{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52917/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52917","id":"gutenberg_52917","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52917","summary":null,"tags":["Baptism -- Biblical teaching","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_.\n\nThe footnotes have been re-sequenced for uniqueness across the text, and\npositioned to follow the paragraph in which they are referenced.\n\n THE GREAT BAPTIZER.\n A\n BIBLE HISTORY OF BAPTISM.\n\n BY\n\n SAMUEL J. BAIRD, D. D.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u201cHe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.\u201d\u2014MATT. III, 17.\n\n\u201cThis is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to\npass, in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all\nflesh.\u201d\u2014ACTS II, 16, 17.\n\n -------\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n PHILADELPHIA:\n JAMES H. BAIRD.\n 1882.\n\n Copyright\n SAMUEL J. BAIRD,\n 1882.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nNot only does the ordinance of baptism hold a position of pre-eminent\nhonor, as being the door of entrance to all the privileges of the\nvisible church, but it has been distinguished with a place of paramount\nimportance and conspicuity in the transactions of the two grandest\noccasions in the history of that church,\u2014in sealing the covenant at\nSinai, by which Israel became the church of God, and the grace of\nPentecost, by which the doors of that church were thrown open to the\nworld. Proportionally interesting and significant is the ordinance, in\nitself, as symbolizing the most lofty, attractive and precious\nconceptions of the gospel, and unfolding a history of the plan of God in\nproportions of unspeakable interest, grandeur and glory. And yet,\nheretofore, the discussion of the subject has been little more than a\ndisputation, alike uninteresting, inconclusive and unprofitable,\nconcerning the word _baptizo_.\n\nThe present treatise is an attempt to lift the subject out of the low\nrut in which it has thus traversed, and to render its investigation the\nmeans of enlightening the minds and filling the hearts of God\u2019s people\nwith those conceptions, at once exalted and profound, and those high\nhopes and bright anticipations of the future which the ordinance was\ndesigned and so happily fitted to induce and stimulate.\n\nEighteen years ago,\u2014in a catechetical treatise on \u201cThe Church of God,\nits Constitution and Order,\u201d from the press of the Presbyterian Board of\nPublication,\u2014the author enunciated the essential principles which are\ndeveloped in this volume. In 1870, they were further illustrated in a\ntract on \u201cThe Bible History of Baptism,\u201d which was issued by the\nPresbyterian Committee of Publication, in Richmond, Va. The reception\naccorded to these treatises has encouraged me to undertake the more\nelaborate disquisitions of the present work. The questions are sometimes\nsuch as require a critical study of the inspired originals of the holy\nScriptures; and occasional illustrations are drawn from classic and\nother kindred sources. It has been my study so to conduct these\ninvestigations that while they should not be unworthy the attention of\nscholars, they may be intelligible to readers who are conversant with no\nother than our common English tongue, the richest and noblest ever\nspoken by man.\n\nThe circumstances and manner of the introduction of the rite of\nimmersion into the post-apostolic church presented a rich and inviting\nfield of further investigation. But the volume has already exceeded the\nintended limit; the Biblical question is in itself complete, and its\nauthority is conclusive. To it, therefore, the present inquiry is\nconfined.\n\nThe fruit of much and assiduous investigation and thoughtful study is\nnow reverently dedicated to the glory of the baptizing office of the\nLord Jesus. May he speedily arise and display it in new and transcendent\nenergy; pouring upon his blood-bought church the Spirit of grace and\nconsecration, of knowledge and aggressive zeal, of unity and power;\nbaptizing the nations with his Spirit, and filling the world with the\njoy of his salvation and the light of his glory.\n\nCOVINGTON, KY., Feb. 8, 1882.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n INTRODUCTION, Page 15\n\n\n BOOK I.\n\n OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.\n\n\n PART I.\n\n _BAPTISM AT SINAI._\n\n SECTION I. _Baptism originated in the Old Testament._\u2014It was\n familiar to the Jews when Christ came. There were \u201cdivers\n baptisms\u201d imposed at Sinai, 21\n\n SECTION II. _No Immersions in the Old Testament._\u2014None in\n the ritual. None in the figurative language, 23\n\n SECTION III. _The Old Testament Sacraments._\u20141. Sacrifice.\n 2. Circumcision. 3. The Passover. 4. Baptism, 24\n\n SECTION IV. _The Baptism of Israel at Sinai._--Scene at the\n mount. The covenant proposed and accepted. A great\n revival. Baptism of the converts. The feast of the\n covenant, 25\n\n SECTION V. _The Blood of Sprinkling._\u2014It was a type of\n Christ\u2019s atonement, 30\n\n SECTION VI. _The Living water._\u2014A type of the Spirit. Living\n and salt water. The river of Eden. That of the Revelation\n and of the prophets. The Dead Sea. Rain and fountains.\n Their symbolic functions, 31\n\n\n PART II.\n\n _THE VISIBLE CHURCH._\n\n SECTION VII. _The Abrahamic Covenant._\u2014It was the\n betrothal,\u2014not the marriage. Its terms spiritual,\n everlasting, exclusive. The Seed Christ. It adumbrated the\n covenant of grace. No salvation but on its terms, 37\n\n SECTION VIII. _The Sinai Covenant.\u2014Its Conditions._\u2014Moses\u2019\n commission. 1. \u201cIf ye will obey.\u201d 2. \u201cAnd keep my\n covenant,\u201d 42\n\n SECTION IX. _The Sinai Covenant.\u2014Its Promises._\u20141. A\n peculiar treasure. 2. \u201cAll the earth is mine.\u201d 3. A priest\n kingdom. 4. A holy nation. 5. Palestine, 45\n\n SECTION X. _The Visible Church Established._\u2014The Church\n defined. Its name. Its fundamental law. Membership. Family\n and eldership. Ordinances of testimony. The relation of\n the ritual law, 49\n\n SECTION XI. _The Terms of Membership._\u2014Professed faith and\n obedience. The same to Israel and Gentiles. Separating the\n unworthy, 56\n\n SECTION XII. _Circumcision and Baptism._\u2014The former sealed\n the Abrahamic covenant. The latter alone sealed the\n ecclesiastical covenant of Sinai, 58\n\n\n PART III.\n\n _ADMINISTERED BAPTISMS=SPRINKLINGS._\n\n SECTION XIII. _Unclean Seven Days._\u2014The meaning. Childbirth.\n Issues. Contact with the dead. Leprosy. Characterized by\n (1) inward corruption; (2) seven days continuance; (3)\n contagiousness; (4) requiring sacrifice and sprinkling, 60\n\n SECTION XIV.\u2014_Baptism of a Healed Leper._\u2014Seven sprinklings.\n The self-washings. Meaning of the rites, 66\n\n SECTION XV. _Baptism of the Defiled by the Dead._\u2014The\n ordinary seal of the covenant. The ashes. Manner of the\n baptism, 68\n\n SECTION XVI. _Baptism from Issues._\u2014The law seemingly\n incongruous. The water of nidda, 69\n\n SECTION XVII. _Baptism of Proselytes._\u2014Talmudic traditions.\n Question between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. The\n Levitical mode exemplified in the daughters of Midian, 76\n\n SECTION XVIII. _Baptism of Infants._\u2014The principle of infant\n membership recognized. Evidence of the baptism of Hebrew\n children. Example of the infant Jesus, 82\n\n SECTION XIX. _Baptism of the Levites._\u2014Sprinkled with \u201cwater\n of purifying,\u201d 85\n\n SECTION XX. _These all were one Baptism._ The rites were\n essentially the same. Slight differences explained, 86\n\n SECTION XXI. _The Symbol of Rain._\u2014Descent from heaven. Life\n and fruitfulness imparted. Testimonies of the prophets.\n Carson\u2019s doctrine, 88\n\n SECTION XXII. _It meant, Life to the Dead._\u2014Men dead by\n nature. The Spirit shed down gives life to soul and body.\n Jesus at the grave of Lazarus, 92\n\n SECTION XXIII. _The Gospel in this Baptism._\u2014(1) The red\n heifer. (2) Without the camp. (3) Blood sprinkled, and\n blood and water. (4) Seven times. (5) Seven days\u2019\n defilement. (6) The ashes. (7) The water. (8) The\n sprinkling. (9) The third day and the seventh. (10) The\n self-washing. (11) Things defiled and sprinkled, 95\n\n SECTION XXIV. _These were the \u201cDivers Baptisms,\u201d_\u2014The\n argument of Heb. ix, 8, 9. The sprinklings were the theme\n of Paul\u2019s argument. They were his \u201cdivers baptisms,\u201d 103\n\n\n PART IV.\n\n _RITUAL SELF-WASHINGS._\n\n SECTION XXV. _Unclean until the Even._\u2014From expiatory rites.\n From contact with the unclean. Self-washing, 108\n\n SECTION XXVI. _Grades of Self-washing._\u20141. The hands. 2. The\n hands and feet. 3. The clothes. 4. The clothes and flesh.\n 5. Shaving the hair, 111\n\n SECTION XXVII. _Mode implied in the meaning._\u2014The\n self-washings meant the active putting off of the sins of\n the flesh, 115\n\n SECTION XXVIII. _The words used to designate the\n Washings._\u20141. Sh\u0101taph. 2. K\u0101bas. 3. R\u0101hatz, 116\n\n SECTION XXIX. _Mode of Domestic Ablution._\u2014By water poured\n on. The patriarchs. Mode in Egypt. In the wilderness.\n Story of Susanna. Purgation of a concealed murder. Washing\n the feet at table, 119\n\n SECTION XXX. _Facilities requisite._\u2014The water drawn from\n wells by women. No vessels for immersion. The bath of\n Ulysses, 126\n\n SECTION XXXI. _The Washings of the Priests._\u2014Symbolism of\n the tabernacle. The laver. Priestly washings. The laver\n and river of Ezekiel. No immersions here, 128\n\n SECTION XXXII. _Like these were the Self-washings of the\n People._\u2014Designations and meaning the same. Immersion\n would have been without meaning, 134\n\n SECTION XXXIII. _Purifyings of things._\u2014One case of\n immersion. Minor defilements cleansed by this immersion\n and by washings. The major, by sprinkling, 136\n\n\n PART V.\n\n _LATER TRACES OF THE SPRINKLED BAPTISMS._\n\n SECTION XXXIV. _Old Testament Allusions._\u2014The rite\n everywhere, from Moses to Zechariah, 139\n\n SECTION XXXV. _Rabbinic Traditions._\u2014One heifer from Moses\n to Ezra. Eight thence to the end, 142\n\n SECTION XXXVI. _Festival of the Outpouring of Water._\u2014Feast\n of tabernacles. The outpouring. The festivity. Its\n meaning, 143\n\n SECTION XXXVII. _Hellenistic Greek._\u2014Alexander\u2019s favor to\n the Jews. Alexandria. Hellenistic Greek. Its literature.\n _Baptizo._ Dr. Conant\u2019s definitions. _Baptisma_ and\n _baptismoi_, 151\n\n SECTION XXXVIII. _Baptism of Naaman._ _T\u0101bal=baptizo._\u2014The\n law of leprosy. Office of Elijah and Elisha. Naaman was\n sprinkled seven times, according to the law, 157\n\n SECTION XXXIX. \u201c_Baptized from the Dead._\u201d\u2014Ecclus. xxxi, 30.\n The water of separation here called baptism. \u201cBaptized for\n the dead.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 29, 169\n\n SECTION XL. _Judith\u2019s Baptism._\u2014Story of Judith. Her\n baptism. Mohammedan washing before prayer, 172\n\n SECTION XLI. _The Water of Separation in Philo and\n Josephus._\u2014Philo on the subject. Josephus\u2019 description, 175\n\n SECTION XLII. _Imitations by the Greeks and\n Romans._\u2014Diffusive influence of Israel. The stain of\n crime, and purgation for it, novelties in Greece.\n Purifying always by sprinkled water. Ovid and Virgil. The\n Greek mysteries, 178\n\n SECTION XLIII. _Baptism in Egypt and among the Aztecs._\u2014The\n libation vase of Osor-Ur. Aztec infant baptism, 189\n\n SECTION XLIV. _Levitical Baptism in the Fathers._\u2014Tertullian\n on the idolatrous imitations. Other fathers on the water\n of separation. They recognize it as baptism, 192\n\n\n PART VI.\n\n _STATE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT._\n\n SECTION XLV. _Points established by the foregoing\n Evidence._\u2014Twenty-one points of evidence enumerated, 196\n\n\n BOOK II.\n\n NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.\n\n\n PART VII.\n\n _INTRODUCTORY._\n\n SECTION XLVI. _State of the Question._\u20141. Baptism by\n sprinkling,\u2014fifteen centuries old,\u2014the Jewish Scriptures\n full of it,\u2014the Jewish mind molded by it. 2.\n Immersion,\u2014new,\u2014incongruous,\u2014unmeaning. Carson\u2019s double\n symbolism, 201\n\n\n PART VIII.\n\n _THE PURIFYINGS OF THE JEWS._\n\n SECTION XLVII. _Accounts in the Gospels._\u2014Purifying before\n the feasts. The marriage in Cana. Washings and baptisms, 208\n\n SECTION XLVIII. _Washing Hands before Meals._\u2014Origin of the\n rite. The marriage feast, 210\n\n SECTION XLIX. _Baptism on return from Market._\u2014Market\n defined. Jesus at the Pharisee\u2019s table, 214\n\n SECTION L. _A Various Reading._\u2014Baptiz\u014dntai and rantiz\u014dntai.\n Care taken in transcribing the New Testament. These two\n readings, 216\n\n SECTION LI. _Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture._\u2014Their\n prototypes in the Levitical purifyings of things, 219\n\n\n PART IX.\n\n _JOHN\u2019s$1BAPTISM._\n\n SECTION LII. _History of John\u2019s Mission._\u2014The accounts of\n it. John the herald of the Angel of the Sinai covenant, 221\n\n SECTION LIII. _Israel at the time of John\u2019s Coming._\u2014No\n longer idolatrous, but apostate. Prophetic warnings. They\n were excommunicate from the covenant, 225\n\n SECTION LIV. _Nature of John\u2019s Baptism._\u2014Elijah the champion\n of the covenant, to the ten tribes. John the same to the\n Jews. His baptism renewed the Sinai seal, 228\n\n SECTION LV. _Extent of John\u2019s Baptism._\u2014Testimony of the\n evangelists. Other evidence. A great revival, 232\n\n SECTION LVI. _John did not Immerse._\u2014The circumstances\n forbade it. It would have been unmeaning, 237\n\n SECTION LVII. _John sprinkled with unmingled Water._\u2014Why the\n prophecies speak of water only. \u201cThe kingdom\u201d John\u2019s\n theme. Hence, water only. It was sprinkled. Some may have\n stood in the water, 241\n\n\n PART X.\n\n _CHRIST\u2019s$1BAPTISMS AND ANOINTING._\n\n SECTION LVIII. _His Baptism by John._\u2014Various explanations.\n It was part of his obedience. It sealed him Surety of the\n covenant, and certified to him triumph in his\n resurrection, 247\n\n SECTION LIX. _His Anointing._\u2014The Spirit given him, at his\n birth,\u2014at his baptism,\u2014and at his coronation. Meaning and\n purpose of his anointing, 254\n\n SECTION LX. \u201c_The Baptism that I am Baptized with._\u201d\u2014Matt.\n xx, 20-22. The kingdom was to be after the resurrection;\n and upon condition of being worthy. \u201cThe regeneration\u201d was\n typified by the Levitical baptisms. The baptism was his\n resurrection. Luke xii, 50, 257\n\n\n PART XI.\n\n _CHRIST THE GREAT BAPTIZER._\n\n SECTION LXI. _The Kingdom of the Son of man._\u2014\u201cThe kingdom\n of heaven.\u201d Destined to man at creation. Satan\u2019s scheme.\n The kingdom in the prophets. John\u2019s proclamation. Christ\u2019s\n triumph and coronation, 267\n\n SECTION LXII. _Christ is enthroned as Baptizer._\u2014His\n commission,\u2014to purge the universe. Order of precedence in\n the Godhead. On earth, Jesus was \u201cin the Spirit.\u201d On the\n throne, the Spirit is in and subject to him. \u201cThe promise\n of the Father,\u201d 273\n\n SECTION LXIII. _Note on the Procession of the\n Spirit._\u2014History of the _filioque_ clause. Objections to\n it, 281\n\n SECTION LXIV. _The Baptism of Fire._\u2014The Holy Ghost, and\n fire, two several things. Fire means wrath. The places\n cited against this view. The contrasted language of the\n evangelists. Grace and wrath inseparably connected. John\u2019s\n theme and imagery are from Malachi. Arguments to identify\n the two baptisms in one. _Baptizo._ Mode of the baptism of\n fire, 284\n\n SECTION LXV. _The Baptism of Pentecost._\u2014The apostles must\n \u201cwait for the promise.\u201d The Spirit poured out, 297\n\n SECTION LXVI. _Manner of the Baptism._\u2014_Pno\u0113_,\u2014a breath.\n _Pheromen\u0113_,\u2014borne forward,\u2014impelled. \u201cHe breathed on\n them.\u201d It was affusion, signalizing the height where Jesus\n sits, 299\n\n SECTION LXVII. _The New Spirit imparted._\u2014The Spirit no\n novelty. Peter\u2019s explanation. Hitherto, the church\u2019s\n office was conservative. Now the aggressive Spirit of\n missions given, 304\n\n SECTION LXVIII. _The Tongues like as of Fire._\u2014Not \u201ccloven,\u201d\n but \u201cdistributed.\u201d Like the flame of a lamp. The\n candlestick. The seven stars. \u201cArise! shine!\u201d 310\n\n SECTION LXIX. _The Gift of other Tongues._\u2014Signified the\n union of all people in God\u2019s worship. The phrasing of the\n historian. History of the sign, 313\n\n SECTION LXX. _The Baptism of Repentance._\u2014The firstfruits.\n John\u2019s \u201cbaptism of repentance.\u201d Jesus gives repentance and\n remission. His baptism unites to him and the Father. Its\n manner. The Spirit\u2019s relation to it, 318\n\n SECTION LXXI. _Paul\u2019s Doctrine of this Baptism._\u2014Titus iii,\n 4-7. Meaning of _loutron_. 1 Cor. xii, 12-14. Eph. iv,\n 4-16. Gal. iii, 27-29. Rom. vi, 2-6. Col. ii, 9-11. The\n doctrine of these places, 323\n\n SECTION LXXII. _Noah \u201csaved by Water.\u201d_\u20141 Pet. iii, 17-22.\n Peter and Paul. The theme,\u2014the saints persecuted with\n impunity. Noah persecuted, and saved by means of the\n flood. Christ\u2019s people saved by antitype baptism, 333\n\n SECTION LXXIII. _Christ\u2019s Baptizing Administration._\u2014It\n covers his whole work on the throne. In the end, triumph\n complete, physical and moral. When he shall have purged\n earth and heaven, then will his baptizing office cease, 338\n\n SECTION LXXIV. _Argument from the Real to Ritual\n Baptism._\u2014The real baptism has to do, not with abasement\n and the grave, but with exaltation and power. But\n immersion looks only to the grave. It is incongruous to\n all the phenomena of Pentecost. Immersed in \u201cthe sound\n from heaven,\u201d 343\n\n\n PART XII.\n\n _THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT._\n\n SECTION LXXV. BAPTIZO _and the Resurrection_.\u2014Elements of\n the Baptist argument. Dr. Conant on _baptizo_. It leaves\n its subjects in the water. Dr. Kendrick\u2019s admissions. A\n second meaning in _baptizo_, 347\n\n SECTION LXXVI. _The Prepositions._\u2014_En._ _Eis._ _Ek._ _Apo._\n They indicate, not the mode, but the place of the\n baptisms, 354\n\n SECTION LXXVII. \u201c_Much Water there._\u201d\u2014Aenon=The Springs.\n Many waters. Why Jesus and John resorted to waters, 360\n\n SECTION LXXVIII. \u201c_Buried with him by Baptism into\n Death._\u201d\u2014Rom. vi, 2-7.\u2014\u201cBuried with him by _the_ baptism\n into _the_ death.\u201d Analysis of the passage. Spiritual\n baptism alone referred to. Immersion incongruous to Paul\u2019s\n conception, 364\n\n SECTION LXXIX. \u201c_Buried with him in Baptism._\u201d\u2014Col. ii,\n 9-13. The doctrine the same as the preceding. Union with\n the Lord Jesus the controlling idea. \u201cBuried with him in\n (or, by) _the_ baptism.\u201d The idea of immersion perplexes\n the exegesis, 371\n\n SECTION LXXX. _End of the Baptist Argument._\u2014Baptist\n scholars concede that _baptizo_ does not mean, to dip,\n only. It can not then decide the mode. They admit that it\n leaves its subject in the water. It knows then nothing of\n the resurrection. The prepositions and waters of Enon do\n not help the cause. Paul\u2019s burial \u201cin _the_ baptism,\u201d does\n not allude to the ritual ordinance. In all its parts, the\n argument fails, 374\n\n\n PART XIII.\n\n _BAPTISMAL REGENERATION._\n\n SECTION LXXXI. _Contrary to the whole Tenor of the\n Gospel._\u2014The mystery of iniquity early developed. The\n gospel church viewed as the antitype of the Levitical. The\n Scriptures are not so. Treatment of baptism by the\n evangelists. Paul\u2019s testimony, 377\n\n SECTION LXXXII. _Born of Water and of the Spirit._\u2014John iii,\n 4-8. Metaphor of water. \u201cWater _even_ the Spirit.\u201d John\n had already stated the way of the new birth, 384\n\n SECTION LXXXIII. \u201c_The Washing of Water, by the Word._\u201d\u2014The\n bridal bath. No formula of baptism. \u201cSanctify them through\n thy truth,\u201d 390\n\n\n PART XIV.\n\n _THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH._\n\n SECTION LXXXIV. _The Ritual Law is unrepealed._\u2014Christ so\n left it. The apostles were zealous for it. The council of\n Jerusalem exempted the Gentiles only. James and Paul unite\n to show it still in force. Paul\u2019s practice. He obeyed the\n law, but repudiated its righteousness. This view alone\n harmonizes the history, 393\n\n SECTION LXXXV. _Why the Gentiles were exempted._\u2014Not because\n the law expired. But, unsuited to a world wide extension.\n Its chief end accomplished. What its survival implied, 406\n\n SECTION LXXXVI. _The Christian Passover._\u2014Wine, and blood.\n The passover a type of Christ\u2019s atonement. It is\n perpetuated in the Supper, 408\n\n SECTION LXXXVII. _The Hebrew Christian Church._\u2014The\n synagogue system. The sects of Pharisees, Sadducees and\n Nazarenes. The number and diffusion of the Nazarenes. The\n Hebrew church after the destruction of Jerusalem, 411\n\n SECTION LXXXVIII. _The Gentiles Graffed in._\u2014Mixed churches.\n Gentile churches. \u201cOut of Zion the law.\u201d The Gentiles\n graffed in, 418\n\n\n PART XV.