an instructive image, not indeed of dipping, but of that baptism which employs the application of water to the body to symbolize the spiritual cleansing effected by the word and Spirit of Christ. Our cause, it may be added, does not assume the correctness of the judgment of Clemens. His view may be erroneous, without touching our argument, the force of which consists in the fact that ordinary ablutions in whatever mode conveyed to the mind of a Greek-speaking man an image of Christian baptism. Connected with tliis testimony there is another point which merits consideration. Passing from Gentile ablu- tions, Clemens observes : — " This was a custom among the Jews, that they should be frequently baptized upon their couch, as Beecher renders the words, st; Koirri (ici'TrTiZsffdcu. " Where," asks Dr. Carson, " did the 330 MODE OF BAl'TISM. President learn that Koiryj is a dinner couch ? It is a bed for sleeping on They were immersed ' on account of the bed ;' that is, pollution contracted there." The criticism on the rendering of xoitt^ is founded, as may be evinced from the use of the term by Clemens himself. We find, indeed, several words such as ivvn, zkivT^, and zoirn, in the employment of which this Father allows himself considerable latitude, — still we hold there is evidence that the last denotes properly a bed. But we deem the construction which Dr. Carson puts upon the passage to be more doubtful. 'Ett/ zoir'/i he translates " on account of the bed," thus adopting a sense which is unusual and for which he produces no authority. The corrected Latin of Hervetus in the Syllburg Edition of Clemens is opposed to him, as it renders the phrase " in lecto ;" and indeed a baptism k'TTi Koirri suggests so distinctly the relation of place, that to prefer a different meaning appears very like going out of one's way to serve a purpose. It may probabty appear strange that the Jews should be baptized upon their beds, though not perhaps more so than that they should practise a similar ablution on dinner couches. But the truth is that there existed no difficulty in administering baptism by cii'cumfusion [tz^iyjjaig) on an Eastern bed, and as little in observing the pm^ification to which this patristic testimony refers. In the writings of several Fathers, especially Justin Martyr and Tertullian, we find frequent allusion to the ceremonial sprinldings or aspersions of the heathen, regarded as baptisms. The fact cannot be disputed; but as sufficient foundation has been laid for this part EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 331 of our argument, we consider it superfluous to multiply quotations. There is one passage, however, in the works of Origen, relating to an Old Testament transac- tion, which deserves to be brought fully to light, as it furnishes a remarkable testimony against the identity of baptism and immersion. In the gospel by John i. 25, the Jews are represented as asking the forerunner of our Lord, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" — and the interrogation is thus referred to by Origen in his Com- mentary.— " What makes you think that Elias when he comes will baptize, who, in Ahab's time, did not haptise the 2VOod upon the altar — ovh\ to, I'zl ra rov du(Ticc(TTri§iov ^vXu . . . (BocTrriffavTog — which required washing in order to be burnt up, when the Lord should reveal himself by fire? For he ordered the priests to do that ; not only once; for he says, ^Do it the second time,'" &c. Wairs Histori/ of Infant Baptism, vol. iv. p. 260. We have pronounced this testimony to be a remark- able one, and such it must appear to all who deliberately weigh the entire circumstances of the case. Let it bo observed, we here come into contact with the most learned Greek Father, and one of the most accomplished biblical scholars, of the ancient church. To tax such a witness with ignorance of the circumstances embraced in his evidence, or of the language in whose varied literature he stood so pre-eminent, would be extreme and unaccountable fatuity. Origen knew, as well as any modern Baptist knows, that Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 23,) commanded his attendants to fill the barrels with water, and pour it on the hirnt sacrifice and on the vjood. 332 MODE OF BAPTISM. The author of the Hexapla had carefully studied his Bible, and entered profoundly and minutely into its different peculiarities of thought, and forms of expres- sion. How invaluable then is the testimony, when a v/riter of such undoubted attainments, identifies the command to pour water upon the zvood, with a command to haptize. Elijah did not himself baptize; for he ordered the priests to do that. To do what ? To four water on the wood upon the altar; and this, in the estimation of the most distinguished Greek Father, was baptism ! Comment may succeed in diluting, but is incompetent to strengthen the force of a testimony so decided, and unexceptionable. That in regard to the meaning of baptism, it utterly breaks away from the trammels of an exclusively modal application, is clear as the noon-day sun. Close of the discussion on MODE. — We have now travelled over the ground occupied by the first great division of the baptismal controversy. The mode of baptism has been contemplated in the light of three leading sources of historical and philological evidence. We commenced with the classical department, because in the language of ancient Greece the term originated, and its sense became comparatively fixed. The root of ^a'Tcr'CCpj we discovered in (id'Trrco, with its two senses of dipping, and dyeing, both of which we found to be incon- testably exemplified. Proceeding with the evidence furnished by the classics, we ascertained that dipping EVIDENCE FROM THE FATHERS. 333 is by no means essential to the process indicated by ^ocTrriZ^oj and its derivatives. The sea-coast, as we learned from Aristotle, may be baptized by the tide flowing over it. This is not dipping, but it is baptism. Other instances were adduced in support of our view, and we canvassed a variety of constructions, tending, in our judgment, to its farther elucidation and confirmation. Passing from classical testimonies, we reviewed the evidence supplied by Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Apocrypha, preparatory to an entrance on the exami- nation of the New Testament. With a similar object, we investigated the force of Kouco and its related nouns, correcting some errors and misapprehensions of Dr. Carson, and bringing out the pregnant fact, that in Greece and Egypt, the ordinary mode of bathing in ancient times was by pouring, and not by immersion. The bearing of this fact on some of the most instructive Scripture allusions to baptism, is found to be equally direct and important. New Testament evidence we submitted to a fuller discussion, comprehending an inquiry into Jewish Pro- selyte baptism, and a review of the principal Pharisaic ablutions, — in the relations which they severally sustain to the Christian ordinance. We offer nothing, at pre- sent, in the shape of recapitulation; but simply refer the reader to the evidence itself, especially to what was advanced in sifting the testimonies relating to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and in reply to the leading objections of the Immersionists. For these connected branches of evidence, including the patristic argument we merely solicit a conscientious 334 MODE OF BAPTISM. and calm consideration. It is to us incomprehensible that a mind at all conversant with the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, could hesitate to admit that, in their use of language, cirmmfiisions, powings, sprink- lings, &c., arc all veritable baptisms. We do not presume to have exhausted the subject, or even enumerated all the testimonies; yet evidence enough has been produced to satisfy the enlightened and candid inquirer that no impartial exegesis can identify patristic baptisms in their length and breadth, with the modern doctrine of immersion. In our investigations on mode thus brought to a conclusion, we submit that sufficient grounds have been laid for refusing to be fettered by the modal exclusive- ness of our Baptist friends, and for maintaining in our practice, and transmitting to other generations the heritage of liberty which we hold to be jointly guaran- teed by the usage of the classics, the Scriptures, and the Fathers of the Chiistian Church. PART SECOND. SUBJECTS OF lUPTISM. CHAPTER FIRST. GENER.VL STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. CIIARACJ'KH of this part of the discussion. — I5APTIST AND PiKDOJiAI'TIST TO SOME EXTENT OCCUPY COMMON GROUND. BOTH ADMINISTER BAPTISM TO A BELIEVING ADULT. POINT OF DIVERGENOE. — THE INFANTS OF CIIUROII MEJIBEUS AliSO ADMITTED TO THE ORDINANCE BY THE P/EDO- BAPTI3T. — ins OI'PONENT PROFESSES TO BAPTIZE NONE BUT bELllCVEUa. SCRIPTURE THE SUPREME AND SOLE ARBITER. We now enter upon the second leading department of our inrpiiry, which has for its object to furnish a scriptural answer to the question, "To whom is baptism to be administered ?" The investigations indispensable to a satisfactory solution arc' perhaps less learned and recondite than those in which we have been hitherto engaged, though the issue involves consequences which are obviously more momentous to the constitution and character of the Christian church. On this field "Greek meets Greek," in less frequent encounter ; yet no one 336 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. will pretend to weigh the mere mode of receiving into church membership against the foederal standing, or religious qualifications of the candidate. In discussing this great question, it is pleasing to reflect that in defiance of the encroaching spirit of controversy, some common ground still remains to the Baptist and Psedobaptist. On one prominent part of the field, the strife of angry polemics is exchanged for the accents of peace and Christian harmony. We refer, of course, to the universal recognition of a believing adult, as a scriptural subject of baptism. Difference of opinion may exist respecting the requisite amount of qualification in knowledge, dispositions, and character ; and all may not adopt the same standard in judging of the credibility of a religious profession ; — but the church oQicers who keep the door of admission once satisfied on this score, we are aware of no denomination of Christians that would, for a moment, hesitate to administer the initiatory rite. With all promptitude and sincerity does the Psedobaptist address the peoples and nations of the world in the language of Peter, — " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Let it be remembered, then, that a believing adult, or one maldng a credible profession of fixith in the Saviour, is regarded by ourselves, no less than by our opponents, as a proper and scriptural subject of Christian baptism. Having proceeded thus far along the same path, the parties unhappily reach the point of divergence. The Baptist takes his stand upon the principle that the word of God distinctly and absolutely limits the ordi- GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. 337 nance to the believer in Christ. We admit the believer to be a Scriptural subject of baptism : the opposing view regards him as the only Scriptural subject of baptism. As we found our opponents maintaining immersion to be the exclusive mode, so they contend that the believer is the exclusive subject, of this solemn ordinance. The Psedobaptist, on the other hand, recog- nises another interesting class as equally entitled to the symbol of the washing of regeneration. The doctrine of our church on the entire question is thus clearly and nervously expressed in the Westminster Confession, chap, xxviii. 4, " Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." — Such we conceive to be the two leading points of agreement and difference respecting the right- ful subjects of baptism ; and the way is so far opened up for canvassing the evidence of that inspired record, which forms the supreme and authoritative arbiter in this and every other case of conflicting doctrines and observances. CHAPTER SECOND. PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAINING THE SCRIPTURAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADULT BAPTISM. CONNECTION OF THIS TOPIC WITH INFANT BAPTISM. PRE- SUMPTIVE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM, AND FROM John's "baptism of repentance." — the doctrine of the APOSTOLIC commission FAVOURABLE TO THE NECESSITY OF A PROFESSION OF FAITH AND OBEDIENCE BT THE ADULT CANDIDATE FOR THE ORDINANCE. OUR VIEW OF MAT. XXVin. 19, BORNE OUT AND STRENGTHENED BY t THE INSTRUCTION RECORDED IN MARK X\X 16. — VALUE OF SUCH FORMS OF EXPRESSION AS PLACE BAPTISM POSTERIOR TO FAITH AND REPENTANCE. The indiscriminate admission of adults to baptism necessarily rules the indiscriminate admission of infants. * If infants are to be admitted at all, no ground of dis- tinction among them can survive the polity of baptizing adults irrespective of all religious qualification. On the supposition that faith, or a credible profession of faith, forms no prerequisite to baptism in the adult, who does not see the absurdity and wrong of restricting infant baptism to the children of believing parents? This liberal, or latitudinarian view is, we understand, very generally embraced by our brethren of the English Independent Churches. " There are those," observes Dr. Halley, " who baptize all applicants whatsoever; PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 339 provided the application does not appear to be made scoffingly and profanely, for that would be a manifest desecration of the ser^nce, and all children offered by their parents, guardians, or others who may have the care of them. These interpret the commission in its widest sense, and most literally explain ^all the nations.'" Against this interpretation, to which Dr. Halley has lent the aid of his powerful advocacy, is arrayed, as we believe, the general tenor of Scripture testimony, with the particular evidence of the apostolic commission, and of apostolic and evangelical practice thereon founded. The proof of our point we shall endeavour to furnish as briefly as may be consistent with justice to the subject. The relation of baptism to diverse systems exhibits some species of religious profession as a uniform pre- requisite in the adult to whom the ordinance is admin- istered. Baptism properly so called has invariably sustained the character of an initiatory observance. Its leading design, as a symbol of purification, is to signalize in an impressive manner, the transition from the world to the church, or more generally the admis- sion of man into the visible family of God. This applies to various economies. 1. A profession was required of the adult candidate for Jewish proselyte baptism. The Jews admitted people of other tribes into the fellowship of their peculiar privileges. On what principle did their narrow economy open " a wide and effectual door" for the entrance of Gentile worshippers ? Were the waters of proselji^e baptism accessible to a heathen, on the mere respectful intimation of his wish to that effect ? On the 340 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. contrary it was expressly demanded of the candidate to renounce his paganism of wliatever name or complexion, and make a credible profession of his faith in the God of Israel, according to the character and forms of the Mosaic dispensation. Without this, or its equivalent, it is plain to common sense, he could have been no proselyte, no convert even in the loosest acceptation of the term ; but the entire service would have presented a culpable mockery and delusion. 2. In the subjects of John's baptism we have an analogous prerequisite, suited to the design and circum- stances of his preparatory mission. The great object of our Lord's forerunner was to inculcate religious doctrine, and promote practical piety. His appearance had been heralded by the cheering prediction that he should " turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God." The enterprise in which he devotedly embarked contemplated nothing short of a public moral reforma- tion. To reach the heart and rectify the life of a nation constituted his godlike aim — an aim of which he never for an instant lost sight, and which he felt he dare not sacrifice to a mere ceremonial ablution. These con- siderations create a strong presumption that John's baptism would require in its subjects a state of mind and heart in some measure accordant with the dignified object of " making ready a people prepared for the Lord." But let us glance at the facts of the case. — (1.) John preached repentance, including religious reformation, to all who attended his ministry and submitted to his baptism. When he entered upon his honourable career, the first echo which his faithful voice PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 341 awakened in the wilderness of Judea was " repent !" '^ Repent ye ; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Wherefore this preaching, if repentance was unnecessary as a qualification for baptism ? Can we suppose the zealous reformer so inconsistent as to preface with earnest calls to repentance a baptism, which he was pre- pared to administer alike to penitent and impenitent ? (2.) The sacred narrative appears to convert this probability into fact. When the Scriptures style John's baptism " the baptism of repentance," the language naturally conveys the idea of an intimate connection between the ordinance and a specific preparedness of mind for its reception. Some indeed expound the phrases " baptism of repentance, " and " baptism — hg (jjsrdvoiuv — into repentance," as referring not to what precedes, but to what is expected to follow the admin- istration of the rite. They accordingly render the expression " baptism /or repentance." This rendering of