\n\n _CHRISTIAN BAPTISM._\n\n SECTION LXXXIX. _History of the Rite._\u2014The cotemporaneous\n baptisms of John and Jesus. Both were the same Christian\n baptism. Christ did not _institute_ baptism, but gave it\n to the Gentiles. Rebaptism at Ephesus. Note on rebaptism, 424\n\n SECTION XC. \u201c_Baptizing them into the Name._\u201d\u20141. Into the\n name. _En_; _epi_; _eis_. \u201cInto Christ.\u201d \u201cInto the name of\n Christ.\u201d 2. \u201cThe name of the Father and of the Son, and of\n the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe name of the Lord Jesus,\u201d 431\n\n SECTION XCI. \u201c_He that Believeth and is Baptized._\u201d\u2014It\n refers to ritual baptism; and is a caution against trust\n in it. Faith is the essential thing, 437\n\n SECTION XCII. _The Formula._\u2014Ritualistic view. No formula\n prescribed by Christ, nor used by the apostles, 438\n\n SECTION XCIII. _The Administration on Pentecost._\u2014There was\n a baptism with water. Dr. Dale\u2019s objections, 440\n\n SECTION XCIV. _The meaning of this Baptism._\u2014It could but\n symbolize the baptism of the Spirit. The two formulas thus\n reconciled, 446\n\n SECTION XCV. _The Mode of this Baptism._\u2014Immersion\n incongruous and impossible. They were baptized in groups\n with a hyssop bush, 448\n\n SECTION XCVI. _Other Illustrations._\u2014The eunuch. The apostle\n Paul. The house of Cornelius. The jailer. None of these\n look to immersion, 451\n\n SECTION XCVII. \u201c_Baptized into Moses._\u201d\u2014Moses and Israel\n were types. Dr. Kendrick contradicts the record. By this\n baptism Israel were brought into a new state of faith and\n obedience, 457\n\n\n PART XVI.\n\n _THE FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN._\n\n SECTION XCVIII. _Christ and the Children._\u2014A retrospect.\n Christ\u2019s attitude toward the lambs. Peter\u2019s commission.\n The Jews predominant in the church. The Sinai covenant\n recognized the children and made place for the Gentiles, 461\n\n SECTION XCIX. \u201c_Now are they Holy._\u201d\u2014Unclean, and holy.\n Israel a holy nation. \u201cThe saints.\u201d The Baptist exegesis\n of the language, 466\n\n SECTION C. _Household Baptisms._\u2014Not \u201cinfant,\u201d but \u201cfamily\n baptism.\u201d Lydia\u2019s house. The jailer and all his. The house\n of Stephanas. These, in the light of fifteen centuries\n preceding, and of the everlasting covenant, 471\n\n\n CONCLUSION.\n\n Christ\u2019s real baptism with the Spirit is the criterion of\n all baptismal doctrines and rites. Baptismal regeneration\n tried and rejected. The evidence against immersion\n cumulative and overwhelming, 476\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe history of the ritual ordinances of God\u2019s appointment is full of\npainful interest. Passing any reference to the times preceding the\ntransactions of Sinai,\u2014the institutions then given to Israel constituted\na system of transparent, significance, perfect in the congruous symmetry\nand simplicity of the parts and comprehensive fullness of the whole, as\nsetting forth the whole doctrine of God concerning man\u2019s sin and\nsalvation. Designed not only for the instruction of Israel, but for a\nlight to the darkness of the surrounding Gentile world, its truths were\nembodied in symbols which spake to every people of every tongue in their\nown language. Copied in imperfect and perverted forms into the rites of\nGentile idolatry,\u2014although distorted, veiled and dislocated from their\nnormal relations, they shed gleams of twilight into the gloom of\nspiritual darkness, and prepared the world for the dawning of the Sun of\nRighteousness, when he rose upon the nations. To multitudes of Israel,\nthose ordinances were efficient means of eminent grace. With gladness,\nthey saw therein,\u2014as through a glass, darkly, it may be, but\nsurely,\u2014adumbrations of the salvation, grace and glory of the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom. And, if the fact be considered that at one of the darkest\ncrises in Israel\u2019s history, when the prophet cried,\u2014\u201cI, even I am left\nalone,\u201d\u2014God could assure him,\u2014\u201cYet have I left seven thousand,\u201d\u2014we may\npossibly find occasion to revise our preconceptions concerning the\nhistory of the gospel in Israel. Still, undoubtedly there were\nmultitudes in every generation of that people to whom the gospel\npreached in the ordinances brought no profit, for lack of faith. In\ntheir earlier history, indifference and neglect, and in the later, a\nself-righteous zeal for the mere outward rites and forms, were equally\nfatal. The splendor of the ritual, and the superfluous variety and\nfrequency of the observances, were a poor substitute for faith toward\nGod, and rectitude of heart and life. The result was that when Christ\ncame, who was the end of all the rites and ordinances of the law, those\nwho were the most strict and zealous in their observance were his\nbetrayers and murderers.\n\nWhen the Lord Jesus ascended the heavens, assumed the throne, and sent\nforth the gospel to the Gentiles, it was accompanied by two simple\nordinances, which were eliminated out of those of the Levitical ritual,\nby the omission of the element of sacrifice. In them was symbolized and\nset forth the whole riches of that salvation which was represented in\nthe more cumbrous forms of the Levitical system. By the supper, was\nsignified the mystery of his atoning sufferings, and of the nourishment\nof his people by faith therein. By baptism, was shown forth the glory of\nhis exaltation, and the sovereignty and power with which he sheds from\nhis throne the blessings of his grace. But very soon, these ordinances,\nso beautiful and instructive in their simplicity, were corrupted through\nthe misconceptions and ignorance of the teachers of the church. The\nMosaic ritual, instead of being recognized, as Paul describes it, as a\npattern or similitude of the things in the heavens, was regarded as a\ntype of the New Testament church and of the ordinances therein\nadministered. This one error became the inevitable cause of corruption\nand apostasy. Respecting the impending defection, Paul assured the\nThessalonians, that the mystery of iniquity was already at work; and\nforewarned the elders of Ephesus of the coming of grievous wolves to\nrend the flock, and of apostasies among themselves, through the lust of\nan unhallowed ambition.\n\nWe have not the means, from the scanty and corrupted records which\nremain, of the age immediately following the apostles, of tracing the\nprocess of defection. But when, at length, the church emerges into the\nlight of history, it is found to have realized a fatal transformation.\nThe pastors and elders of the apostolic churches, from being simple\npreachers of the word, have become priests ministering at the altar, and\noffering better sacrifices than those made by the Aaronic line. For,\nwhile the latter offered mere animals, and the worshippers fed upon mere\ncarnal food, the former, in the sacrament of the supper, the supposed\nantitype of those offerings, were believed to offer the body and blood\nof the Lord Jesus, and the people, in those elements, imagined\nthemselves to receive and feed upon that very body and blood. So, too,\nwhile the \u201ctype baptisms\u201d of the ancient ritual accomplished a mere\npurifying of the flesh, the baptism of water by the hands of the\nChristian ministry was regarded as the antitype of these, and considered\neffectual for accomplishing a spiritual regeneration, a renewing of the\nheart of the recipient.\n\nThe same error which thus corrupted the doctrine of the sacraments, was\nequally efficient in changing their forms. As they were held to be the\nantitypes of the Old Testament rites, it was sought to develop in them\nfeatures to correspond with all the details of those rites, and to give\nthem a dignity, a pomp and ceremonial, proportioned to their relations\nas fulfilling the things set forth in the splendid ritual of Moses and\nDavid. The rite of baptism, particularly, was corrupted by alterations\nand additions which left scarcely any thing of the primitive\ninstitution, save the name. The Levitical purifyings were especially\nobserved in connection with the annual feasts at Jerusalem. In like\nmanner, the administration of baptism was discouraged, except in\nconnection with two of those feasts,\u2014the passover, and the feast of\nweeks, or of firstfruits,\u2014transferred into the Christian church, under\nthe names of Easter, and Pentecost, or Whitsunday; the latter being\nnamed from the white garments in which the newly baptized were robed.\nThe administration was connected with an elaborate system of attendant\nobservances. First, was a course of fastings, genuflections, and\nprayers, and the imposition of hands upon the candidate. Then, he was\ndivested of all but a single under garment, and facing the west, the\nrealm of darkness, was required, with defiant gesture of the hand, to\nrenounce Satan and all his works. This was followed by an exorcism, the\nminister breathing upon the candidate, for expelling Satan, and\nimparting the Holy Spirit; then the making upon him of the sign of the\ncross; anointing him with oil, once before and once after the baptism;\nthe administration of salt, milk and honey, and three immersions, one at\nthe name of each person of the Trinity. Such was the connection in which\nbaptism by immersion first appears. For its reception, the candidate, of\nwhatever sex, was invariably divested of all clothing, and, after it,\nwas robed in a white garment, emblematic of the spotless purity now\nattained. The rite of baptism by bare sprinkling, however, still\nsurvived. And the question is entitled to a critical attention which it\nhas not yet received, whether, always or generally, the more elaborate\nrite consisted in a _submersion_ of the candidate. Against this\nsupposition, is the practice of the Abyssinian, Greek, Nestorian and\nother churches of the east. In them, the candidate, in preparation for\nthe rite, is placed, or we may say, immersed, naked, in a font of water,\nthe quantity of which neither suffices, nor is intended, to cover him.\nThe administrator then performs the baptism, while pronouncing the\nformula, by thrice pouring water on the candidate, once at the mention\nof each name of the blessed Godhead.[1] To the same effect, is the\nevidence of numerous remains of Christian art, which have been\ntransmitted to us from the early ages. Among these are several\nrepresentations of the baptism of the Lord Jesus by John; one, of that\nof Constantine and his wife, by Eusebius; and others. The baptism of\nConstantine precisely corresponds with the description above given. The\nemperor is seated naked in a vessel, which if full would not reach to\nhis waist; and the bishop is in the act of performing the baptism by\npouring water upon them. In the representations of the baptism of Jesus,\nhe sometimes appears waist-deep in the Jordan, and sometimes on the\nland. But in all cases, the rite is performed by the baptist pouring\nwater on his head out of a cup or shell. Such is, in fact, the\ninvariable mode represented in these remains of ancient art.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n My authorities are \u201cA voyage to Abyssinia, and travels in the interior\n of that country, executed under the orders of the British government,\n in the years 1809 and 1810, etc., by Henry Salt, Esq., F. R. S., etc.,\n London, 1814;\u201d and the personal testimonies of several of our\n missionaries to the east, who have related to me what they saw.\n\nIn this connection the analogy of the forms of religious purifying\nprevalent throughout the east is worthy of special notice. The Brahmin,\nbefore taking his morning\u2019s meal, repairs to the Ganges, carrying with\nhim a brazen vessel. By hundreds, or by thousands, they enter the\nstream, and while some take up the water in their vessels, and pour it\nover their persons, others plunge beneath the stream, for the purging\naway of their sins. Then filling the vessels, they repair to the temple,\nand pour the water upon the idol, or as a libation, before it. The\nParsee, worshiper of the sun, goes, in the morning, to river or sea, and\nentering until the waves are waist high, with his face toward the east,\nawaits the rising of the sun, when, using his joined hands as a dipper,\nhe dashes water over his person, and makes obeisance to his god. On the\nother hand, the Mohammedan, deriving his usage from the earlier\nPharisaic ritual, repairs to the mosque, and from the tank in front,\nwithout entering it, takes up water in his hands with which to bathe\nface, feet and hands, before presenting his prayers.\n\nBy the corruptions in the Christian church, before exemplified, the key\nof knowledge was taken away from the people. The instructive meaning of\nthe sacraments was obscured and obliterated, by the idea of their\nintrinsic efficacy for renewing the heart and atoning for and purging\nsin. The preaching of the word was disparaged and ultimately set aside;\nthe preachers having become propitiating priests, working regeneration\nby the baptismal rite, and making atonement by the sacrifice of the\nmass. The corruption and tyranny of the clergy of the middle ages, and\nthe ignorance, slavery and spiritual darkness which for centuries\nbrooded over the people, were the inevitable results.\n\nThe reformation came, through the recovery by Luther of the golden\ndoctrine of justification by faith, which had so long been buried and\nlost under the accumulated mass of ritualistic error. But even Luther\nwas unable to shake off the fetters of superstition and falsehood in\nwhich he had been cradled, and to enjoy the full liberty of the doctrine\nwhich he gave to the awakened church. In the dogma of consubstantiation,\nhe transmitted to his followers the very error which had corrupted the\nchurch for more than a thousand years. And the result in the churches of\nhis confession has added another to the already abundant evidence of the\never active and irreconcilable antagonism which exists between the\ntheory of sacramental grace, and the doctrine,\u2014criterion of a standing\nor falling church,\u2014of justification by free grace through faith.\n\nOur space does not admit of a critical tracing of the history of the\nsacramental question in the churches of the reformation. On the one\nhand, ritualists of every grade, misled by the erring primitive church,\nand attributing to the sacraments a saving virtue intrinsic in them,\nrender indeed high but mistaken honor to the sacred rites; but fail to\nenjoy them in their true intent and office, or to view and honor them in\ntheir proper character. On the other hand, our immersionist brethren,\nmisguided respecting the form of baptism, by the same erring example,\nand thus lost to the true and comprehensive meaning of the ordinance,\nhave failed to apprehend the instruction which it was designed to\nimpart, and to enjoy the abundant edifying which it was adapted to\nminister; and, instead, have found it a potent agent of separation, and\nan efficient temptation to the indulgence of a disproportionate zeal on\nbehalf of mere outward rites and forms.\n\nNor do those who have escaped these errors always seem to appreciate the\nsacraments, in their true design and character, as ever active and\nefficient witnesses, testifying to the gospel, through symbols as\nintelligible and impressive as the most eloquent speech. The beauty and\nrich significance of the supper have, indeed, been in a measure\napprehended, and made available in some just proportion, to the\ninstruction and edifying of God\u2019s people. But baptism has not held the\nplace, in the ministrations of the sanctuary and the mind of the church,\nwhich is due to its office and design, to the richness of meaning of its\nforms, and to the sublime conceptions and the lofty aspirations and\nhopes which it is so wonderfully adapted to create and cherish. One\nefficient cause of this, undoubtedly, is, the reaction induced by the\naggressive zeal of immersionists, and the exercise of a false charity\ntoward their erroneous sentiments; as though the charity of the gospel,\nas toward our brethren, consisted in an acceptance of their errors as\nequivalents to the truths of God. While they have justly and\nirrefragably maintained that nothing can be Christian baptism which has\nnot at once the form and the meaning ordained by Christ, we have been\nweakly disposed to imagine ourselves patterns of charity, in admitting\nthe validity of immersion, while denying it to be the form or to have\nthe meaning which Christ ordained. As if such an ordinance, from the\ngreat Head of the Church, could have in it any thing indifferent, or\nsubject to our discretion, whether in doctrine or mode! The immediate\nand inevitable result is, a low estimate of the ordinance itself;\nindifference alike to its form and meaning, and to the place it was\ndesigned to fill, and the offices which it was to perform, in the\neconomy of grace. As a mere door of entrance into the fold of the\nchurch, it is administered and received; with too little regard to its\nbeautiful and comprehensive symbolism; and, once performed, it is almost\nlost sight of in the instructions of the pulpit, and meditations of the\npeople. Should this representation suggest a doubt, let the reader\nreflect how often, in the ordinary ministrations of the sanctuary, he\nhas heard the significance of baptism dwelt upon, or even alluded to,\nfor illustrating the great truths of the gospel, on any occasion except\nthat of the administration of the rite; and how seldom, even then, the\nrichness of its symbolic import is unfolded,\u2014its relations to Christ\u2019s\nexaltation and throne, and to all the functions of his scepter; the\nmeaning of the element of water, and of the mode of sprinkling; and the\noffice of the ordinance, as a symbol of the Spirit\u2019s renewing grace, and\na prophecy and seal to the doctrine of the resurrection. As the initial\nseal of the covenant, it is discussed and insisted upon. But of these,\nits intrinsic and most interesting characteristics, but little is heard.\nNo wonder, therefore, that the privilege of its reception is so little\nappreciated, and its appropriation by parents on behalf of their\nchildren, so often neglected.\n\nThe recent researches of Drs. Conant and Dale have exhausted the\nphilological argument as concerning _baptizo_. The former, representing\nthe American (Baptist) Bible Union, and the latter, from the opposite\nstandpoint, have come to conclusions which, to all the practical\npurposes of the discussion, are identical and final. Essentially, they\nagree (1) that _baptizo_ never means, to dip, that is, to put into the\nwater and take out again; but, primarily, to put into or under the\nwater,\u2014to bring into a state of mersion, or intusposition; (2) that it\nalso means to bring into a new state or condition, by the exercise of a\npervasive control; as one who is intoxicated is said to be baptized with\nwine. The former of these meanings is all that remains to the Baptist\nargument from the word. The latter is all that is desired by those who\nrepudiate immersion. The philological discussion being thus brought to a\npractical termination, the occasion seems opportune for inviting\nattention to the real issues involved in the question respecting the\nform of the ordinance; and to the various and abundant testimonies of\nthe Scriptures, as to its origin and office, its mode and meaning, its\nhistory and associations.\n\nIn the same line of investigation, it is the expectation of the writer,\nshould time and opportunity concur, to offer to the Christian public, at\nsome future day, a treatise, similar in plan to that now presented, on\nthe ordinances and church of God, historically traced from the apostasy,\nand the renewal of the covenant in Eden, to the close of the sacred\nvolume.\n\n A\n\n BIBLE HISTORY OF BAPTISM.\n\n ----------\n\n BOOK I.\n OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.\n\n ----------\n\n\n\n\n PART I.\n BAPTISM AT SINAI.\n\n\n SECTION I.\u2014_Baptism Originated in the Old Testament._\n\nAt the time of Christ\u2019s coming, baptism was a rite already familiar to\nthe Jews. The evangelists testify of them that, \u201cwhen they come from the\nmarket, _except they baptize_ (_ean m\u0113 baptis\u014dntai_) they eat not. And\nmany other things there be which they have received to hold, as the\n_baptisms_ (_baptismous_) of cups and pots and brazen vessels and\ntables.\u201d\u2014Mark vii, 3, 4. On account of this rule of tradition, a\nPharisee at whose table Jesus was a guest \u201cmarveled that he had not\nfirst _baptized_ (_ebaptisth\u0113_) before dinner.\u201d\u2014Luke xi, 38. Hence, when\nJohn came, a priest, baptizing, there was no question raised as to the\norigin, nature, form, or divine authority of the ordinance which he\nadministered. The Pharisees, in their challenge of him, confine\nthemselves to the single demand, by what authority he ventured to\nrequire Israel to come to his baptism, since he confessed that he was\nneither Christ nor Elias nor that prophet. (John i, 25.) Their\nfamiliarity with the rite forbade any question concerning it. Had we no\nfurther light on the subject, we might suppose that this ordinance had\nno better source than the unauthorized inventions of Jewish tradition.\nBut the Apostle Paul,[2] an Hebrew of the Hebrews, taught at the feet of\nGamaliel, and versed in all questions of the law, excludes such an idea.\nHe declares that in the first tabernacle \u201cwere offered both gifts and\nsacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as\npertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks and\n(_diaphorois baptismois_) _divers baptisms_\u2014carnal ordinances imposed on\nthem until the time of reformation.\u201d\u2014Heb. ix, 9, 10. The conjunction\n\u201cand\u201d (\u201cdivers baptisms _and_ carnal ordinances\u201d) is wanting in the best\nGreek manuscripts; is rejected by the critical editors, and is\nundoubtedly spurious. The phrase \u201ccarnal ordinances\u201d is not an\nadditional item in the enumeration, but a comprehensive description of\n\u201cthe meats and drinks and divers baptisms\u201d of the law. Paul thus speaks\nof them by way of contrast with the spiritual grace and righteousness of\nthe Lord Jesus. A critical examination of this passage will be made\nhereafter. For the present, we note two points as attested by the\napostle:\n\n1. Among the Levitical ordinances there were not _one_ but divers\nbaptisms.\n\n2. These were not merely allowable rites, but were \u201cimposed\u201d on Israel\nas part of the institutions ordained of God at Sinai.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n I assume what I believe to be demonstrable, that Paul was the author\n of the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\nIt may be proper to add that they were baptisms of persons, and not of\nthings. They were rites which were designed to purify the flesh of the\nworshiper. (vs. 9, 13, 14.)\n\nThese baptisms were, therefore, well known to Israel, from the days of\nMoses. This explains the fact that, in the New Testament, we find no\ninstruction as to the form of the ordinance. It was an ancient rite,\ndescribed in the books of Moses and familiar to the Jews when Christ\ncame. No description, therefore, was requisite. We are then to look to\nthe Old Testament to ascertain the form and manner of baptism.\n\n\n SECTION II.\u2014_No Immersions in the Old Testament._\n\nSays Dr. Carson: \u201cWe deny that the phrase \u2018divers baptisms\u2019 includes the\n_sprinklings_. The phrase alludes to the _immersion_ of the different\nthings that by the law were to be _immersed_.\u201d[3] Had this learned\nwriter pointed out the things that were to be immersed, and the places\nin the law where this was required, it would have saved us some trouble.\nIn default of such information, our first inquiry in turning to the Old\nTestament will be for that form of observance. We take up the books of\nMoses, and examine his instructions as to all the prominent institutions\nof divine service. But among these we find no immersion of the person.\nWe enter into minuter detail, and study every rule and prescription of\nthe entire system as enjoined on priests, Levites, and people,\nrespectively. But still there is no trace of an ordinance for the\nimmersion of the person or any part of it. We extend our field of\ninquiry, and search the entire volume of the Old Testament. But the\nresult remains the same. From the first chapter of Genesis to the last\nof Malachi, there is not to be found a record nor an intimation of such\nan ordinance imposed on Israel or observed by them at any time. Not only\nis this true as to baptismal immersion performed by an official\nadministrator upon a recipient subject. It is equally true as to any\nconceivable form or mode of immersion, self-performed or administered.\nThere is no trace of it. But here is Paul\u2019s testimony that there were\n\u201cdivers baptisms imposed.\u201d By _baptisms_, then, Paul certainly did not\nmean immersions.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n \u201cCarson on Baptism\u201d (published by C. C. P. Crosby: New York, 1832), p.\n 117.\n\nThe impregnable position thus reached is further fortified by the fact\nthat, in all the variety and exuberance of figurative language used in\nthe Bible to illustrate the method of God\u2019s grace, no recourse is ever\nhad to the figure of immersion. All agree that the sacraments are\nsignificant ordinances. If, then, the significance of baptism at all\ndepends on the immersion of the person in water, we would justly expect\nto find frequent use of the figure of immersion, as representing the\nspiritual realities of which baptism is the symbol. But we search the\nScriptures in vain for that figure so employed. It never once occurs.\n\n\n SECTION III.\u2014_The Old Testament Sacraments._\n\nAs there are no immersions in the Old Testament, we must look for the\ndivers baptisms under some other form. Assuming that in this rite there\nmust be a sacramental use of water, we will first examine the ancient\nsacraments. On a careful analysis of the ordinances comprehended in the\nLevitical system, we find among them four which strictly conform to the\ndefinition of a sacrament, and which are the only sacraments described\nor referred to in the Old Testament.\n\n1. _Sacrifice._\u2014The first of these in origin and prominence was\nsacrifice. Originating in Eden, and incorporated in the Levitical\nsystem, it had all the characteristics of a sacrament. In it the life\nblood of clean animals was shed and sprinkled, and their bodies burned\nupon the altar. Thus were represented the shedding of Christ\u2019s blood,\nand his offering of atonement to the justice of God. But here is no\nwater. It is not the baptism for which we seek.\n\n2. _Circumcision._\u2014The second of the Old Testament sacraments was\ncircumcision, whereby God sealed to Abraham and his seed the covenant of\nblessings to them and all nations through the blood of the promised\nSeed. Here, again, no one will pretend to identify the ordinance with\nthe baptisms of Paul.\n\n3. _The Passover._\u2014The third of the Old Testament sacraments, the first\nof the Levitical dispensation, was the feast of the passover. In it, the\npaschal lamb was slain, its blood sprinkled on the lintels and door\nposts of the houses, and the flesh roasted and eaten with unleavened\nbread and bitter herbs. At Sinai, this ordinance was modified by\nrequiring the feast to be observed at the sanctuary, the blood being\nsprinkled on the altar, and the fat burned thereon. And, to the other\nelements appointed in Egypt, the general provisions of the Mosaic law\nadded wine. All peace offerings, free will offerings, and offerings at\nthe solemn feasts, of which the passover was one, were to be accompanied\nwith wine, and were eaten by the offerers, except certain parts, that\nwere burned on the altar. (See Num. xv, 5, 7, 10; xxviii, 7, 14.) This\nordinance, eliminated of its sacrificial elements, is perpetuated in the\nLord\u2019s supper. In it was no water. It was not the rite for which we\nseek.\n\n4. _Baptism._\u2014There remains but one more of the Mosaic sacraments. It\nwas instituted at Sinai. In it, water was essential, and by it was\nsymbolized the renewing agency of the Holy Spirit. It was \u201ca\npurification for sin,\u201d an initiatory ordinance, by which remission of\nsins and admission to the benefits of the covenant were signified and\nsealed to the faith of the recipients. It occupied, under the Old\nTestament economy, the very position, and had the significance, which\nbelong to Christian baptism under the New. Moreover, it appears under\nseveral modifications, and is thus conformed to Paul\u2019s designation of\n\u201c_divers_ baptisms,\u201d whilst these, in their circumstantial variations,\nwere essentially one and the same ordinance.\n\n\n SECTION IV.\u2014_The Baptism of Israel at Sinai._\n\nThe occasion of the first recorded administration of this rite was the\nreception of Israel into covenant with God at Sinai. For more than two\nhundred years they had dwelt in Egypt, and for a large part of the time\nhad been bondmen there. The history of their sojourn in the wilderness\nshows that not only was their manhood debased by the bondage, but their\nsouls had been corrupted by the idolatries of the Egyptians (Josh. xxiv,\n14; Ezek. xx, 7), and they had forgotten the covenant and forsaken the\nGod of their fathers. They were apostate, and, in Scriptural language,\nunclean.\n\nBut now the fullness of time had come, when the promises made to the\nfathers must be fulfilled. Leaving the nations to walk after their own\nways, God was about to erect to himself a visible throne and kingdom\namong men, to be a witness for him against the apostasy of the race. He\nwas about to arouse Israel from her debasement and slavery, to establish\nwith her his covenant, and to organize and ordain her his peculiar\npeople\u2014his Church.\n\nProportioned to the importance of such an occasion was the grandeur of\nthe scene and the gravity of the transactions. Of them we have two\naccounts, one from the pen of Moses (Ex. xx-xxiv), and the other from\nthe Apostle Paul, in exposition of his statement as to the divers\nbaptisms. (Heb. ix, 18-20.) As to these accounts, two or three points of\nexplanation are necessary. (1) The two words, \u201ccovenant\u201d and\n\u201ctestament,\u201d represent but one in the originals in these places, of\nwhich \u201ccovenant\u201d is the literal meaning. (2) Paul mentions _water_ (Heb.\nix, 19), of which Moses does not speak. The fact is significant, as the\napostle is in the act of illustrating the \u201cdivers baptisms,\u201d of which he\nhad just before spoken. (3) The word \u201coxen,\u201d in our translation (Ex.\nxxiv, 5), should be \u201cbulls.\u201d Oxen were not lawful for sacrifice.\nYearling animals seem to have been preferred. Says Micah, \u201cShall I come\nbefore the Lord with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?\u201d\u2014Micah\nvi, 6. Hence Paul indifferently calls them bulls and calves. The goats\nof which he speaks were no doubt among the burnt-offerings of Moses\u2019s\nnarrative. Both \u201csmall and great cattle\u201d seem to have been offered on\nall great national solemnities.\n\nThe redeemed tribes came to Sinai in the third month after the exodus.\nMoses was called up into the mount and commanded to propose to them the\ncovenant of God. It was in these terms: \u201cIf ye will obey my voice\nindeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto\nme above all people, for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me\na kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\u201d\u2014Ex. xix, 3-6. This proposal the\npeople, with one voice, accepted. God then commanded Moses: \u201cSanctify\nthe people to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes and be\nready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down\nin the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai.\u201d\u2014Vs. 10, 11. On the\nthird day, in the morning, there were thunders and lightnings, and a\nthick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud,\nso that all the people trembled. And Mount Sinai was altogether on a\nsmoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof\nascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.\nAnd when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and\nlouder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. And the Lord came\ndown upon the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses up to the top\nof the mount, and Moses went up.\n\nIn the midst of this tremendous scene, so well calculated to fill the\npeople with awe, and to deter them from the thought of a profane\napproach, Moses was nevertheless charged to go down and warn the people,\nand set bounds around the mountain, lest they should break through unto\nthe Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. After such means, used to\nimpress Israel with a profound sense of God\u2019s majesty and their infinite\nestrangement from him, his voice was heard, uttering in their ears the\nTen Commandments, prefaced with the announcement of himself as their God\nand Redeemer. (Compare Deut. iv, 7-13.) At the entreaty of the people,\nthe terribleness of God\u2019s audible voice was withdrawn, and Moses was\nsent to tell them the words of the Lord and his judgments. The people\nagain unanimously declared, \u201cAll the words which the Lord hath said,\nwill we do.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiv, 3.\n\nIn this sublime transaction we have all the scenes and circumstances of\na mighty revival of true religion. It is a vast camp-meeting, in which\nGod himself is the preacher, speaking in men\u2019s ears with an audible\nvoice from the top of Sinai, and alternately proclaiming the law of\nrighteousness and the gospel of grace, calling Israel from their\nidolatries and sins to return unto him, and offering himself as not only\nthe God of their fathers, but their own Deliverer already from the\nEgyptian bondage, and ready to be their God and portion\u2014to give them at\nonce the earthly Canaan, and to make it a pledge of their ultimate\nendowment with the heavenly. The people had professed with one accord to\nturn to God, and pledged themselves, emphatically and repeatedly, to\ntake him as their God, to walk in his statutes and do his will, to be\nhis people.\n\nIt is true that, to many, the gospel then preached was of no profit, for\nlack of faith; whose carcasses therefore fell in the wilderness. (Heb.\niii, 17-19; iv, 2.) But it is equally true that the vast majority of the\nassembly at Sinai were children and generous youth, who had not yet been\nbesotted by the Egyptian bondage. To them that day, which was known in\ntheir after history as \u201cthe day of the assembly\u201d (Deut. x, 4; xviii,\n16), was the beginning of days. Its sublime scenes became in them the\nspring of a living faith. With honest hearts they laid hold of the\ncovenant, and took the God of the patriarchs for their God. Soon after,\nthe promise of Canaan, forfeited by their rebellious fathers, was\ntransferred to them. (Num. xiv, 28-34.) Trained and disciplined by the\nforty years\u2019 wandering, it was they who became, through faith, the\nirresistible host of God, the heroic conquerors and possessors of the\nland of promise. Centuries afterward, God testified of them that they\npleased him: \u201cI remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of\nthine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land\nthat was not sown. Israel was holiness to the Lord, and the firstfruits\nof his increase.\u201d\u2014Jer. ii, 2, 3. Until the day of Pentecost, no day so\nmemorable, no work of grace so mighty, is recorded in the history of\nGod\u2019s dealings with men as that of the assembly at Sinai.\n\nAnd as on the day of Pentecost the converts were baptized upon their\nprofession of faith, so was it now. Moses appointed the next day for a\nsolemn ratifying of the transaction. He wrote in a book the words of the\nLord\u2019s covenant, the Ten Commandments; and in the morning, at the foot\nof the mount, built an altar of twelve stones, according to the twelve\ntribes. On it young men designated by him offered burnt-offerings and\nsacrificed peace-offerings of young bulls. Moses took half the blood and\nsprinkled it on the altar. Half of it he kept in basins. He then read\nthe covenant from the book, in the audience of all the people, who again\naccepted it, saying, \u201cAll that the Lord hath said will we do, and be\nobedient.\u201d Moses thereupon took the blood that was in the basins, with\nwater and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all\nthe people, saying, \u201cBehold the blood of the covenant which the Lord\nhath made with you concerning all these words.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiv, 8, compared\nwith Heb. ix, 19, 20.\n\nIn the morning Moses had already, by divine command, assembled Aaron,\nNadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And no sooner was\nthe covenant finally accepted and sealed with the baptismal rite, than\nthese all went up into the mount, and there celebrated the feast of the\ncovenant. \u201cThey saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet, as\nit were, a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of\nheaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of Israel, he laid not his\nhand. Also, they saw the God of Israel, and did eat and drink.\u201d\u2014Ex.\nxxiv, 1, 9-11. So intimate, privileged, and spiritual was the relation\nwhich the covenant established between Israel and God.\n\nThus was closed this sublime transaction, ever memorable in the history\nof man and of the church of Christ, in which the invisible God\ncondescended to clothe himself in the majesty of visible glory, to hold\naudible converse with men, to enter into the bonds of a public and\nperpetual covenant with them, and to erect them into a kingdom, on the\nthrone of which his presence was revealed in the Shechinah of glory.\n\nSuch were the occasion and manner of the first institution and\nobservance of the sacrament of baptism. In its attendant scenes and\ncircumstances, the most august of all God\u2019s displays of his majesty and\ngrace to man; and in its occasion and nature, paramount in importance,\nand lying at the foundation of the entire administration of grace\nthrough Christ. It was the establishing of the visible church.\n\n\n SECTION V.\u2014_The Blood of Sprinkling._\n\nIn all the Sinai transactions, Moses stood as the pre-eminent type of\nthe Lord Jesus Christ; and the rites administered by him were figures of\nthe heavenly realities of Christ\u2019s sacrifice and salvation. This is\nfully certified by Paul, throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, and\nespecially in the illustration which he gives of his assertion\nconcerning the divers baptisms imposed on Israel. See Heb. ix, 9-14,\n19-28. In these places, it distinctly appears that the blood of the\nSinai baptism was typical of the atonement of Christ. Not only in this,\nbut in all the Levitical baptisms, as will hereafter appear, blood was\nnecessary to the rite. In fact, it was an essential element in each of\nthe Old Testament sacraments. The one idea of sacrifice was the blood of\natonement. The same idea appeared in circumcision, revealing atonement\nby the blood of the seed of Abraham. In the passover the blood of\nsprinkling was the most conspicuous feature; and in the Sinai baptism\nblood and water were the essential elements.\n\nPeter states the Old Testament prophets to have \u201cinquired and searched\ndiligently, searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ\nwhich was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the\nsufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.\u201d\u20141 Pet. i, 10,\n11. Of the time and manner they were left in ignorance. But the blood,\nin all their sacraments, was a lucid symbol, pointing them forward to\nthe sufferings of Christ as the essential and alone argument of the\nfavor and grace of God. In it, and in the rites associated with it, they\nsaw, dimly it may be, but surely, the blessed pledge that in the\nfullness of time \u201cthe Messenger of the covenant\u201d would appear (Mal. iii,\n2), magnify the law and make it honorable (Isa. xlii, 21), by his\nknowledge, justify many, bearing their iniquities (Isa. liii, 11), and\nsprinkle the mercy-seat in heaven, once for all, with his own precious\nand effectual blood\u2014the blood of the everlasting covenant. (Heb. ix,\n24-26; xiii, 20; 1 Pet. i, 11.)\n\n\n SECTION VI.\u2014_The Living Water._\n\nIn the Sinai baptism, as at first administered to all Israel, and in all\nits subsequent forms, living or running water was an essential element.\nThis everywhere, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and of the New,\nis the symbol of the Holy Spirit, in his office as the agent by whom the\nvirtue of Christ\u2019s blood is conveyed to men, and spiritual life\nbestowed. In the figurative language of the Scriptures, the sea, or\ngreat body of salt or dead water, represents the dead mass of fallen and\ndepraved humanity. (Dan. vii, 2, 3; Isa. lvii, 20; Rev. xiii, 1; xvii,\n15.) Hence, of the new heavens and new earth which are revealed as the\ninheritance of God\u2019s people, it is said, \u201cAnd there shall be no more\nsea.\u201d\u2014Rev. xxi, 1.\n\nThe particular source of this figure seems to have been that accursed\nsea of Sodom, which was more impressively familiar to Israel than any\nother body of salt water, and which has acquired in modern times the\nappropriate name of the Dead Sea\u2014a name expressive of the fact that its\nwaters destroy alike vegetation on its banks and animal life in its\nbosom. Its peculiar and instructive position in the figurative system of\nthe Scriptures appears in the prophecy of Ezekiel (xlvii, 8, 9-11),\nwhere the river of living water from the temple is described as flowing\neastward to the sea; and being brought forth into the sea, the salt\nwaters are healed, so that \u201cthere shall be abundance of fish.