kig after ^KTrriZco or any of its derived nouns, we consider wholly unauthorized ; and even if admissible, it does not necessarily imply that baptism precedes penitence. There may be baptism for repentance, in the sense of pledging the party to carrt/ out and complete what had commenced before baptism; and indeed to baptize for repentance one who is utterly impenitent and hardened, would appear to us a strange religious operation. But as the correct translation is " baptism into repentance," the language clearly assumes the existence of sorrow for sin, and turning unto God, anterior to baptism, and as clearly involves an obligation to persevere in the spirit of such repentance. The moral state indicated by 342 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. (Mirduoioc is thus contemplated as both preceding and following the administration of John's baptism. Still it will be alleged that though repentance entered into the preaching of the baptist, we have no proof of its presence in any profession made by the baptized. Let us test the truth of the allegation. In Mat. iii. 6, and Mark i. 5, we are expressly informed that the multitudes "were baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins." This confession must have involved the essence of penitence, unless it was made boastfnllf/ or indifferently, — which will not be readily imagined. And that it preceded the baptism will scarcely be denied by any candid, unbiassed expositor of Scripture. " Con- fession," says Olshausen, "is to be viewed as the condition of baptism, ..... so that where confession was wanting, baptism also was refused." See also Fritzsche's commentary for the structure of the verse. So long as the record of this confession stands on the Gospel page, we must continue to maintain that John's baptism was not administered indiscriminately to all applicants. (3.) Our view is confirmed by various incidental allusions in Scripture. Under this head, we have no hesitation in appealing to the baptist's address to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Mat. iii. 7 — 9, in which he forcibly warns them that, instead of standing upon the ground of descent from Abraham, they must personally " bring forth fruits meet for repentance." The ordinance which they sought neither "scoflingiy nor profanely," is not at once administered by John ; but denouncing them as " serpents and a generation of vipers," he insists on their repentance as absolutely indispensable. This PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 343 was honest dealing ; and it put forward faithfully and fearlessly the great condition of discipleship. Whether John " drove them from his baptism," as Dr. Carson asserts, or admitted them to the ordinance, as is argued by Dr. Halley, the point on which we insist remains intact. If baptized at all, these Pharisees and Sadducees were baptized in accordance with John's uncompromising doctrine of repentance and confession. This we must believe, unless we prefer a groundless charge against the baptist's consistency. It appears, however, from such texts as Mat. xxi. 28 — 25, and Luke vii. 29, 30, that of the classes composing the Scribes, Pharisees, Elders, and Lawyers, very few had connected themselves with John's reformation. Had the fact been otherwise, their position would have suggested a prompt answer to the question of our Saviour — " The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?" It wiU be said, in reference to the passage from Luke, that the Pharisees and lawyers who "rejected the counsel of God against themselves," might have been baptized, had they applied for it ; — and so doubtless they might, had they presented themselves with the profession of penitents, " confessing their sins." Finally, it should be remembered that the Scripture more than once identifies the doctrine and baptism of John, — a circumstance which is most easily explicable on the ground that the recognition of the system formed a qualification for the observance of the symbol. 3. We are prepared to anticipate the same general principle in the relation of baptism to Christianity. It would be strange, if no religious qualification were requi- site to an entrance into the church of Christ, professedly 344 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. the purest community out of heaven. " Baptism," Dr. Halley informs us, " is the sign of purification on being admitted into the Idngdom of Christ." Under preceding economies, something in regard to profession and pur- poses was required of the candidate — would it not be at once unprecedented and inconsistent to admit the world unconditionally into the kingdom of Christ? Is that kingdom with its standing sign of purification, to be deluged by floods of impurity unrestrained and unfil- tered ? Against such an unhappy state of things there exists, we conceive, a strong antecedent probability, corroborated by the character and design of the Christian dispensation itself We must, however, bring the point to the test of positive Scripture testimony. This leads us of necessity to inquire into the terms of the apostolic commission, and into apostolic practice of which the commission constituted the warrant and the directory. The record of the commission by Matthew (xxviii. 19) is — " Go ye therefore, and {(i>(x.