\u201d\n\nContrasted with this figure of sea water is that of living water, that\nis, the fresh water of rain and of fountains and streams. It is the\nordinary symbol of the Holy Spirit. (John vii, 37-39.) The reason is,\nthat, as this water is the cause of life and growth to the creation,\nanimal and vegetable, so, the Spirit is the alone source of spiritual\nlife and growth. The primeval type of that blessed Agent was the river\nthat watered the Garden of Eden, and thence flowing, was parted into\nfour streams to water the earth. This river was a fitting symbol of the\nHoly Spirit, \u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father,\u201d the \u201cpure river of\nwater of life clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and\nof the Lamb\u201d (John xv, 26; Rev. xxii, 1), not only in its life-giving\nvirtue, but in its abundance and diffusion. But the fall cut man off\nfrom its abundant and perennial stream, and thenceforth the figure, as\ntraceable through the Scriptures, ever looks forward to that promised\ntime when the ruin of the fall will be repaired, and the gates of\nParadise thrown open again. In the last chapters of the Revelation, that\nday is revealed in a vision of glory. There is no more sea; but the\nriver of life pours its exhaustless crystal waters through the restored\nEden of God. But the garden is no longer the retired home of one human\npair, but is built up, a great city, with walls of gems and streets of\ngold and gates of pearl and the light of the glory of God. And the\nnations of them that are saved do walk in the light of it. But still it\nis identified as the same of old, by the flowing river and the tree of\nlife in the midst on its banks. (Rev. ii, 7; xxii, 1, 2; and compare\nPsalms xlvi, 4; xxiii, 2; John iv, 10, 14; vii, 38, 39; Zech. xiv. 8.)\nIn Ezekiel (xlvii, 1-12) there appears a vision of this river as a\nprophecy of God\u2019s grace in store for the last times for Israel and the\nworld. In it, the attention of the prophet and of the reader is called\ndistinctly to several points, all of which bear directly on our present\ninquiry:\n\n1. The source of the waters. In the Revelation, it is described as\nproceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb. In Ezekiel the same\nidea is presented under the figure of the temple, God\u2019s dwelling-place.\nThe waters issue out from under the threshold of the house \u201cat the south\nside of the altar\u201d\u2014the altar where the sprinkled blood and burning\nsacrifices testified to the Person by whom, and the price at which, the\nSpirit is sent. (Compare John vii, 39; xvi, 7; Acts ii, 33.)\n\n2. The exhaustless and increasing flow of the waters is shown to the\nprophet, who, at a thousand cubits from their source, is led through\nthem,\u2014a stream ankle deep. A thousand cubits farther, he passed through,\nand they had risen to his knees. Again, a thousand cubits, and the\nwaters were to his loins; and at a thousand cubits more it was a river\nthat he could not pass over. \u201cAnd he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou\nseen this?\u201d\n\n3. The river was a fountain of life. On its banks were \u201cvery many\ntrees,\u201d \u201call trees for meat,\u201d with fadeless leaf and exhaustless fruit,\n\u201cthe fruit thereof for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.\u201d \u201cAnd\nthere shall be a very great multitude of fish\u201d in the Dead Sea, \u201cbecause\nthese waters shall come thither.\u201d For \u201cit shall come to pass that every\nthing that liveth which moveth, whithersoever the river shall come shall\nlive. Every thing shall live, whither the river cometh.\u201d\n\n4. By these living waters, the Dead Sea of depraved humanity shall be\nhealed. \u201cNow this sea of Sodom,\u201d says Thompson, \u201cis so intolerably\nbitter, that, although the Jordan, the Arnon, and many other streams\nhave been pouring into it their vast contributions of sweet water for\nthousands of years, it continues as nauseous and deadly as ever. Nothing\nlives in it; neither fish nor reptiles nor even animalcul\u00e6 can abide its\ndesperate malignity. But these waters from the sanctuary heal it. The\nwhole world affords no other type of human apostasy so appropriate, so\nsignificant. Think of it! There it lies in its sulphurous sepulcher,\nthirteen hundred feet below the ocean, steaming up like a huge caldron\nof smouldering bitumen and brimstone! Neither rain from heaven nor\nmountain torrents nor Jordan\u2019s flood, nor all combined can change its\ncharacter of utter death. Fit symbol of that great dead sea of depravity\nand corruption which nothing human can heal!\u201d[4] But the pure waters of\nthe river of life will yet pour into this sea of death a tide of grace\nby which \u201cthe waters shall be healed.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xxvii, 8.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n \u201cThe Land and the Book.\u201d Vol. II, pp. 531, 534.\n\nIn the prophecy of Joel (iii, 18,) there is another allusion to these\nwaters. Again, in Zechariah a modified form of the same vision appears.\n\u201cIt shall be in that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem;\nhalf of them toward the former\u201d (the Eastern or Dead) \u201csea, and half of\nthem toward the hinder sea\u201d (the Mediterranean). \u201cIn summer and winter\nshall it be;\u201d not a mere winter torrent, as are most of the streams of\nPalestine, but an unfailing river. (Zech. xiv, 8.)\n\nSuch is the type of the Spirit, as his graces flowed in Eden, and shall\nbe given to the world, in the times of restitution. But, for the present\ntimes, the symbols of rain and fountains of springing water are used in\nthe Scriptures as the appropriate types of the now limited and unequal\nmeasure and distribution of the Spirit. The manner and effects of his\nagency are set forth under three forms, each having its own\nsignificance:\n\n1. Inasmuch as the rains of heaven are the great source of life and\nrefreshment to the earth and vegetation, the coming of the Spirit and\nhis efficiency as a life-giving and sanctifying power sent down from\nheaven are expressed by water, shed down, poured, or sprinkled, as the\nrain descends. Says God to Israel: \u201cI will pour water upon him that is\nthirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy\nseed and my blessing upon thine offspring.\u201d\u2014Isa. xliv, 3. The Psalmist\nsays of the graces of the Spirit to be bestowed by Messiah, \u201cHe shall\ncome down like rain upon the mown grass\u201d (the stubble, after mowing) \u201cas\nshowers that water the earth.\u201d\u2014Psalm lxxii, 6. Of this we shall see more\nhereafter.\n\n2. The act of faith by which the believer seeks and receives more and\nmore of the indwelling Spirit is symbolized by thirsting and drinking of\nliving water. \u201cHo, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the\nwaters.\u201d\u2014Isa. lv, 1. \u201cIf any man thirst, let him come unto me and\ndrink.... This he spake of the Spirit which they that believe on him\nshould receive.\u201d\u2014John vii, 37-39. \u201cLet him that is athirst come. And\nwhosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.\u201d\u2014Rev. xxii, 17.\nThe intimate relation which this figure sustains, responsive to the one\npreceding, is illustrated by the expression wherein God describes the\nland of promise: \u201cA land of hills and valleys, and _drinketh_ water of\nthe rain of heaven. A land which the Lord thy God careth for.\u201d\u2014Deut. xi,\n11, 12. With this, compare the language of Paul: \u201cThe earth which\n_drinketh_ in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs\nmeet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing of God; but that\nwhich beareth thorns and briars is rejected and is nigh unto cursing;\nwhose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things\nof you.\u201d\u2014Heb. vi, 7-9. The figure is further illustrated in the sublime\ndescription given by Ezekiel of the destruction of Assyria, in which he\nspeaks of \u201cthe trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that\n_drink water_,\u201d and so grow and flourish. (Ezek. xxxi, 16.)\n\n3. The duty of the penitent to yield himself with diligent obedience to\nthe sanctifying power and grace of the Holy Spirit, to put away sin and\nfollow after holiness, is enjoined under the figure of washing himself\nwith water. \u201cWash ye; make you clean; put away the evil of your doings\nfrom before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to to well.\u201d\u2014Isa. i, 16,\n17. \u201cO Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be\nsaved.\u201d\u2014Jer. iv, 14. So, James cries, \u201cCleanse your hands, ye sinners;\nand purify your hearts, ye double-minded.\u201d\u2014Jas. iv, 8. In the rite of\nself-washing, to which these last passages refer, the pure water still\nsymbolized the Holy Spirit given by Jesus Christ; whilst the washing\nexpressed the privilege and duty of God\u2019s people conforming their lives\nto the law of holiness, and exercising the graces which the Spirit\ngives.\n\n\n\n\n PART II.\n THE VISIBLE CHURCH.\n\n\n SECTION VII.\u2014_The Abrahamic Covenant._\n\nThe interest attaching to the Sinai baptism is greatly enhanced by its\nimmediate and intimate relation to us. The covenant then sealed is the\nfundamental and perpetual charter of the visible church. The transaction\nby which it was established was the inauguration of that church. It was\nthe espousal of the bride of Christ, whose betrothal took place in the\ncovenant with Abraham. So it is expressly and repeatedly stated by the\nSpirit of God in the prophets. (See Jer. ii, 1, 2; Ezek. xvi, 3-14;\nxxiii; Hos. ii, 2, 15, 16.) It is true that this is controverted. It is\nasserted that the relations established by the covenants between God and\nIsrael were secular and political, not spiritual; that the blessings\ntherein secured were temporal; that they conveyed nothing but a\nguarantee that Israel should become a numerous and powerful nation, that\nGod would be their political king, the Head of their commonwealth, and\nthat the land of Palestine should be their possession and home. How\nutterly at variance with the teachings of God\u2019s Word are these\nassertions a brief analysis of the record will prove.\n\nThe covenant of Sinai was the culmination of a series of transactions\nwhich began with the calling of Abram from Ur of the Chaldees. \u201cThe Lord\nhad said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred\nand from thy father\u2019s house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I\nwill make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy\nname great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that\nbless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all\nfamilies of the earth be blessed.\u201d\u2014Gen. xii, 1-3. Respecting this\nrecord, the following points are made clear in the New Testament: (1)\nThat under the type of Canaan, \u201cthe land that I will show thee,\u201d heaven\nwas the ultimate inheritance offered to Abram; and that it was so\nunderstood by him and the patriarchs. (Gal. iv, 26; Heb. xi, 10, 14-16.)\n(2) That the blessings promised through him to all the families of the\nearth were the atonement and salvation of Jesus Christ; and that this\nalso was so understood by Abram. (Gen. xvii, 7; Gal. iii, 16, John viii,\n56.) Thus, in his call from Chaldea, and the promises annexed to it, God\n\u201cpreached before the gospel unto Abraham.\u201d\u2014Gal. iii, 8. So far,\ncertainly, the transaction is eminently spiritual.\n\nAbout ten years after the coming of Abram into the land of Canaan, the\npromises were confirmed to him by being incorporated into covenant form,\nand ratified by a seal. Respecting this first covenant, the record of\nwhich is contained in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, the following\nare the essential points:\n\n1. The interview was opened by the Lord with an assurance so spiritual\nand large as to be exhaustive of every thing that heaven can bestow.\n\u201cThe Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy\nshield, and thy exceeding great reward.\u201d Whatever else was promised or\ngiven, after an assurance thus rich and comprehensive of time and\neternity, must evidently be interpreted in a sense subordinate to it. No\nminor particulars can ever exhaust or limit the treasury thus opened.\nHenceforth God himself belongs to the patriarch.\n\n2. An innumerable seed was assured to him, as heirs with him of the\npromises; and he is told that not to him but to his seed should the\nearthly Canaan be given. (Vs. 5, 18; and compare xvii, 7, 8.)\n\n3. Abram\u2019s faith was the condition of the covenant. \u201cHe believed in the\nLord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.\u201d\u2014Vs. 6.\n\n4. The promises thus made and accepted were confirmed by a sacrifice\nappointed of God, and his acceptance of it was manifested by the sign of\na smoking furnace and a burning lamp, passing between the pieces. (Vs.\n8, 9, 17, 18.)\n\n5. It was an express provision of the covenant thus ratified that, so\nfar as it concerned the seed of Abram, its realization was to be held in\nabeyance four hundred years. (Vs. 13-16.) It was the betrothal, of which\nthe marriage consummation could only take place when the long-suffering\nof God toward the nations was exhausted and the iniquity of the Amorites\nwas full.\n\nAbout fifteen years afterward God was pleased to appear again to the\npatriarch, to renew the covenant, and to confirm it with a new seal.\n(Gen. xvii, 1-21.) Of this edition of the covenant the principal\nprovisions were: (1) That he should be a father of many nations. (2)\nThat Canaan should be, to him and his seed, an everlasting possession.\n(3) That God would be a God to him and to his seed after him. By the\nfirst of these promises, as Paul assures us, Abraham was made the heir\nof the world, and the father of all believers; of the gospel day, as\nwell as before it; of the Gentile nations, as well as of Israel. (Rom.\niv, 11-18; Gal. iii, 7-9, 14.) Hence the name given him of God, in\nconfirmation of this promise (Gen. xvii, 5), ABRAHAM, \u201cFather of a\nmultitude,\u201d Father of the church of Christ. But the central fact of this\ntransaction remains. The covenant was epitomized in one brief word: \u201cI\nwill establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee,\nin their generations, for an everlasting covenant, _to be a God unto\nthee and to thy seed after thee_.\u201d\u2014v. 7.\n\n1. The covenant thus set forth is \u201can everlasting covenant;\u201d no lapse of\ntime can alter or abrogate its terms.\n\n2. By it the Godhead assumed toward Abraham and his seed relations\npeculiar, exclusive, and of boundless grace. God, even the infinite and\nalmighty God, can do no more than to give himself. Christian can\nconceive no more, and the most blessed of all heaven\u2019s ransomed host\nwill know and enjoy no more than this, which was first assured to Abram,\nin those words, \u201cFear not; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great\nreward;\u201d and is now concentrated into that one word, \u201c_Thy God_.\u201d What\ncan there be, not spiritual, in a covenant thus summed? And what\nspiritual gift or blessing is not comprehended in it? But this is not\nall. Whilst Paul testifies that all who believe are the seed of Abraham,\nand heirs with him of the promises, he also declares that Christ was the\nseed to whom distinctively and on behalf of his people they were\naddressed: \u201cTo Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith\nnot, And to seeds as of many, but as of one: And to thy seed, which is\nChrist.\u201d\u2014Gal. iii, 16. It thus appears that the promises in question\nwere addressed immediately to the Lord Jesus, and they indicate all the\nintimacy and grace of his relation to the Father,\u2014the relation which he\nclaimed, when, from the cross, he appealed to the Father by that title:\n\u201c_My God! my God!_ why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d It follows, that the\ntitle of others to this promise is mediate only: \u201cAs many of you as have\nbeen baptized into Christ have put on Christ.... And if ye be Christ\u2019s,\nthen are ye Abraham\u2019s seed, and heirs according to the promise.\u201d\u2014Ib.\n27-29.\n\nIt was with a view to this relation of the covenant to the Lord Jesus,\nthat circumcision was appointed as a seal of it. In that rite was\nsignified satisfaction to justice through the blood of the promised\nSeed, and the crucifying of our old man with him, to the putting off and\ndestroying of the body of the flesh. (Deut. x, 16; Jer. iv, 4; Rom. vi,\n6; Col. ii, 11, 12.)\n\nUpon occasion of the offering of Isaac, the covenant was again confirmed\nto Abraham in promises which do not mention Canaan, but are summed in\nthe intensive assurances: \u201cIn blessing I will bless thee, and in\nmultiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the\nsand which is upon the sea-shore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of\nhis enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be\nblessed.\u201d\u2014Gen. xxii, 16-18. What seed it was to whom these promises were\nmade, we have seen before. The assurance to him of triumph over his\nenemies renews the pledge made to Eve, through the curse upon the\nserpent, \u201cHer seed shall bruise thy head.\u201d\u2014Gen. iii, 15. Of the same\nthing, the Spirit in Isaiah says: \u201cTherefore will I divide him a portion\nwith the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because\nhe hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the\ntransgressors; and he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the\ntransgressors.\u201d\u2014Isa. liii, 12. Of it, Paul says: \u201cHe must reign, till he\nhath put all enemies under his feet.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 25.\n\nThe covenant thus interpreted, was confirmed to Abraham with an oath (v.\n16), of which Paul says: \u201cWherein God, willing more abundantly to show\nunto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it\nby an oath; that, by two immutable things, in which it was impossible\nfor God to lie, we might have a strong consolation who have fled for\nrefuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. Which hope we have as an\nanchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that\nwithin the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even\nJesus.\u201d\u2014Heb. vi, 17-20. Here, again, it appears that the covenant with\nAbraham comprehended in its terms the very highest hopes which Christ\u2019s\nblood has purchased,\u2014which he, in heaven, as his people\u2019s forerunner,\nnow possesses, and which with him they shall finally share; and that the\noath by which it was confirmed contemplated these very things, and was\ndesigned to perfect the faith and confidence of his people, in the\ngospel day, as well as of the patriarchs and saints of old.\n\nIt is thus manifest that while the Abrahamic covenant did undoubtedly\nconvey to Abraham and his seed after the flesh many and precious\ntemporal blessings, it was at the same time an embodiment of the very\nterms of the covenant between God and his Christ; that its provisions of\ngrace to man are bestowed wholly in Christ; and that it is, therefore,\nexclusive and everlasting. There can be no reconciliation between God\nand man, but upon the terms of this covenant. There can, therefore, be\nno people of God, no true church of Christ, but of those who accept and\nare embraced in, and built upon, that alone foundation, \u201cthe everlasting\ncovenant\u201d made with Abraham.\n\n\n SECTION VIII.\u2014_The Conditions of the Sinai Covenant._\n\nAt length, the four hundred years were past. The probation of the\napostate nations was finished. The iniquity of the Amorites was full.\nGod remembered his covenant with Abraham, and sent Moses into Egypt,\nsaying to him: \u201cI am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,\nand unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name, Jehovah,\nwas I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with\nthem, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage,\nwherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the\nchildren of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have\nremembered my covenant. Wherefore, say unto the children of Israel, I am\nthe Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the\nEgyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem\nyou with a stretched out arm and with great judgments; and I will take\nyou to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know\nthat I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the\nburdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land,\nconcerning which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to\nJacob.\u201d\u2014Ex. vi, 2-8. In this initial communication we have the key to\nthe Sinai covenant, and to all God\u2019s subsequent dealings with Israel. In\nit three things are specially observable. (1.) The Abrahamic covenant is\ndesignated, \u201cmy covenant,\u201d in accordance with what we have already seen\nas to the nature of that covenant, as exclusive and everlasting. (2.)\nIts scope is stated in those all-embracing terms, \u201cI will take you to me\nfor a people, and I will be to you a God.\u201d (3.) The possession of the\nearthly Canaan is specified as a minor particular, under this\ncomprehensive pledge.\n\nWith all this the Sinai covenant was in accord. Its conditional terms we\nhave seen, as propounded through Moses. \u201cThus shalt thou say to the\nhouse of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did\nto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles\u2019 wings, and brought you\nunto myself. Now, therefore, _if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep\nmy covenant_.