&7iriv(ra,rz disciple) teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Were Dr. Bloomfield's exposition of these words sound, we should have no difficulty in evincing the necessity of a religious pro- fession, as a prerequisite to the baptism of an adult. The commission, in his view, embraces " three particu- lars, (/jadririvstv, (owz-nZ^nv, and hhd(jx,iiv, i.e. 1. to disciple them to the faith ; 2. to initiate them into the church by baptism ; 3. to instruct them when baptized, in the doctrines and duties of a Christian life." That the pro- cedure thus sketched i« in substantive accordance with PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 345 the teachings of Scripture, we are not prepared to deny ; but whether the author has rightly interpreted the language is a different question, and one in regard to which there is room for more than hesitation. It is no disparagement of God's word to hold that an isolated sentence may not bring out fully the mind of the Spirit on the subject to which it relates ; and especially may we expect general and comprehensive directions to receive light from the course of action which they prescribe, and by which they have been carried into effect. With these precautions against being misunder- stood, or misrepresented, we proceed to ascertain what qualifications the commission demands in a candidate for adult baptism. 1. It would, in our view, be unsafe to rest the argu- ment for the necessity of a religious profession before baptism on the words — " Disciple all nations, baptizing them." Had the apostles been enjoined to disciple the nations, cmd baptize them, we could have seen our way in marking a broad line of distinction between the dis- cipling and the haptizing ; and following the natural order of the clauses, we should have felt warranted to insist on the discipleship, prior to the baptism. Provision would thus have been made for the requisite profession of faith, inasmuch as the idea of voluntary Christian discipleship to some extent manifestly implies such profession. But our Lord's command is, — '^^ Disciple the nations, baptising them," — the structure of which by no means requires that the subject of baptism must have received previous Christian instruction. According to this view, baptism would merely constitute the action 346 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. to be performed in obeying the injunction to disciple all the nations. The authorities in support of this con- struction comprise men of the first talent, and of the most extensive learning. Kuinol speaks of " those who had been admitted by baptism into the community of the Christians;" while he had previously interpreted [jbud/jTivsiu as denoting such admission. " Ma^;jrgyg/v," says he, " non est edocere, .... sed omnino notat discipulum facer e, in ccetmn Christianorum recipere,^'' &c. The same view is adopted by Fritzsche ; and Olshausen represents the passage as misunderstood by those who extract from it the injunction, — " instruct first, and then baptize." The structure he holds to be incompatible with this sense, as is evinced by his statement that " the two participles (^ccTrrt^ovreg and hihaffKoi/ng go to compose the ^u&rinvziv.'''' The judgment of Lightfoot deliberately pronounced will exercise on many minds a more decided influence. That learned Hebraist, who brought the stores of Jewish literature to bear on the exegesis of the commission, explains the structure on the very principle adopted by Kuinol and Olshausen. Disciples, he observes, are made not on the principle of having been previously instructed, but with a view to their training by the master whose disciples they become. This he illustrates by referring to a certain Gentile who said to Hillel the Great, — " Make me a proselyte in order that you may instruct me." The party must first be lyroselytized, and after- wards taught. Lightfoot then applies his Rabbinical parallel to the commission — " Sic ^cc^nnvffan primum per baptismum, et deinde ^/^ac^gre ayroi)?," x,.r.\. With PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 347 such authors and arguments before us, it would be more valorous than safe to argue from (jjccOrjTiixjurz the neces- sity of religious instruction as a prerequisite to baptism. That the Scriptures enjoin such instruction we are per- suaded; but our conviction is equally firm that the warrant for it cannot be found in the mere command to discijole all the nations, haptizing them. 2. The necessity of instruction previous to baptism, we hold to be implied in the language — " baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The connection between disciple- ship and baptism in the commission, no one will maintain to be incompatible with the idea of previous Christian instruction. If it were otherwise, an apostle would not have dared to open his mouth in proclaiming the gospel to sinners, until he had first baptized them. The way then must be open for instruction antecedent to bap- tism. This we learn from the character of the Christian religion, and the apostolic history of its propagation, just as we learn that the discipleship of the commission is not compulsory, but voluntary. Now that baptism into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, necessitates at least previous Christian instruction we consider to be demonstrable. Would this baptism be consistent with utter, heathenish ignor- ance in the adult candidate? It is quite conceivable that a person in such deplorable circumstances might desire to be initiated by baptism into the Christian commonwealth. Dr. Ilalley admits it would be a dese- cration of the ordinance to baptize a man who applied for it in the spirit of scoffing and profanity^ — and so far 348 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. he has our hearty concurrence. But we are constrained to aver that it would be equally an abuse of things sacred to administer baptism to one wholly unacquainted with its nature, the obligations it imposes, and the great name to which it gives so significant a prominence. To bap- tize into the name of Jesus an adult who, for aught the administrator knows, may have never heard of Jesus and his salvation, is a proceeding which we should con- sider opposed alilie to the dictates of reason, and the disclosures of revelation. It appears to us impracticable to dispense with previous qualification in the shape of religious knowledge, and open or implied Christian pro- fession, unless we obliterate that part of the commission which enjoins " baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We are not siu'c that the views of Dr. Ilalley, as stated in some parts of his able volume, would permit him to contest our present position. Touching the mode of baptism in connection with the commission, he says, "To immerse, &tg ro ovoyba, into the name of the person tvhose religion is professed, is the religious rite of making proselytes, as to immerse into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the appro- priate act of the apostles and ministers of the gospel." Ai'e we to understand that a profession of their adopted religion, suited to its character and requirements, is so necessary to qualify proselytes for admission by baptism, that the author is perfectly warranted in assuming or asserting its existence ? Common sense answers in the affirmative. A profession open and manly, such as the Jews demanded of their proselytes, forms the natural PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 349 and appropriate entrance to the baptistery ; and if the rule applies to proselytism generally, it should be carried out with peculiar faithfulness in the case of converts to the religion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In our view of it, the baptismal service could not rank higher than a pagan mystery unless the ministers of religion see to it that adult candidates possess a knowledge of its general character and design, and evince dispositions so far removed from mockery and profanity, as to be in some measure accordant with the purity which it symbohzes and inculcates. The matter cannot be left to mere imijlication, as that would not afford, in any instance, a safeguard against the most profound ignor- ance, or enable the minister to cherish a rational hope of doing good by the service. 3. The necessity of a profession of faith prior to baptism is rendered more explicit by the language of Mark. — " And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Chap. xvi. 16, 17. The closing section of this gospel (xvi. 9 — 20) of which these verses form a part, is considered spurious, or doubtful by many textual critics, as J. D. Michselis, Bolten, Thiess, Griesbach, Bertholdt, D. Schulz, Schul- thess, Fritzsche, Norton, and others. It is defended by such authors as Father Simon, Fabricius, Mill, Rosen- m tiller, Matthsei, Paulus, Kuinol, Hug, Vater, and Lachmann. We are satisfied of its title to a place in the canon, and, therefore, feel at liberty to canvass these verses as inspired Scripture, though it does not consist 350 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. with our present object to sift the evidence, and com- pose conflicting views, or defend our own. In the verses cited we recognise Mark's record of the apostolic commission. Like the parallel passage in Matthew, they contain the authoritative instruction which Christ addressed to his apostles respecting the execu- tion of their arduous office. The form of the commission in the one evangelist differs from that in the other ; but the substance appears to be one and unalterable. According to both, this solemn direction precedes our Lord's ascension to glory, and in each the preaching of the word, and the administration of baptism present an epitome of the leading duties of the Christian apostle- ship. Contemplated on the ground of mere structure, Matthew's is a commission to preach and haptize, Mark's a commission simply to preach; but the latter, in a promise appended to the commission strictly so called, introduces baptism as an ordinance which it was plainly the duty of the apostles to administer. '•' Go," said our Saviour, "and preach the gospel to every creature;" and he instantly subjoined, " He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved." Would not the disciples, in their peculiar circumstances, necessarily gather from this language, that the administration of baptism belonged to the office with which their risen Lord authoritatively invested them ? Let us now endeavour to elicit from the passage, the prescribed order of apostolic procedure in the adminis- tration of baptism. First in time, as well as in import- ance, stands the preaching of the gospel. This fact, we consider, has not received due attention in the discussion PROFESSION A PREREQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 351 of the text by Drs. Halley and Wardlaw. Without resting much weight on the collocation of clauses, we may be permitted to hold that in every fresh field of labour, preaching formed the commencement of apostolic minis- tration. " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." This we regard as in many respects a momentous utterance. In connection with our present argument, it supplies a starting point, of no inconsiderable value. When the commission in Matthew says, "Disciple all nations, baptizing them," — it exhibits a construction in which the first place in the order of ministerial procedure seems to be assigned to baptism. He who will rest upon the mere syntax of the clause^ is thereby warranted^ if not bound, to contend for the priority of baptism to every other act of apostolic ser- vice. Preaching or teaching, according to this clause, must not be permitted to take precedence of baptism. Jew and Gentile must be first baptized, then taught. Not a word of gospel salvation, till the individual or the multitude, has been disciplined by baptism. However degraded and untutored, the nations must first be haj)- tized 1 That the words immediately following, provide an antidote to the virus of this conclusion, we have endeavoured to evince : but the language of Mark happily settles the question. In the fore front of the labours of the apostle, he clearly ranges the preaching of the gospel. " Go, and preach the gospel to every creature." We shall presently show that the order thus indicated can produce the certificate of apostolic approval. Why did God appoint the preaching of the gospel to precede the administration of baptism? What is the 352 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. design which this arrangement naturally suggests