\u201d\u2014Ex. xix, 3-5. The \u201cvoice\u201d which they were to obey they\nheard on the next day, when God spake to them the words of the law, from\nthe midst of the smoke and flame. Of it Moses afterward reminded the\npeople: \u201cYe came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain\nburned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and\nthick darkness. And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the\nfire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only a\nvoice. And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to\nperform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of\nstone.\u201d\u2014Deut. iv, 11-13. Very great emphasis attaches to the Ten\nCommandments, in their relation as thus the fundamental law of the\ncovenant. The first overture having been addressed to Israel, in the\nterms, \u201cIf ye will obey my voice,\u201d and by them accepted, the next day\nthat voice was heard uttering those commandments. Again the people are\ncalled upon, and again respond in pledge of obedience. Moses then wrote\nin \u201cthe book of the covenant\u201d all these words of the Lord, and read them\nin the audience of the people. And it was not till again they promised\nobedience to the terms thus set before them that the covenant was\nratified, as we have seen. The Ten Commandments were then, by the finger\nof God, engraved on the two tables of stone, which were thence known as\n\u201cthe tables of the covenant.\u201d These were placed in \u201cthe ark of the\ncovenant,\u201d which was in the holy of holies, in \u201cthe tabernacle of the\ncovenant.\u201d Both of these derived their names and significance from these\ntables, which were the very center of the whole system of religion and\nworship connected with the tabernacle. The lid of the ark which covered\nthese tables was the golden mercy-seat, with its cherubim of gold,\nbetween which stood the pillar of glory, the Shechinah, overshadowing\nthe mercy-seat. It thus typified God\u2019s throne of grace immovably based\nupon the firm foundation of his eternal law\u2014mercy to man only possible\non condition of satisfaction to that law. Therefore, when remembrance of\nsins was made every year (Heb. x, 3), it was by the sprinkling of blood\nupon the mercy-seat and the ark of the covenant. (Ib. ix, 7.) A proper\nregard to the fact that the moral law was thus the fundamental condition\nof the covenant, while the ritual law was no part of it, but a later\nsystem of testimony, would have prevented much perplexing and erroneous\nspeculation on the subject.\n\nBut the covenant had a second condition, \u201cIf ye will _keep my\ncovenant_.\u201d This second clause is implied in the first. But it is none\nthe less important and significant, as being a categorical statement of\nthe nature of the obedience required. We have already pointed out the\nfact that by \u201c_my covenant_\u201d was meant the covenant with Abraham, so\ninterpreted by God himself in his first communication to Israel in\nEgypt. The covenant thus defined had but one condition and two promises.\nThe promises were, to bring them out of the bondage of Egypt and give\nthem the land of Canaan, and to be to them a God. The condition was,\nthat Israel, in turn, would surrender themselves to be for a people to\nGod. (Ex. vi, 7.) This condition is the only thing that can be meant by\nthe phrase, \u201cIf _ye_ will _keep_ my covenant.\u201d It was the only duty laid\nupon them by that covenant. We thus find the two fundamental conditions\nof the Sinai covenant to have been in the terms, \u201cIf ye will obey my\nvoice indeed\u201d\u2014the voice that spake in the Ten Commandments\u2014and, \u201cIf ye\nwill keep my covenant,\u201d to be a willing people unto me, and cleave to me\nas your God. Such was the foundation-stone on which the church was\nbuilt.\n\n\n SECTION IX.\u2014_The Promises of the Sinai Covenant._\n\nAs were the conditions of the covenant, so were its promises altogether\nand eminently spiritual.\n\n1. \u201cYe shall be unto me a peculiar treasure above all people; for all\nthe earth is mine.\u201d A treasure is a property, valuable, highly prized,\nand cherished. It is riches to the owner; his enjoyments largely depend\nthereon; and over it he therefore exercises a watchful guardianship.\nSuch was the relation which, by the covenant, God conferred on Israel.\nThe expression is strengthened by the qualifying adjective, \u201cpeculiar,\u201d\nwhich means, special and exclusive. \u201cMy own special treasure.\u201d What was\nthus implied may be gathered from a single Scripture. Says the Lord, by\nMalachi: \u201cThen they that feared the Lord spake often one to another, and\nthe Lord hearkened and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written\nbefore him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his\nname. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when\nI make up my jewels\u201d (\u201cmy peculiar treasures.\u201d The word in the original\nis the same), \u201cand I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that\nserveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and\nthe wicked; between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him\nnot.\u201d\u2014Mal. iii. 16-18. By this clause, Israel became the object of God\u2019s\nassiduous watchfulness and constant care as his own peculiar treasure of\nprice.\n\n2. The parenthetic clause, \u201cFor all the earth is mine,\u201d is of singular\ninterest. The covenant with Abraham conveyed the assurance that in him\nshould \u201call the families of the earth be blessed.\u201d The clause inserted\nin the Sinai overture was a reminder to Israel of that fact, to certify\nthem and the world that the purpose concerning the latter was unchanged,\nthat the peculiar relation now assumed toward Israel was not incongruous\nto it; that, on the contrary, whilst Israel was first, it was not alone\nin the obligations and promises of the covenant. \u201cAll the earth is\nmine;\u201d and the claim which, in such a transaction, God thus makes he\nwill surely vindicate, in his own good time, by taking his own to\nhimself, bringing them, also, within the pale of his covenant, and\ngathering from them a revenue of praise and glory.\n\n3. \u201cA kingdom of priests.\u201d Israel\u2019s acceptance of the first condition of\nthe covenant, \u201cIf ye will obey my voice,\u201d erected them into a kingdom,\nof which God was the alone sovereign,\u2014the kingdom of God. This promise\ndefines the character and function of that kingdom,\u2014\u201ca kingdom of\npriests;\u201d or, rather, \u201ca priest-kingdom.\u201d Israel was thus ordained to\nthe exalted office of intercessory mediation for the world, and of\ntestimony to it on God\u2019s behalf. Had ten righteous men been found in the\ncities of the plain, they would have been spared, for the sake of those\nten. (Gen. xviii, 32.) The angels of destruction could do nothing to\nSodom until Lot departed out of it. (Ib. xix, 22.) Had one righteous man\nbeen found in Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah, the city would have\nbeen spared for the sake of that one. (Jer. v, 1.) Aaron the priest,\nwith his golden censer\u2014a type of the prayers of the saints (Rev. v, 8;\nviii, 3)\u2014standing between the living and the dead, stayed the plague in\nthe camp of Israel. (Num. xvi, 46-48.) So, Israel itself was now\nordained a mediating priest, to stand for the time then present, between\nthe living and the dead of the nations, in the ordinances at the\nsanctuary, uplifting a censer of intercession which stayed the sword of\njustice that was ready to destroy them; and appointed to become at\nlength the agent of the world\u2019s salvation, through atonement made by one\nof their nation, and the gospel sent forth from Jerusalem to all the\nworld, by the preaching of Israel\u2019s sons. Thus was it a priest-kingdom,\nset apart and sanctified of God, to be for salvation to all the ends of\nthe earth.\n\nThis priestly consecration of Israel, moreover, constituted her a\nwitness on behalf of God among the nations. It was the lighting of a\nlamp to shine amid the darkness of the world. The office to which she\nwas thus ordained was not yet aggressive; for the times of the Gentiles\nwere not come. Yet was hers none the less a public and active testimony,\nwhich, if they would, the Gentiles could hear, a gospel light which did,\nin fact, penetrate far into the darkness, and prepared the nations for\nthe coming of Christ and the gospel day. For the time being, it was the\noffice of Israel to cherish the light, by keeping the oracles and\nmaintaining the ordinances of God\u2019s worship, and transmitting them to\ntheir children, until the fullness of time.\n\n4. \u201cA holy nation.\u201d The word \u201choly\u201d primarily designates the\ncompleteness and symmetry of the moral perfections of God. From hence,\nit is transferred to those attributes in the intelligent creatures which\nare in the likeness of God\u2019s holiness. And, as the distinguishing\ncharacteristic of holiness in a creature is surrender and consecration\nto God, the word is used to designate all such things as are his by\npeculiar dedication to his service. Thus, the altar, the tabernacle, and\nall the vessels and things pertaining thereto, were holy. So the tithe\nof the land, of the flocks, and of the herds, was holy; and the\nfirstborn of men and of beasts. (Lev. xxvii, 30, 32; Luke ii, 23.) In\nthis sense of accepted consecration, and of appropriation to himself,\nGod here puts upon Israel the designation of \u201ca holy nation.\u201d\nHenceforth, they were so named, and the obligation implied therein\nconstantly insisted upon, as demanding from them real separation to God,\nand holiness of heart and life. Says the Lord: \u201cYe shall be holy men\nunto me, neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the\nfield.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxii, 31. Moses exhorts them to abhor and destroy the idols\nof the land, \u201cFor thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord\nthy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all\npeople that are upon the face of the earth.... Thou shalt, therefore,\nkeep the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which I command\nthee this day to do them.\u201d\u2014Deut. vii, 6-11. From this article of the\ncovenant, the New Testament designation of the members of the visible\nchurch is derived. Says Peter, \u201cYe are a chosen generation, a royal\npriesthood, a _holy nation_, a peculiar people.\u201d\u20141 Peter, ii, 9. Hence,\nthe name of \u201csaints,\u201d or, \u201choly ones,\u201d which, familiar in the Psalms, is\nconstantly used in the epistles, as the distinctive title of the members\nof the New Testament Church.\n\nThus it appears that in all the provisions of the covenant earthly and\ntemporal blessings are not once alluded to. That clause of the Abrahamic\ncovenant which concerned the possession of Canaan was, indeed, referred\nto at Sinai, and Israel was assured of its fulfillment. (Ex. xxiii, 23.)\nBut it was then, and ever after, spoken of and treated as already and\nfinally settled by the promise made to Abraham. (Ex. vi, 3-8; Deut. vii,\n7-9; ix, 5, 6; Psalm cv, 8-11.) Moreover, the bestowal of Canaan was in\nno sense a secular transaction. Not only as a type of the better country\nwas it designed and calculated to awaken and stimulate heavenly\naspirations. (Heb. xi, 8-16.) But, like the fastnesses of the Alps, for\ncenturies the retreat and home of the gospel among the martyr Waldenses,\nCanaan, planted in the very center of the old world-empires, and upon\nthe mid line of march of the world\u2019s great history, was chosen and\nprepared of God as a fortress of security entrenched for Israel\u2019s\nprotection, in the midst of the apostate and hostile nations, while\ntending and nourishing the beacon fire of gospel light which glowed on\nMount Zion, and shed its beams afar into the gloom of thick darkness\nwhich enshrouded the world. As such, it was assured to Abraham\u2019s seed by\nthe covenant with him and the seal set in their flesh.\n\n\n SECTION X.\u2014_The Visible Church was thus established._\n\nThe Sinai covenant gave origin to the visible church of God. By the\nvisible church, I mean that society among men which God has called and\ntaken into covenant and communion with himself, and ordained to be his\nwitness to the world. Two points are essentially involved in the\ndefinition. The first is the relation to God established by the terms\u2014\u201cI\nwill take you to me for a people; and I will be to you a God.\u201d The\nsecond is the office to which the church is thus called and ordained, to\nbe God\u2019s witness, testifying on his behalf against the world\u2019s apostasy.\nSuch is Peter\u2019s declaration, quoting the terms of the Sinai covenant,\nand applying them to the New Testament church: \u201cYe are a chosen\ngeneration, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; _that\nye should show forth the praises_ of him who hath called you out of\ndarkness into his marvelous light; which in time past were not a people,\nbut _are now the people of God_.\u201d\u20141 Peter ii, 9, 10. This privilege of\ncommunion, and this office of testimony were implied and involved in the\nwhole covenant, and all its terms; but especially indicated by that\nexpression, \u201cYe shall be _unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy\nnation_.\u201d It is the privilege of priests to draw nigh to God, and their\noffice to testify on God\u2019s behalf to men.\n\nThe manner and meaning of the designation by which, throughout the Greek\nScriptures of the Old Testament and of the New, the body thus\nconstituted is known as the _ekkl\u0113sia_, the church, is worthy of special\nnotice in this connection. The fact of God having met with Israel at\nSinai, and communed with them in an audible voice, is referred to by\nMoses and emphasized as being a signal demonstration of relations\nestablished of extraordinary intimacy. \u201cWhat nation is there so great,\nwhich hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God in all things that\nwe call upon him for?... Take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul\ndiligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and\nlest they depart from thy heart, all the days of thy life; but teach\nthem thy sons and thy sons\u2019 sons, specially the day that thou stoodest\nbefore the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather me\nthe people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may\nlearn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and\nthat they may teach their children.... And the Lord spake unto you out\nof the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no\nsimilitude; only ye heard a voice.\u201d\u2014Deut. iv, 7-13. Again, he says: \u201cAsk\nnow of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day\nthat God created man upon the earth, and ask from one side of heaven\nunto the other, whether there hath been any such a thing as this great\nthing is, or hath been heard like it. Did ever people hear the voice of\nGod speaking out of the midst of fire, as thou, hast heard, and live? Or\nhath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another\nnation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a\nmighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according\nto all that the Lord thy God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto\nthee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God;\nthere is none else beside him.\u201d\u2014Ib. iv, 32-35.\n\nThe presence of God with Israel, thus impressively manifested, was not\ncasual or transient. The fires and the terrors of Sinai were indeed\nwithdrawn. But the tabernacle of testimony was erected, and the\nshechinah there revealed for the express purpose of being a testimony to\nIsrael that God was with them dwelling in their midst. Of the services\nto be there established, he directed Moses that there should be \u201ca\ncontinual burnt-offering throughout your generations, at the door of the\ntabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, where I will meet you to\nspeak there unto thee. And there will I meet with the children of\nIsrael, and the tabernacle\u201d (or rather, as the margin, \u201cIsrael\u201d) \u201cshall\nbe sanctified by my glory. And I will dwell among the children of\nIsrael, and will be their God.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxix, 42-46.\n\nThus the gathering of Israel at Sinai was not a mere congregation or\nassembling of the people to each other, but a meeting with God; and this\nfact is very remarkably indicated in the Septuagint Greek. In the\ndescription of the Sinai scene, given in Deut. iv, in that version, the\ntenth verse stands thus: \u201cThe day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy\nGod in Horeb (_t\u0113 h\u0113mera t\u0113s ekkl\u0113sias_), _in the day of the assembly_,\nwhen the Lord said to me (_Ekkl\u0113siason pros me_), _Assemble to me_ the\npeople.\u201d Previous to that occasion the word _ekkl\u0113sia_ is not found in\nthe Greek Scriptures. That day was, by Moses, habitually designated \u201cthe\nday of the _ekkl\u0113sia_\u2014the assembly\u201d (Deut. ix, 10; x, 4; xviii, 16), and\nthe reason of the designation is thus, by the Greek translators, stamped\nupon the face of that version. It was so called because the people on\nthat day met with God, in compliance with the command (_Ekkl\u0113siason_),\n\u201c_Assemble to me_ the people.\u201d In accordance with the special meaning to\nwhich the word was thus appropriated it is used throughout the\nScriptures. In the Old Testament and Apocrypha it occurs nearly one\nhundred times, and a careful examination fails to discover an instance\nin which it is used otherwise than to designate Israel in their sacred\ncharacter as the covenant people of God. In that sense it passed into\nthe New Testament. In one place it is exceptionally used by the town\nclerk of the Greek city of Ephesus, and by Luke, after him, in its\nclassic meaning, to designate an assembly of the freemen of the city.\n(Acts xix, 39, 41.) But everywhere else it is employed in the same sense\nas in the Septuagint. It is thus applied (1) to Israel in the wilderness\n(Acts vii, 38), and at the temple (Heb. ii, 12); (2) to the religious\nassemblies of the Jews during the time of Christ\u2019s ministry (Matt.\nxviii, 17), and ever afterwards, in the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation,\nto the New Testament Church. According, therefore, to the uniform usage\nof the Scriptures, the word is appropriated to designate an assembly\nwith God, and, in a secondary sense, the people as related to such an\nassembly. Such is the designation given to Israel as the people of God\nby covenant and fellowship, among whom he held the communion of mutual\nconverse, he with them in the words of his testimony and the\ncommunications of his grace, and they with him in all things in which\nthey called upon him. (Deut. iv, 7. Compare Matt. xviii, 20; Acts x,\n33.) In the assembly of Israel, the church of the apostles finds an\norigin in no wise unworthy her own lofty character and office. Happy she\nwhen with conscious experience she can take to herself the glad words of\nIsrael\u2019s song, \u201cThere is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad\nthe city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. God\nis in the midst of her, she shall not be moved; God shall help her, and\nthat right early.... The Lord of hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is\nour refuge.\u201d\u2014Psalm xlvi, 4-7.\n\nThe following were the essential features of the constitution of the\nchurch thus erected:\n\n1. Its fundamental charter was the covenant, embracing the ten\ncommandments, in the reciprocal terms which have been considered in the\npreceding chapter.\n\n2. The persons with whom these terms were made, and who were\ncomprehended in the society thereupon erected, were all those, whether\nof Israel or the Gentiles, together with their households, who made\ncredible profession of accepting the covenant, and were thereupon sealed\nwith its baptismal seal. To this point we shall presently return.\n\n3. The radical principle of organization was that of parental headship\nand family unity. The family is the divine original of all human\nsociety, as the parental office is of all human authority. Upon this\nbasis was founded the Abrahamic covenant, and upon it was erected the\nsystem of government for Israel. It was administered by the fathers of\nfamilies, of houses, and of tribes; the first-born son succeeding to his\nfather as head of his house, under the designation of elder. This system\nwas recognized in the first commission of Moses from God, and the\nelders, or heads of houses, were united with him in his mission to\nPharaoh. (Ex. iii, 16, 18; iv, 29.) To them was committed the ordering\nof the passover on the night of the exodus. (Ib. xii, 21.) At Sinai,\nbefore the giving of the covenant, the system was perfected in its\ndetails, at the suggestion of Jethro, with the sanction of God. (Ex.\nxviii, 12-24.) Immediately upon the sealing of the covenant seventy of\nthe elders, who had been previously assembled by the command of God,\nwent up, as already stated, with Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, into\nthe mount, and there celebrated on Israel\u2019s behalf the feast of the\ncovenant. \u201cThey saw the God of Israel, and did eat and drink.