to the candid inquirer ? Does it not point to the necessity of such qualifications for baptism as the nations did not possess without the preaching of the gospel? Had Jews and Gentiles been prepared to receive baptism, without intervening instruction, or impression, the ministr}^ of reconciliation would, of course, have opened with the administration of the ordinance. But the gospel must first be preached — salvation must first be proclaimed — repentance and faith must first be incul- cated. The object of all this, it may be said, was merely to produce on the part of those addressed, a voluntary and respectful application for baptism. In many instances this was doubtless one of the effects of the preaching of Christ crucified ; but the object con- templated by the apostles was higher and holier. They summoned the world from sin to salvation — they urged upon all men " repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Keeping in view this order of procedure, we perceive an obvious reason for placing faith, or a profession of faith, before baptism. "Preach the gospel to every, creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." In indicating our argument, we do not, with Dr. Wardlaw, confine ourselves to the clausal relation of belief to baptism : we take in the SLutecedent preachiu^, to which belief succeeds by a natural law of association ; and thus we reach the conclusion that the faith of the text precedes its baptism. Unless some reason more potent than any we have met in the writings of Dr. Halley and others, can be brought forward to disturb PROFESSION A PREEEQUISITE TO ADULT BAPTISM. 353 this order, we must adhere to it, as the order of the passage, the order of nature, the order of God. With reference to Mark xvi. 16, and the expression, " Repent and be baptized," Dr. H. says " From which words is ingeniously elicited a sort of argument that faith and repentance should precede baptism. But this ingenuity may be employed on the other side. ' And now why tarriest thou,' said Ananias to Saul, ^ arise and be bap- tized and wash away thy sins.' The argument from the order of the words, — sound or unsound, let others determine, — is that baptism should precede the washing away of sin." — Lectures, p. 505. Our argument, it will be seen, is not touched by Dr. Halley's counter-ingenuity, which attempts the exposure of reasonings founded on the mere collocation of words. We claim, whether justly or not, the support of authority higher and more substantial. — The proposed parallel from the Acts of the Apostles will meet us in our survey of apostolic baptisms in pursuance of the commission. It may be objected that if this testimony proves any thing, it proves the necessity, not of a profession of faith, but of faith itself, as a qualification for baptism. The objection is not without weight, inasmuch as true faith alone is coupled with salvation. Still we hold it to be evidence of the necessity of a profession, on the principle that such profession is spoken of as faith before men, while in the sight of God the reality alone is faith. Thus the Scripture states that Simon Magus " believed and was baptized," though his was not the faith with which salvation stands connected. That he was not a true believer, and that he received baptism 2 a 354 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. on a profession of faith, are facts which we consider to be equally established by Scripture authority ; and we shall have occasion, at a future stage, to refer to the case as illustrative of another peculiarity in this form of the commission. We are solicitous that our estimate of the collocation of words and clauses should be clearly understood. When the Bible says, " He that believeth and is baptized," " Repent and be baptized," we are not disposed to attach the slightest importance to the mere form of expression, apart from the revealed relations of repentance, faith, and baptism. Convinced that the arrangement is neither indifferent nor fortuitous, and that the order which it suggests is borne out by the character of Christianity, and the practice of its apostles, we are prepared to uphold it as embodying a principle of great value in the diffusion and maintenance of our holy religion. CHAPTER THIRD. A PROFESSION PREREQUISITE APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. BAPTISM BY THE APOSTLES AND OTHER MINISTERS NOT INDISCRIMINATELY ADMINISTERED. — A CREDIBLE PROFESSION OF REPENTANCE AND FAITH PREREQUISITE. INSTANCES CITED AND CANVASSED : — BAPTISM OF THE THREE THOUSAND, ACTS H. 38, 41 :— OF THE SAMARITANS, ACTS Vm. 12, 13 ;— OF THE ETHIOPIAN TREASURER, ACTS YUI. 37-39:— OF CORNELIUS, ACTS X. 47, 48 :— OF LYDIA, ACTS XVI. 14, 15 :— OF THE JAILOR AT PHILIPPI, XVI. 33 :-0F John's disciples, xix. i— 5:— ofsaul byananias, acts xxii. le; ix. is: CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON THE RECORD OF APOSTOLIC BAPTISMS. In the administration of baptism by the apostles, the commission is fully developed and practically interpreted. This part of the sacred record possesses the deepest interest for every friend to the propagation of Chris- tianity. If we would realize the force and anticipate the triumphs of "the faith once delivered unto the saints," let us look to its cradle conquests over the brood of the serpent. If we would guide the aggressive movements of the gospel upon home and foreign heathenism, let us seek for a directory in the labours and devotedness of Christ's primeval ministers, who conducted the glorious enterprise, " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The principle on which baptism was administered 356 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. especially to adults, must have powerfully affected the destinies of the early church ; and as the practice of the apostles still possesses both interest and authority, the duty of ascertaining its character becomes the more pressing. 