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiv,\n1, 9-11. Afterward, when the covenant was renewed in the plains of Moab,\nthe relation of the elders thereto, in their official capacity, was\nexpressly stated. \u201cYe stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your\nGod, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, with\nall the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives.\u201d\u2014Deut. xxix, 10.\n\nSuch were the essential features of the constitution of the church, as\nordained at Sinai. To her, thus organized, were given ordinances of\ntestimony, concerning which a few points only are here necessary. Since\nshe was appointed simply to maintain, in her position in the midst of\nthe nations, the lamp of gospel truth ever shining, until the set time\nshould come for sending it forth through the world, the ordinances of\ntestimony which were intrusted to her were adapted expressly to this\noffice. They were: (1.) The oracles of God, his written word, from time\nto time imparted through Moses and other holy men, who spake as they\nwere moved of the Holy Ghost. (Rom. iii, 2; 2 Pet. i, 21.) (2.) The holy\nconvocations of the Sabbath days. (Lev. xxiii, 3; 1 Kings iv, 23; Acts\nxv, 21.) (3.) The priesthood and ritual service. (4.) The sanctuary\nworship and festivals. (5.) Public professions of faith, occasional and\nstated. (Deut. xxvi.) (6.) Poetic recitations and psalmody. (Ex. xv,\n1-21; Deut. xxxi, xxxii; the book of Psalms.)\n\nIt was with a special view to the witnessing office of the church of\nIsrael that the ritual system was constructed. The covenant and the\nritual were testimonies to the better covenant and the heavenly\nrealities which belong to it. It is with this view that the word\n\u201ctestimony\u201d is so much used in designating them. Thus the Ten\nCommandments, the fundamental law of the covenant, were frequently\ndesignated \u201cthe testimony.\u201d (Ex. xxv, 21.) The tables on which they were\nwritten were, in like manner, \u201cthe tables of the testimony.\u201d They were\nkept in \u201cthe ark of the testimony,\u201d which was in \u201cthe tabernacle of the\ntestimony.\u201d In the same way the whole system of ordinances and laws\ngiven to Israel is designated \u201cthe testimonies of God.\u201d Of them, and the\noffice of the church concerning them, the Psalmist says: \u201cHe established\na testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded\nour fathers, that they should make them known to their children, that\nthe generation to come might know them: even the children which should\nbe born; who should arise and declare them to their children; that they\nmight set their hope in God, and not forget his works, but keep his\ncommandments.\u201d\u2014Psalm lxxviii, 5-7.\n\nRespecting the ritual system, there are two propositions which are\nbelieved to be demonstrable, but are here presented without argument.\nThe _first_ is, that these rites were not dark forms, veiling rather\nthan disclosing a new revelation; but were inscriptions in luminous\ncharacters, setting forth the doctrines of a faith well understood by\nthe patriarchs and fathers from the beginning, and from them transmitted\nand known to Israel. _Second._ The ritual forms in which the gospel was\nclothed in the Levitical system were far more suitable for the purposes\nof popular instruction and world-wide dissemination than would have been\nany conceivable exposition of it in writing. The art of writing was in\nits infancy. A written gospel would have been, even to Israel, a sealed\nbook; how much more to all other people! The history and laws were put\nin writing and kept at the sanctuary for the direction of the priests\nand magistrates in the performance of their duties, the administration\nof justice, and the instruction of Israel. But the gospel, for the\npeople, was clothed in forms which required no interpreter, which meant\nthe same in every language under heaven, and which were calculated, by\ntheir appeals to the imagination through the eye and the senses, to\nstamp themselves indelibly upon the memory and the affections. Thus were\nthey eminently adapted to arrest the attention and impress the minds of\nstrangers, and of the young, for whom especially they were designed.\n(Ex. xii, 26; xiii, 14; Deut. vi, 20; Josh. iv, 6, 21; 1 Kings viii, 41,\n42.)\n\nThe fact is of an importance which entitles it to distinct and emphatic\nmention, that the Aaronic priesthood and the ritual law were no part of\nthe constitution of the church, as it was established by the covenant.\nThey were not in existence when the covenant was made, but were\nordinances afterward given to the church, as already existent and\norganized. They were bestowed as means of fulfilling her witnessing\noffice, means adapted to the times and circumstances of Israel, but\nsubject to be modified, as they were in the temple system, or to be\nwholly suspended or set aside, without impairing the constitution of the\nchurch or the completeness and efficiency of its organization. Not only\nthus did the covenant precede the ritual law and the priesthood, but\nwhen, forty years afterward, the covenant was renewed, and the parties\nto it were enumerated in detail, the priests were altogether ignored.\n(Deut. xxix, 10-12.) They were in no wise essential to it.\n\n\n SECTION XI.\u2014_The Terms of Membership in the Church of Israel._\n\nWith some slight circumstantial differences, having reference to the\ndifference in the office of the church under the two dispensations, the\nconditions of membership were essentially the same as propounded at\nSinai and as prescribed under the gospel. While the spiritual blessings\nof the covenant were from the beginning conditioned upon true faith and\nloving obedience, the privilege of membership in the visible church was\nat Sinai bestowed upon those, with their households, who made credible\nprofession of these graces, and upon them only. On \u201cthe day of the\nassembly,\u201d all the people professed to take God for their God, and to\ndevote themselves to him as his believing and obedient people. And as on\nthe days of Pentecost, so on this occasion, the profession was accepted,\nand their admission was sealed with baptism; although doubtless, in both\ncases, there were false professors included with the true. With certain\nexceptions, ordained for special reasons (Deut. xxiii, 1-8), the\nconditions of membership were the same for the Gentile world as for\nIsrael. The law was explicit and most emphatic on this point. \u201cOne\nordinance shall be both for you of the congregation and also for the\nstranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in your\ngenerations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. One\nlaw and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth\nwith you.\u201d\u2014Num. xv, 14-16, and 29; and see ix, 14; xix, 10; Ex. xii,\n43-49; Deut. xxxi, 12; Josh. viii, 33, etc.\n\nFor eliminating unworthy members, the means provided in the Sinai\nordinances were as abundant as those now enjoyed by the church, and\nwould seem to have been as well adapted to the effectual securing of the\nend proposed. They come under three heads. (1.) Certain offenses were\nvisited with the penalty of death or of utter separation from the\ncommunion of Israel. (Ex. xxxi, 14; Num. ix, 13, etc.) (2.) The expenses\nincident to a faithful performance of the duties required of members of\nthe church of Israel were large and continual. Firstfruits, firstlings,\nand tithes, trespass offerings, sin offerings, freewill offerings, and\nother oblations, made up an aggregate which can not have fallen short of\none-fifth of all the income of Israel, and probably went far beyond that\namount. The law provided none but moral means for enforcing these\nrequirements; and numerous facts in the history of Israel show that by\nmany they were entirely neglected. (Neh. xiii, 10-13; Mal. iii, 8-10.)\nThose who thus withheld what belonged to the Lord were self-excluded\nfrom the fellowship of the covenant society, and were \u201ccut off from the\ncongregation (_ekkl\u0113sia_ from _the church_) of the Lord.\u201d (3.) The\nirksome and humiliating nature of the regulations concerning uncleanness\nand purifying were very efficient means of separating between the\nbelieving and the profane. As we shall presently see, occasions of\nuncleanness were of almost daily occurrence, in every house. These\nrequired a conscientious watchfulness and assiduity, in guarding against\ndefilement, and in using the appointed rites of purifying, which often\ninvolved the interruption and expense of journeys to the sanctuary and\nofferings there.\n\nThe communion of the church of Israel thus consisted of those only, with\ntheir families, who added to the obligations of a public profession of\nfaith, a fidelity to all the requirements of the law, its moral\nprecepts, its ritual observances, its tithes and offerings, its rites of\npurifying and its annual feasts. In a word, the account given of\nZacharias and Elizabeth describes the character required, in order to\nfellowship in the church of Israel: \u201cRighteous before God, walking in\nall the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 6.\nSuch, and such only, were the _clean_, to whom the privileges of\nIsrael\u2019s communion belonged. To them they were certified by the seal of\nbaptism.\n\n\n SECTION XII.\u2014_Circumcision and Baptism._\n\nIt is commonly assumed that baptism has come into the place and office\nof circumcision. This I conceive to be a mistaken view, which involves\nthe whole subject in confusion. Circumcision is the distinctive and\npeculiar seal of the Abrahamic covenant. While it is true, that in that\ncovenant, as relating to the terms of salvation, all believers were\naccounted as seed of Abraham, and heirs of the promises, it is equally\ntrue that, by its terms, peculiar blessings unspeakably great were\nassured to the seed of the patriarch after the flesh. Not only was\nChrist to come of his flesh; not only was the church to be for fifteen\ncenturies constituted of his offspring, but Paul moreover testifies,\nthat richer blessings than they have ever yet enjoyed are to be bestowed\non Israel and on the Gentiles through Israel, in the coming future: \u201cIf\nthe fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them\nthe riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?... For if the\ncasting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the\nreceiving of them be but life from the dead?\u201d\u2014Rom. xi, 12, 15. This the\napostle, futhermore, puts upon the ground that \u201cthe gifts and calling of\nGod are without repentance.\u201d\u2014Ib. 29. It was with a view to this relation\nof the covenant to Abraham\u2019s natural seed, that circumcision was\nappointed as its seal. Said God: \u201cI will establish my covenant between\nme and thee and thy seed after thee, _in their generations_, for an\neverlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after\nthee.\u201d\u2014Gen. xvii, 7. Hence, by circumcision, the token of the covenant\nwas set in the flesh of the males, through whom the descent is counted.\nSo long, therefore, as the church was, for the divine purposes,\nrestricted to the family of Israel, the rite of circumcision was\nnecessary as a prerequisite condition of admission to its privileges,\nbecause it was the seal of incorporation by birth or adoption into that\nfamily. But this did not constitute admission into the church. The Sinai\ncovenant had its own baptismal seal. The church consisted, not of\nIsrael, the circumcised; but only of the _clean_ of Israel. Of this,\nbaptism was the token and seal. It hence resulted that when the\nrestriction was removed, and the gospel was given to the Gentiles,\nemancipated from the yoke of circumcision, baptism remained unchanged in\nplace or office, the original and only seal of actual admission to the\nfellowship and privileges of the church of God. Of all this we shall see\nmore hereafter.\n\n\n\n\n PART III.\n ADMINISTERED BAPTISMS=SPRINKLINGS.\n\n\n SECTION XIII.\u2014_Unclean Seven Days._\n\nIn the laws of Moses there were two grades of uncleanness\ndefined\u2014uncleanness of seven days, and uncleanness till the even. The\nformer was a symbol of that essential corruption which is in us by\nnature, to which are essential the redeeming blood of Christ and the\nrenewing of the Holy Spirit, without which no man can see God in peace.\nUncleanness till the even symbolized those casual defilements to which\nGod\u2019s renewed people are liable by contact with the evil of the world.\nThe ritual, concerning the uncleanness of seven days, was designed to\nsignalize the light in which man\u2019s apostate nature, and the depravity\nand sin thence resulting, appear in the sight of a God of ineffable\nholiness. To this conception the word _unclean_ was designed to give\nexpression, the intense meaning of which is liable to escape the casual\nreader of the Scriptures. It signified, not the mere external soiling of\nthe living person, but death, corruption, and rottenness within the\nheart, the fermenting source of pollution poured forth in the outward\nlife. To impress us with a just sense of the exceeding evil of this\nthing the Spirit employs every variety of figure expressive of deformity\nand loathsomeness. In the primitive faith, of which the book of Job is a\nrecord, it is characterized in language which is a key-note to all the\nScriptures on the subject. \u201cBehold he putteth no trust in his saints\u201d\n(his holy angels); \u201cyea, the heavens are not pure in his sight. How much\nmore abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like\nwater.\u201d\u2014Job xv, 15, 16. Says the Psalmist, \u201cThe Lord looked down from\nheaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did\nunderstand and seek God. They are all gone aside; they are all together\nbecome filthy.\u201d\u2014Psa. xiv, 3. Here the word \u201cfilthy\u201d is in the margin\nrendered \u201cstinking.\u201d It is the same in the original as in the above\nplace in Job, and means the offensiveness of putrefaction. David, in his\npenitential Psalm, indicates his sense of this radical evil of his\nnature. \u201cWash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and _cleanse_ me from my\nsin.... Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother\nconceive me. Behold thou desirest truth in the _inward parts_: and in\nthe _hidden part_ thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with\nhyssop, and I shall be _clean_; wash me and I shall be whiter than\nsnow.... Create in me a _clean heart_, O God; and renew a right spirit\nwithin me.\u201d\u2014Psa. li, 2-10. Isaiah and other sacred writers represent the\nsame evil by the figures of the vomit and filthiness of a drunken\ndebauch, and by every kind of abominable and loathsome thing. (Isa.\nxxviii, 8; Prov. xxx, 12.) By the designation, unclean, the moral\ndeformity and offensiveness of Satan and the \u201cunclean spirits,\u201d his\nangels, are described. And in the accounts of the riches of grace and\nglory in store for the church, the crowning feature is the exclusion of\nthe unclean. \u201cA highway shall be there, and a way; and it shall be\ncalled, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it.\u201d\u2014Isa.\nxxxv, 8. The church is called upon for this cause to exult: \u201cAwake,\nawake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O\nJerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth there shall no more come into\nthee the uncircumcised and the unclean.\u201d\u2014Ib. lii, 1. And again, John, in\nthe vision of the glory of the new Jerusalem, which crowns and closes\nhis revelation, says of her: \u201cAnd there shall in no wise enter into it\nany thing that defileth\u201d (literally, \u201cany thing unclean\u201d), \u201cneither\nwhatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are\nwritten in the Lamb\u2019s book of life.\u201d\u2014Rev. xxi, 27.\n\nFor the purpose of inducing a profound sense of this evil and\nloathsomeness of sin, as working in the heart, the ordinances respecting\nthe uncleanness of seven days were appointed, each having its own\nlesson.\n\n1. The birth of a child was the actual propagation, from the parents, of\npart in the uncleanness of the apostate nature. It was, therefore,\nattended with natural phenomena, and marked by ritual ordinances which\ncharacterized it, and every function connected with it, as unclean and\ndefiling. Emphasis was thus given to the challenge, \u201cWho can bring a\nclean thing out of an unclean? Not one.\u201d\u2014Job xiv, 4.\n\n2. Running issues of all kinds were appropriated as symbols of the\ncorruption of man\u2019s nature, festering within, and breaking forth in\nputrescent streams of depravity and sin in the active life. (Ezek. xvi,\n6, 9.)\n\n3. Death is \u201cthe wages of sin\u201d (Rom. vi, 23), and physical death is a\nterrible emblem of its loathsome and accursed nature. And as sin and the\ncurse are diffused to Adam\u2019s seed by the very contagion of nature, this,\ntheir symbol, was ritually endowed with the same contagious character.\nHe that touched the dead was reckoned no longer among the living but the\ndead. He was, therefore, cast out from the camp, from his family, the\nsanctuary, and the privileges of the covenant. To them all he was dead.\nHe was unclean.\n\nThus, as the loving and bereaved stood by the couch of death, gazed upon\nthe face and form once blooming in health and beauty, and beheld the\nsightless and sunken eyes, the ghastly features and cadaverous\nhue\u2014pledges of corruption begun\u2014while the very air of the chamber seemed\nto breathe the cry, \u201cUnclean!\u201d as they realized the instinctive recoil\nwhich love itself must feel from the very touch of the departed, and\nfelt as Abraham, concerning the beloved Sarah, the constraint to \u201cbury\nhis dead out of his sight,\u201d\u2014as, in all this, they knew that these last\noffices even must be fulfilled at the expense of defilement and\nexclusion from the privileges of God\u2019s earthly courts and the society of\nhis people, for seven days, they and all Israel received a lesson of\ndivine instruction as to the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the wages of\nwhich is death, its loathsomeness in God\u2019s sight, its contagious\ndiffusion and power, and its curse, to which human speech or angel\neloquence could have added nothing.\n\n4. No less impressive were the ordinances concerning leprosy. The name\ndesignated a class of diseases, some of which would appear to have been\naltogether miraculous in their origin, and peculiar in their symptoms,\nwhile others were attributable to natural causes. The disease was\npeculiar for the shocking and loathsome appearance of its victim, its\npoisoning the blood and pervading the whole body, and its incurable and\ninevitably deadly nature. It was, therefore, employed by God as, at\nonce, an extraordinary punishment of sin, and a most fitting symbol of\nit, as seated in the heart and nature of man, and pervading and\ncorrupting his whole being. (Num. xii, 10; 2 Kings v, 27; 2 Chr. xxvi,\n20.) The leper was accounted as one dead (Num. xii, 12), and, therefore,\nexcluded from his family, from the congregation and ordinances at the\nsanctuary, and from the very camp of Israel, where the living God\nwalked. (Num. v, 2; xii, 14.) Thus, outcast from the abodes of men and\nthe house of God, \u201cthe leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be\nrent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip,\nand shall cry, Unclean! Unclean! All the days wherein the plague shall\nbe in him, he shall be defiled; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone;\nwithout the camp shall be his habitation.\u201d\u2014Lev. xiii, 45, 46. How\ndreadful the figure thus presented to the senses of Israel, of the\nloathsomeness of sin in God\u2019s sight, and of its ruinous effects upon the\nsinner! The person offensive with scabs and sores, the rent garments,\nthe uncovered head, the wailing cry, \u201cUnclean! Unclean!\u201d while the\nexclusion from the house of God, and from the abodes of men, and the\ncovered lip, proclaimed to Israel that the spiritual leper, yet in his\nsins, brings danger to his fellow-men with his very presence, and is an\noffense and loathing to God, before the eyes of whose purity he may not\nventure to come, save through the cleansing blood and Spirit of Christ.\nHence, the cry of Isaiah, when he beheld the glory of the Lord: \u201cWoe is\nme! for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in\nthe midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King,\nthe Lord of hosts.\u201d And hence, the coal of fire from off the altar of\natonement, and the seraph\u2019s assurance, \u201cLo, this hath touched thy lips;\nand thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.\u201d\u2014Isa. vi, 5-7.\n\nThus, every way, under the idea of indwelling defilement, was sin and\nits source in man\u2019s corrupted nature held up to Israel as loathsome in\nitself, propagated to the race and infecting all, defiling in its\ncontact, deadly in its indwelling power, and abhorrent to the eyes of\nGod.