1. In Acts ii. 38, 41, we meet the first account of Christian baptism in execution of the commission. — " Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." This baptism presents a magnificent specimen of the first-fruits of the Spirit's work in the conversion of souls by the preaching of the gospel. In the multitude addressed by Peter were doubtless numbers whose voices had swelled the tide of ferocious popular violence, which swept away the feeble efforts of Pilate to " release Jesus." With ter- rible force therefore did the apostle charge home upon their conscience the dark guilt of crucifying that Saviour, whom God had " made both Lord and Christ." The freshness of the great event must have given weight and pungency to a discourse that glowed with the hallowed fire of Pentecostal eloquence. By the divine blessing, the result was all that a Christian heart could desire, and more than could have been anticipated. " Stung to the heart," the multitude in an agony of remorse and alarm, exclaimed, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" The cheering answer was at hand. " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name A PROFESSION PREREQUISITE APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 357 of Jesus Christ." After much instruction and exhorta- tion addressed to minds profoundly concerned on the subject of personal salvation, " those who gladly received his word were baptized," and the same day about three thousand souls were added to the church. See v. 47, with the comments of Kuinol and Olshausen. Is this an instance of baptism administered to a multitude, without regard to repentance, faith, or any prerequisite qualification ? Let the facts answer the question. (1.) Peter preaches a sermon of unsurpassed power, obviously designed, and by the agency of the Spirit, calculated to produce conviction of sin. Even this step does not seem very consistent with the policy of administering baptism to all applicants, irrespective of repentance, and, of course, of their state of mind and heart. (2.) Conscience-stricken by the preaching of Christ crucified, and yearning for a salvation of which they almost despaired, the multitude are exhorted to " repent and be baptized." Repentance ^r^^, baptism afterward. This is evident to a demonstration ; for had the apostles simply directed them to submit to baptism, undoubtedly their compHance would have been prompt, cordial, and universal, and the " many other words " of exhortation could have been dispensed with. If repentance, know- ledge, profession, are not Scripture qualifications for the ordinance, why should the apostles interpose long preach- ings, when eager thousands are ready to receive the initiatory ablution ? It is worthy of remark also that the repentance which here precedes baptism, must have 358 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. been something more than mere sorrow for sin, or the terror of conscious guilt; for that the multitude felt most poignantly at the moment the apostles exhorted them to " repent." (3.) This baptism was administered not to the people at large, but to professed converts. We are not told that the whole multitude was baptized, nor even that the rite was administered to all who made application. The desire of candidates is not presented as the ground or directory of apostolic procedure ; on the contrary the cordial reception of the gospel constitutes the practical qualification for baptism. " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." This language dis- closes an important principle of discrimination. It is not said that all gladly received his word — nay the statement rather implies the existence of exceptions — and the baptism is thus limited by a very suitable qualification in the candidates. It appears then, so far as we have proceeded, that conviction of sin, repentance, and the glad reception of the word distinguished the parties to whom alone this apostolic baptism was administered. (4.) The admission of the baptized to church-mem- bership with all its privileges, instantly followed their baptism. They were added to the church, " and they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." v. 4:2. We are aware of nothing in the shape of argument, militating against this position. Writers indeed allege that sufiicient opportunity was not afforded for judging of the repentance and faith of these new converts. But if the allegation be founded, will it not prove too much ? A PROFESSION PREREQUISITE APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 359 It lies upon the face of the narrative that the profession which served these converts for baptism, opened to them the door of the Christian church, and secured their admission to the Lord's table. As regards the pre- requisite necessity of repentance and faith, therefore, both ordinances are here placed upon precisely the same foundation. In drawing this conclusion we are fully aware that the " breaking of bread" is applied by some to the Agapae or love-feasts of the early Christians, and by others, to their common meals. Its reference to the Lord's Supper we hold to be triumphantly defensible. As the shortness of the interval between repentance and baptism is not confined to the case of the three thousand, it will be more orderly to reserve its con- sideration for the close of our survey of apostolic bap- tisms. The only point, which appears to raise an objection to our view of the passage, is connected with the expression hg a(pz(riv aytja^riojv. Does the sacred writer contemplate the remission of sins as preceding or following baptism? Unless the formula* (^ccTrrtZ&iv hg * The import of tbe expression (ixTrri^siu nvoi. sis T'vot, or Hg n is still agitated among the most accomplished interpreters of Scripture. A thorough discussion of the entire question would be desirable ; but we can merely oflPer a few hints at present on the aspect of it with which we are immediately concerned. Vitringa, in his Observ. Sacrce, iii. 22, understands d^ as denoting "in