\n\nFour circumstances in the ritual on these defilements are peculiar and\ncharacteristic:\n\n1. The first of these exhibits a broad and fundamental contrast between\nthese defilements and those which continued only till the even. The\nlatter, as already intimated, presented the conception of an outward\nsoiling of the living person. But the uncleanness of seven days\nexhibited the idea, not of surface defilement of the living, but of the\nloathsomeness and pollution of the dead and decaying carcass, pouring\nout its own corruption, and infecting all around with its unclean and\nabhorrent presence,\u2014a pollution which no extrinsic or surface washing\ncan ever cleanse.\n\n2. The defilement was for seven days. God\u2019s work of creation ended in\nthe rest of the seventh day. That day was hence appropriated as a type\nof the final rest of Christ and his people upon the completed work of\nredemption. Hence, the argument of Paul: \u201cFor he spake of the seventh\nday on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.\nAnd in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. There\nremaineth therefore a rest for the people of God.\u201d\u2014Heb. iv, 4-9. \u201cA\nrest:\u201d literally, as in the margin, \u201ca keeping of a Sabbath,\u201d or, \u201ca\nSabbatism.\u201d But the Sabbath thus reserved for God\u2019s people, coincides\nwith \u201cthe day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.\u201d Hence, a seven\ndays\u2019 uncleanness was typical of such a corruption of nature as is\nessential and, therefore, persistent to the end; and the exclusion of\nthe defiled from the camp and the sanctuary signified the sentence of\nthe judgment of the last day, when those whose natures are unrenewed,\nand whose sins are unpurged will be excluded from the Sabbath of\nredemption and from the new Jerusalem, and remain finally under the woe\nof the second death: \u201cHe that is filthy, let him be filthy still.... For\nwithout are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and\nidolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.\u201d\u2014Rev. xxii, 11, 15.\n\n3. The defilement was contagious. If the unclean for seven days touched\na clean person, the latter was thereby defiled until the even. For, such\nis the inveteracy of this native corruption of the race that God\u2019s\npeople are liable to defilement from every intercourse and contact with\nthe world,\u2014a defilement, however, which they will leave behind them when\nthe day of earthly life is ended. Therefore, \u201cCome out from among them,\nand be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and\nI will receive you.\u201d\u20142 Cor. vi, 17.\n\n4. This seven days\u2019 uncleanness could not be purified without\nsacrificial rites, and water sprinkled by the hand of one that was\nclean. For nothing but the atoning merits of Christ\u2019s one offering, and\nthe Spirit of life which he sheds down upon his people, can enter and\ncleanse our defiled nature, and fit us for admission to the presence of\nGod, or for part in the New Jerusalem. All this will more fully appear\nas we proceed to notice the rites of purifying appointed for the several\nkinds of this uncleanness, respectively.\n\n\n SECTION XIV.\u2014_The Baptism of a healed Leper._\n\nThe rites appointed for the purifying of a healed leper come under two\nheads,\u2014those administered by the priest, and those performed by the\nperson himself. When a leper was healed, he was first inspected by the\npriest, who went forth to him to ascertain that the healing was real,\nand the disease eradicated. This being ascertained, the priest took two\nclean birds, and had one of them killed and its blood caught in an\nearthen vessel, with running water. He then took the remaining bird,\nalive, with cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop, and dipped all together in\nthe blood and water; \u201cand he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be\ncleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean,\nand shall let the living bird loose into the open field.\u201d\u2014Lev. xiv, 7.\n\nThe rite which thus ended by the official decree of the priest, \u201c_He is\nclean_,\u201d completed the purification, properly so called. The man is now\nclean. The remaining ordinances were expressive of duties and privileges\nproper to one who is cleansed and restored to the commonwealth of\nIsrael, and the communion of God\u2019s house. First of these he was required\nto \u201cwash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in\nwater, that he may be clean.\u201d\u2014Ib., vs. 8. He was now admitted to the\ncamp, but must not yet enter his own tent, nor come to the tabernacle\nfor seven days. On the seventh day he was again required to shave off\nall his hair, wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh; and \u201che shall be\nclean.\u201d\u2014Vs. 9.\n\nNow, on the eighth day, he came to the sanctuary, bringing a sacrifice\nof a trespass offering, a sin offering, and a burnt offering. The rites\nattendant upon these offerings completed the ceremonial. Thenceforth,\nthe leper resumed all the privileges of a son of Israel, in his family,\nin the the congregation, and at the sanctuary.\n\nThe general signification of these ordinances is evident. The priest, by\nwhom alone the cleansing rites could be administered, was the official\nrepresentative of our great high-priest, Christ Jesus. The two birds\nwere with the priest a complex type of him who offered himself without\nspot to God, who was dead and is alive for evermore, and by the merits\nof whose blood and the power of whose Spirit remission of sins and the\nnew life of holiness are given to men. The first self-washing symbolized\nthe duty of the redeemed to turn from their old ways and walk in\nholiness. The continued exclusion, for seven days, from his house and\nthe sanctuary was a testimony that for the present we are pilgrims and\nstrangers, and that only at the end of earth\u2019s trials and purgations can\nwe enter our \u201chouse which is from heaven.\u201d The seventh day\u2019s washing\nindicated the final putting off of all evil in the resurrection; and the\nofferings of the eighth represented the way whereby, in the\nregeneration, God\u2019s redeemed people shall have access to his presence\nand communion with him, through the blood of Jesus.\n\nWe are now able to understand why the cleansing of the healed leper was\nthus separately ordered, and not included in the provision which we\nshall presently see was made, in common, for all other cases of seven\ndays\u2019 uncleanness. The extraordinary and frequently supernatural\ncharacter of both the disorder and its cure rendered it proper and\nnecessary to take it out of the category of ordinary uncleannesses, and\nplace it under the immediate jurisdiction of the priests. This was\nnecessary, alike, in order to a judicial determination at first as to\nthe existence of the leprosy, and afterward as to the cure. And the\npriestly administration of the rites of cleansing was equally important,\nas constituting an official and authoritative proclamation of the\nhealing and restoration of the leper.\n\n\n SECTION XV.\u2014_Baptism of those defiled by the Dead._\n\nThe purification of the leper must have been of rare occurrence. All the\nfacts and indications of the Scriptures tend to the conclusion that,\nexcept by miraculous agency, the disease was incurable. The baptism of\nIsrael at Sinai was extraordinary in its nature and circumstances, and\ncould not have been repeated except in circumstances equally remarkable,\nsuch as that when, in the plains of Moab, the covenant was renewed with\nthe new generation, which had risen up to take the place of those who\nperished in the wilderness. (Deut. xxix, 1.) But of that transaction the\nparticulars are not recorded. In the water of separation, provision was\nmade for an ordinary rite, essentially the same, in its nature, mode,\nand meaning, as the Sinai baptism; and so ordered as to serve as a\ncontinual memorial and repetition of it, and reiteration of the promises\nand instructions therein embodied. This rite was appointed for the\ncleansing of defilements of daily occurrence, and was maintained through\nall the after history of Israel, until the time of Christ, and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. It was known to the Jews by the name of\n_baptism_.\n\nIn preparation for this rite, a red heifer without blemish was chosen by\nthe priest, and slain without the camp, whence the priest sprinkled the\nblood toward the door of the tabernacle of the congregation seven times.\nThe entire heifer was then burned, while the priest cast cedar wood,\nhyssop, and scarlet into the burning. The ashes were gathered and laid\nup in a clean place, without the camp. (Num. xix, 2-10.) They were to be\n\u201ckept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of\nseparation.\u201d\u2014Ib. 9. By the phrase, \u201cwater of separation,\u201d is not meant a\nwater to cause separation, but a remedy for it. They were, as Zechariah\nexpresses it, \u201c_for_ sin and _for_ uncleanness.\u201d\u2014Zech. xiii, 1.\n\nThe primary case for which they were provided was that of defilement by\nthe dead. (Num. xix, 17, 18.) Whoever touched a dead body or bone of a\nman, or a grave, was defiled thereby, as was the tent or house where the\nbody lay, and the furniture and utensils that were in it. For the\npurifying of these, some of the ashes of the heifer were mingled, in an\nearthen vessel, with running water. A clean person then took a bush of\nhyssop, and, dipping it into the water, sprinkled it on the persons or\nthings to be cleansed. This was done on the third day, and repeated on\nthe seventh. \u201cAnd on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash\nhis clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at\neven.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 2-19. Thus, as in the case of the leper, the rites for\ndefilement by the dead were divided into two categories,\u2014those\nadministered by the priest or a clean person acting officially, and\nthose performed by the subject himself. The importance of the\ndistinction thus made between rites administered and those\nself-performed is worthy of repeated and emphatic notice. The former\nsymbolized Christ\u2019s and the Spirit\u2019s agency; the latter, the active\npersonal obedience and holiness of the believer\u2019s life.\n\nIt appears from the rabbins that, at least during the later period of\nJewish history, the purifying of persons was, whenever practicable,\nperformed at Jerusalem, by the hand of a priest, and with water drawn\nfrom the pool of Siloam, which flowed from the foot of the temple mount.\nFor the purifying of houses and other things, the ashes were sent\nthroughout the land, and the rites performed where the uncleanness was\ncontracted.\n\n\n SECTION XVI.\u2014_Purifying from Issues._\n\nThe remaining forms of major uncleanness are those of childbirth, and of\nissues. (Lev. xii, 2; xv, 13, 19, 20, 25.) The places here referred to\nin the book of Leviticus contain the only directions as to purifying\nwhich specify these cases. Were our attention confined to those\nchapters, we might imagine that for these defilements there were no\npurifyings required, except in one single case, a self-washing for men\nhealed of issues. But there are several things which suggest the\npropriety of looking farther before accepting that conclusion.\n\n1. The instructions given in these places, if taken by themselves are\nincongruous. Thus, a man cured of an issue was directed to \u201cnumber to\nhimself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe\nhis flesh in running water, and he shall be clean.\u201d But of a woman it is\nsaid: \u201cShe shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall\nbe clean.\u201d\u2014Lev. xv, 13, 28. In neither of the cases of female defilement\nis there mention made of any purifying rites whatever, although the\nseven days of purifying are specified in each of them. And yet if any\none had but touched the bed, or the seat of a woman so defiled, he must\n\u201cwash his clothes, and bathe his flesh, and be unclean until the\neven.\u201d\u2014Vs. 19-23. I do not here account as rites of purifying the\nofferings which in each case the parties, after being cleansed, were\nrequired to make at the sanctuary. In those offerings they claimed and\nexercised the privilege of communion at his table with the God of\nIsrael\u2014the highest privilege of the clean. Admission to it was,\ntherefore, a formal and conclusive attestation to them as already clean.\n\n2. The manifest analogy between these defilements, and those arising\nfrom leprosy and contact with the dead, indicates the necessity of\nanalogous rites of purifying for them all. The intimacy of relation\nbetween their several meanings we have seen. It is attested by the whole\ntenor of Scripture. The same period of seven days marked them all\u2014a\nperiod emphasized, even where the uncleanness was prolonged to\nthirty-three and sixty-six days. (Lev. xii, 2, 4, 5.) They all were\nincluded in one decree of exclusion from the camp, except for manifest\nreasons\u2014women in childbed. (Num. v, 2.) At the end of the seven days of\npurifying, when they were clean, offerings were to be made at the\nsanctuary by the leper, the Nazarite defiled by the dead, and all the\nothers, except those purged from the ordinary defilement by the dead.\nAnd the offerings were in each case essentially the same. The leper, if\nable, brought three lambs, one for a trespass-offering, the second for a\nsin-offering, and the third for a burnt-offering. If he was poor, he\nbrought one lamb for a trespass-offering, and two young turtles or\npigeons, one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.\nThis offering of a lamb and two turtles was the same that was required\nof a Nazarite, defiled by the dead, after his cleansing. (Num. vi, 10,\n12.) The two turtles, or pigeons, were alone required of those defiled\nby childbirth, or by issues, one for a sin-offering, and the other for a\nburnt-offering. Thus, the only difference in these observances was the\ntrespass-offering which was, for evident reasons, required of the\nNazarite and the leper, and of them only. The Nazarite, although by an\ninvoluntary act, had trespassed in profaning the head of his\nconsecration. (Num. vi, 9.) As to the leper, his disease seems usually,\nif not always, to have been a special divine retribution for some\nspecific and aggravated offense, for which, therefore, upon his\ncleansing, a trespass-offering was required. (Num. xii, 10; 2 Kings v,\n27; 2 Chron. xxvi, 19.)\n\n3. The supposition that these defilements all did not call for rites of\npurifying essentially the same in each case, would involve incongruity\nand contradiction in the testimonies uttered by them severally. That\nthey all were typical of human depravity in its different aspects can\nnot be questioned by any one who will candidly study the Scriptures, and\nespecially the Levitical and prophetic books on the subject. But, upon\nthe supposition in question, their several representations as to the\nremedy are irreconcilable. For leprosy, and those defiled with the dead,\nthe rites of purifying declare that there is cleansing for man\u2019s moral\ndefilement nowhere but in the blood and Spirit of Christ. But the rites\nfor cleansing a man defiled with an issue would proclaim our own works\nand righteousness all-sufficient; whilst the silence of the law as to\nany rites whatever for women, in any form of issue, would declare no\ncleansing necessary, but that time and death would purify all. Thus,\nthree several testimonies, each contradictory to the others, are\nincorporated in the ordinances, if complete in those chapters.\n\nThe key to these difficulties is found in the general character and\nintent of the law concerning the water of separation. That law was the\nlatest that was given on the subject of purifyings, and is, therefore,\nnot expressly referred to in the earlier regulations which have been\nunder examination, although the divine Lawgiver intended the later\nstatute to fill up and supplement those which had gone before. Of this\nthere is a very plain indication in the ordinances respecting the\nNazarite. \u201cIf any man die suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head\nof his consecration, then he shall shave his head in the day of his\ncleansing; on the seventh day shall he shave it.\u201d\u2014Num. vi, 9. Here the\ndefiling effect of contact with the dead is not declared, but assumed;\nalthough the law to that purpose was not yet given. It is left to the\nsubsequent ordinance (Num. xix) to prescribe the rites of cleansing,\nwhich are here, as in the rules concerning issued, alluded to, but not\nstated.\n\nThose rites might seem to relate only to the case of defilement by the\ndead. But among the directions as to them, there is one which is\nunequivocal and comprehensive. \u201cThe man that shall be unclean and shall\nnot purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the\ncongregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the\nwater of separation hath not been sprinkled on him. He is unclean.\u201d\u2014Num.\nxix, 20. Here is no limitation nor exception of any kind. \u201cThe man that\nis unclean;\u201d unclean, from whatever cause. Of all such, we are here\ncertified that no lapse of time will bring cleansing. He must be\npurified before he can be clean. Till that is accomplished, his presence\nis a profanation of the sanctuary. It is, moreover, here declared that\nthe one only mode of cleansing for all such was the water of separation,\nsprinkled according to the law. That this is a true interpretation, is\nconfirmed by the testimony of Philo, of Alexandria, a Jewish writer of\nthe highest reputation, contemporary with the apostles. Giving an\naccount of the Levitical law, he distinguishes between defilements of\nthe soul and of the body; by the latter meaning, ritual defilements. Of\nthem, he says, in unrestricted terms, that the water of separation was\nappointed for purifying from those things by which a body is ritually\ndefiled.[5]\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n Below p. 175.\n\nWe shall presently see one notable example of this comprehensive\ninterpretation of the law, in the case of the daughters of Midian. Their\nneed of the rites of purifying did not arise out of any of the\ncategories specified in the laws which we have examined. They were\nunclean, because they were idolatrous Gentiles (Compare Acts xv, 9); and\nwere purified with the water of separation, because that was the general\nprovision made for the unclean. This is further illustrated in the fact\nthat all the spoil taken at the same time was also purified with this\nsame water of separation. (Num. xxxi, 19-24.)\n\nA fact remains, which is conclusive of the present point. It is the\nremarkable name by which the purifying elements are designated. \u201cIt\nshall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water\nof (_nidda_) _separation_.\u201d This word, _nidda_, occurs in the Old\nTestament twenty-three times. Its radical idea is exclusion, banishment.\nHence, the name of the land to which Cain was driven. \u201cCain went out\nfrom the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod,\u201d that is,\n\u201cthe land of banishment.\u201d\u2014Gen. iv, 16. Under this general idea of\nexclusion, the particular form, _nidda_, is appropriated to the\nseparating or putting away of a wife from her husband, and to the\nuncleannesses which gave occasion to such separation. And inasmuch as\nGod is the husband of his church, the same word is used to designate\nthose apostasies and sins which separate her from his favor and\ncommunion. (Lam. i, 17; Ezek. xxxvi, 17, etc.) In the two chapters in\nLeviticus, which present the law respecting defilement by childbirth and\nby issues (Lev. xii and xv), the word occurs no less than eleven times.\nThose who were thus defiled were, _nidda_, \u201cput apart,\u201d \u201cseparated.\u201d Six\ntimes, in the directions as to the ashes of the red heifer, the water is\ncalled \u201ca water of _nidda_.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 9, 13, 20, 21, 21; xxxi, 23.\nOnce, again, the word is used in the same way by the prophet Zechariah.\n(Zech. xiii, 1.) \u201cA fountain for sin and for _nidda_.\u201d Elsewhere it\nalways has distinct reference, literal or figurative, to the causes of\nseparation here indicated; whilst it is worthy of special mention, that\nit never designates defilement by the dead.\n\nThe conclusion implied in these facts becomes a demonstration when we\nobserve that in the figurative language of the prophets, the defilement\nof _nidda_ is expressly referred to as requiring the sprinkled water of\npurifying. In Ezekiel (xvi, 1-14) God\u2019s gracious dealings with Israel at\nthe beginning are described under the figure of the marriage tie. \u201cI\nsware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, and thou\nbecamest mine. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed\naway thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.\u201d\u2014vs. 8, 9. \u201cI\nthoroughly washed away.\u201d The verb in the original is _sh\u0101taph_, which\nwill be critically examined in another place. It signifies such action\nas of a dashing rain. In another place (Ezek. xxxvi, 17-26), the Lord,\nunder the same figure, describes the subsequent transgressions of\nIsrael: \u201cTheir way was before me as _nidda_.\u201d\u2014v. 17. Because of this,\nGod declares that he scattered them among the nations. But, says the\nLord, \u201cI will take you from among the heathen and gather you out of all\ncountries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle\nclean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness\nand from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give\nyou, and a new spirit will I put within you.\u201d\u2014vs. 24-26.\n\nSo, says the Spirit by Zechariah: \u201cIn that day there shall be a fountain\n(a flowing spring) opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants\nof Jerusalem, for sin and for _nidda_.\u201d\u2014Zech. xiii, 1. _Nidda_, then,\nsignified a defilement for which that fountain was necessary; and to\nimagine the ritual uncleanness of _nidda_ to have been healed without\nritual water of purifying, would be to suppose the ordinance to\ncontradict the doctrine of the prophets.\n\nFrom these passages it appears: (1.) That the defilement of _nidda_ was\na figure representing the sins and apostasies of Israel, viewed as God\u2019s\ncovenant people, his married wife. (2.) That the sprinkling of water is\nthe ordinance divinely chosen to represent the mode of the Spirit\u2019s\nagency in cleansing from these offenses. (3.) That this defilement and\nthe water of _nidda_ were so intimately associated with each other in\nthe usage of Israel as to serve the prophets for a familiar illustration\nof the gracious purposes of God, indicated in the texts. If the figure\nof speech used by the prophet is the proper one for illustrating his\ndoctrine in words, the water of _nidda_ sprinkled on the unclean was the\nappropriate form by which to express it in ritual action. When,\ntherefore, in the light of these facts, we read the law that the ashes\nof the heifer \u201cshall be kept for the congregation of the children of\nIsrael for a water of _nidda_,\u201d the conclusion is irresistible, that\nthose defiled with _nidda_ were to be purified with that water. And when\nto this we add the further declaration concerning \u201cthe man that is\nunclean,\u201d and is not sprinkled with it, and see it illustrated by the\ncase of the Midianite children, the further conclusion is equally\nevident that, except the peculiar case of the leper, the water of\nseparation was designed for all classes of seven days\u2019 defilement. To\nall others who were in a state of ritual separation from the communion\nof Israel, it was essential in order to being restored.\n\n\n SECTION XVII.\u2014_The Baptism of Proselytes._\n\nMaimonides was a learned Spanish Jew of the twelfth century. He wrote\nlarge commentaries upon the institutions and laws of Israel. Concerning\nthe reception of proselytes, he is quoted as saying: \u201cCircumcision,\nbaptism, and a free-will offering, were required of any Gentile who\ndesired to enter into the covenant, to take refuge under the wings of\nthe divine majesty, and assume the yoke of the law; but if it was a\nwoman, baptism and an offering were required, as we read, \u2018One law and\none manner shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with\nyou.\u2019\u2014Num. xv, 16. But what was the law \u2018for you\u2019? The covenant was\nconfirmed by circumcision and baptism and free-will offerings. So was it\nconfirmed with the stranger, with these three. But now, that no\noblations are made [the temple being destroyed], circumcision and\nbaptism are required. But after the temple shall have been restored,\nthen also it will be necessary that an offering be made. A stranger who\nis circumcised and not baptized, or baptized and not circumcised, is not\ncalled a proselyte till both are performed.\u201d[6] Various similar\nstatements are frequently quoted from the same writer, and from the\nTalmud. Respecting them the following points are to be noticed:\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n Maimonides, Issure Biah, Perek 13, in Lightfoot, Harmonia Evang. in\n Joan i, 25.\n\n1. The Hebrew word which is used by Maimonides and the Talmudic writers,\nand is here translated, to baptize, is _t\u0101bal_, a word which in the\nbooks of Moses is never used to designate rites of purifying of any\nkind.\n\n2. The _t\u0101balings_, or Talmudic baptisms, were self-performed, and not\nthe act of an official administrator. The reception of the person must\nbe sanctioned by the consistory or eldership of a synagogue, and\nattested by the presence of three witnesses. But it was performed by the\nperson\u2019s own act. Being disrobed, and standing in the water, he was\ninstructed by a scribe in certain precepts of the law. Having heard\nthese, he plunged himself under the water; and as he came up again,\n\u201cBehold he is an Israelite in all things.\u201d If it was a woman, she was\nattended by women, while the scribes stood apart and read the precepts:\n\u201cAnd as she plungeth herself, they turn away their faces, and go out,\nwhen she comes out of the water.\u201d[7] It is perfectly evident that the\nrite thus described is wholly foreign to any thing to be found in the\nMosaic law, and that it belonged to the category of self-washings, and\nnot to that of the sacrament, in which an official administrator was\nessential to the validity of the rite.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n Maimonides, as above, in Lightfoot, on John iii, 23.\n\n3. This baptism is an invention of the scribes, of post Biblical origin.\nOur sources of information are (1) the Scriptures and Apocrypha; (2) the\nwritings of Philo and Josephus, authors, the former of whom was\ncontemporary with Christ, and the latter with the destruction of\nJerusalem, both of whom wrote largely of the institutions and history of\nthe Jews; (3) the Targums of Onkelos and of Jonathan; (4) the Mishna;\n(5) the Gemaras.\n\nThe Targums are Aramaic versions of the Old Testament. The Jews, at the\nreturn from the Babylonish captivity, had lost the knowledge of the\nHebrew language. It was, therefore, necessary that the public reading of\nthe Scriptures should be accompanied with a translation into the Aramaic\ndialect, which they now used. (Neh. viii, 2-8.) The translations thus\ngiven were, no doubt, at first extemporaneous and somewhat variable. But\nthey gradually assumed fixed forms, more or less accurate, as they\nreceived the impress of different schools of interpreters. At first\ntransmitted orally, they were at length committed to writing, the Targum\nof Onkelos soon after the end of the second century, and that of\nJonathan a century later. The former, as a rule, keeps closely to the\ntext. The Targum of Jonathan indulges more in paraphrase. The Mishna is\nthe text of the Oral law, the traditions of the scribes. It was reduced\nto writing by Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, about the end of the first century,\nand is believed to be a faithful exhibit of the traditions of the Jews,\nas they stood at that time. The two Gemaras, with the Mishna, constitute\nthe Talmud. They are collections of interpretations and commentaries on\nthe Mishna, or oral law, by the most eminent scribes. The Jerusalem or\nPalestinian Gemara was compiled in the third and fourth centuries, and\nthat of Babylonia one or two centuries later. The former represents the\ngreat rabbinic seminary at Tiberias, in Galilee; the latter that of\nSora, on the Euphrates.[8]\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n According to Etheridge, the final revision of the Babylonian Gemara\n was completed by Rabbi Jose, president of the rabbinic seminary at\n Pumbaditha, on the Euphrates, in the year 499 or 500.\u2014_Jerusalem_ and\n _Tiberias_, pp. 174-176.\n\nFrom these sources of information, the indications are conclusive that\nTalmudic baptism came into use after the destruction of Jerusalem. We\nhave seen already part of the evidence, which will be more fully\ndeveloped in the following pages, that no such rite was ordained in the\nlaw, observed by Israel, or recognized in the Scriptures. The Apocrypha\nare equally silent on the subject. The writings of Philo and Josephus\nignore such a rite; as do the Targums and Mishna. In the latter, the\nword, _t\u0101bal_, which is commonly translated, to dip, is used constantly\nto designate the self-washings of the law, which, as will presently\nappear, can not have been immersions. In fact, there is sufficient\nevidence that this word, in addition to its modal sense, was also used\nto express a washing or cleansing, irrespective of the manner. That it\nwas so employed to describe the cleansing of Naaman, will hereafter\nappear. It is not until we come to the Gemara of Babylonia, dating at\nthe close of the fifth century, long after the destruction of Jerusalem\nand cessation of the temple service, that we meet with any distinct\naccount of proselyte immersion. After that it is found everywhere.\n\n4. Whilst it is thus evident that the baptisms of the Talmud are wholly\nwithout divine warrant, they are nevertheless valuable as constituting\nan authentic rabbinic tradition that a purifying with water was\nrequisite in the reception of proselytes. A key to the truth on this\nsubject presents itself in a statement found in the Mishna. \u201cAs to a\nproselyte who becomes a proselyte on the eve of the passover\u201d (that is\nthe evening before the day of the passover), \u201cthe school of Shammai say,\nLet him receive the ritual bath\u201d (_t\u0101bal_), \u201cand let him eat the\npassover in the evening; but the disciples of Hillel say, He that\nseparates himself from his uncircumcision is like one who separates\nhimself from a sepulcher.\u201d[9] It thus appears that between the two\nschools of Jewish scribes there was a division on this subject. The one\nparty taught that the uncleanness of the Gentiles was of such a nature\nas to require seven days of purifying with the water of _nidda_,\naccording to the law for one defiled by the dead. The others held them\nsubject to that minor uncleanness which ceased with the close of the\nday, upon the performance of the prescribed self-washing. We shall\npresently see that the former were correct, according to the explicit\ntestimony of the Scriptures. But here we have a clue to the later\nhistory of Jewish practice on the subject. Upon the destruction of\nJerusalem and the termination of the sacrificial services there, the\nrites for purifying with the water of _nidda_ were of necessity\npretermitted, as the ashes of the heifer were no longer obtainable. The\nrabbins were, therefore, induced to substitute the self-washing which\nthe looser school of scribes had already espoused. At what precise time\nthe self-washings of the law became the self-immersions of the Gemaras\ndoes not appear. But at the beginning of the Christian era, causes had\nbeen already for centuries at work which were abundantly sufficient to\naccount for the change. From the times of the captivities, the vast\nmultitude of Hebrews who never returned, dwelling in Babylonia and the\nfarther east, had been exposed to the influences arising from the\nreligions of the lands of their dispersion, as embodied in the Zend\nAvesta and the Shasters, the teachings of Zoroaster and of the Brahmins,\nand from the related manners and customs and religious rites which have\ntheir native seats upon the banks of the Indus and the Ganges. The\nprofoundness of the operation of these influences is seen in the\npantheism of the Kabala, traceable as it is to the kindred doctrines of\nthe Zend Avesta and the Vedas.[10] How conspicuous the place held by\nself-immersion in the religious customs of the people of the East, from\nthe earliest ages, every one knows. The Hebrews dwelling among them were\nnot restricted by the law to any defined mode of self-washing in\nfulfilling its requirements. It was, therefore, natural and inevitable\nfor them to adopt the mode which was daily practiced before their eyes.\nThe relations between the Jews of \u201cthe Dispersion,\u201d and those of\nPalestine, were of the most intimate kind, sustained through attendance\nupon the annual feasts at Jerusalem (Acts ii, 9), and afterwards by\ncontinual correspondence and travel, and by the intercourse of the\nschool at Tiberias with those of Sora and Pumbaditha. If to these facts\nbe added the tendency by which the rabbins would seek to compensate for\nthe absence of the water of _nidda_, by expanding and magnifying the\nself-washings which were still practicable, there remains no ground of\nsurprise or perplexity in finding self-immersion installed among the\nimperative observances set forth in the Gemaras. Of the disposition to\nsupply the place of the now impracticable rites by the enlargement of\nothers, the Talmud affords more than one example.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Tract Pesachim, cap. viii, \u00a7 8.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n This is clearly shown by Etheridge, in \u201cJerusalem and Tiberias.\u201d Pp.\n 339 et seq. The same thing is largely illustrated in Blavatsky\u2019s \u201cIsis\n Revealed.\u201d\n\nI have said that the Scriptural mode of purifying for proselytes was by\nsprinkling with the water of _nidda_. Of its use there is a conspicuous\nexample. On account of their licentious wiles against Israel, Midian was\ndoomed to destruction. In the campaign which followed, none were spared,\nexcept the female children. These were reserved for bond servants. (Num.\nxxxi, 18; and compare Lev. xxv, 44-46; and Deut. xxi, 10-14.) But, from\nthe days of Abraham, all bond servants had been by divine authority and\ncommand endowed with an equal right and share with their masters in\nGod\u2019s favor and covenant. And as Israel itself had been purified from\nthe defilements and idolatries of Egypt, and ordained as the peculiar\npeople of God by the baptism of blood and water at Sinai, so these\nchildren of licentious Midian, spared from the destruction incurred by\ntheir parents, and about to be joined with Israel as God\u2019s people, must\nbe cleansed and admitted in the same manner.\n\nDuring the expedition, many of the army had become defiled by contact\nwith the slain, and were therefore to be cleansed with the water of\nseparation, according to the law. Moses, therefore, issued orders to the\nmen of the army: \u201cDo ye abide without the camp seven days; whosoever\nhath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, _purify_\nboth yourselves and your _captives_ on the third day, and on the seventh\nday.\u201d In these directions as to the third and seventh days, we recognize\nthe exact requirements of the law, with respect to the water of\nseparation for the purification of sin. But the narrative is still more\nspecific. \u201cEleazer the priest said unto the men of war which went to the\nbattle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses.\nOnly the gold and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the\nlead, every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through\nthe fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless, it shall be purified with\n_the water of separation_, and all that abideth not the fire ye shall\nmake go through the water. And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh\nday, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the\ncamp.\u201d\u2014Num. xxxi, 19-24. \u201cThe water of separation,\u201d here, is, in the\noriginal, \u201cthe water of _nidda_,\u201d\u2014the water, that is, in which were\nmingled the ashes of the red heifer. With this, therefore, it was that\nthese daughters of Midian were baptized and cleansed. There were\nthirty-two thousand of these captives, thus rescued from the destruction\nincurred by the licentiousness and crimes of their own people, purged\nfrom their uncleanness, engrafted into the family of Abraham, and\nendowed with the blessings of the covenant. All were \u201cwomen children\u201d\n(Num. xxxi, 18); and, undoubtedly, many were mere babes; the first\nrecorded example of distinctive infant baptism.\n\n\n SECTION XVIII.\u2014_The Baptism of Infants._\n\nWe have seen that in the Abrahamic covenant,\u2014the betrothal of the\nchurch,\u2014the infant sons were expressly included on equal terms with\ntheir fathers; and that in the Sinai espousal the infants of both sexes\nwere joined with their parents in the bonds of the covenant, and in the\nreception of its baptismal seal. We have seen the young daughters of\nMidian purified and admitted to the covenant and church of Israel by the\nsame sacrament. By these unquestionable facts, the principle of infant\nmembership in the church, and the mode of its certification by baptism,\nare both alike clearly established. The Scriptures contain conclusive\nevidence that the children of after generations of Israel were received\nto the covenant and the church in like manner, by baptism with the water\nof separation.\n\n1. The law of God was explicit that \u201cone ordinance shall be both for you\nof the congregation and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you,\nan ordinance forever in your generations; as ye are so shall the\nstranger be before the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you and\nfor the stranger that sojourneth with you.\u201d\u2014Num. xv, 14-16. From this\nlaw, it results as a necessary conclusion, that inasmuch as the\nMidianite children were baptized, the same must have been the rule for\nthe infants of Israel.\n\n2. Circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, but not of that\nof Sinai. So long as the church was confined to the family of Israel\nafter the flesh, this rite, as being the proof and seal of membership in\nthat family was essential as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of\nthe privileges of the church; but did not, of itself, seal or convey a\nright to them. Otherwise, every circumcised person would have been\nentitled to those privileges; whereas they were reserved exclusively for\nthe clean.\n\n3. While such was the case, it was a fundamental article of the faith\nfrom the beginning, that men are all natively unclean. Job, Eliphaz, and\nBildad, each severally states it as an unquestionable proposition that\nman born of woman must be so. (Job xiv, 4; xv, 14; xxv, 4.) David cries:\n\u201cBehold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive\nme.... Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be\nwhiter than snow.\u201d\u2014Psalm li, 5-7. He not only recognizes the radical\nnature of his moral corruption as born in him, but indicates the remedy\nunder the very figure of sprinkling with the water of _nidda_, to which\nthe hyssop refers. The Lord Jesus, speaking at a time when the Old\nTestament ordinances and system were still in full force, testifies,\n\u201cThat which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the\nSpirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born\nagain.\u201d\u2014John iii, 6, 7.\n\n4. To signalize this native corruption of man and the remedy, the\nordinances concerning the defilement of _nidda_ and its cleansing were\nappointed. In them the new born infant was regarded as the product of\noverflowing corruption, and as a fountain of defilement to the mother,\nwho thus became unclean, until purified with the water of separation.\n\n5. The child was identified with the mother in this uncleanness (1) as\nbeing its cause in her; (2) as being subject to her touch, which was\ndefiling to the clean; and (3) as being bone of her bone and flesh of\nher flesh, born of her body.\n\n6. In accordance with the doctrine of man\u2019s native defilement, above\nillustrated, it was characteristic of the law that it recognized none as\nclean, unless purged by water of sprinkling. The infants at Sinai were\nso purified and admitted to the covenant, as well as their parents. So\nit was with the daughters of Midian; and no other principle was known to\nthe law,\u2014no other practice tolerated by it. \u201cThe man\u201d (the person) \u201cthat\nshall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut\noff from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary\nof the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him;\nhe is unclean.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 20.\n\n7. It is a very remarkable fact, that while we have in the Scriptures\nbut one single example specifically mentioned of the purifying of an\ninfant from this ritual defilement of birth, that example occurs in the\nperson of Him respecting whom the angel said to Mary, \u201cThat holy thing\nwhich shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 35.\nIn the same gospel in which is this record, we read, respecting Mary, in\nthe common version, that \u201cwhen the days of _her_ purification, according\nto the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem\nto present him to the Lord.\u201d\u2014Ib. ii, 22. But it is agreed by critical\neditors that this is a corrupted reading, which is wholly without\nauthority from any respectable manuscript. Instead of \u201cthe days\n(_aut\u0113s_) _of her_ purification,\u201d it should read (_aut\u014dn_), \u201cthe days\n_of their_ purification;\u201d that is, of both mother and child. Beside all\nthe other authorities, the three oldest manuscripts, Sinaiticus,\nVaticanus, and Alexandrinus, unite in this reading. How the mothers were\npurified, we have seen; and, from these facts, we know the children to\nhave shared with them in the baptism.\n\n\n SECTION XIX.\u2014_The Baptism of the Levites._\n\nThe case of the Levites, in their cleansing and consecration, was\npeculiar. They had already enjoyed with the rest of the congregation the\npurifying rites and sprinkled seal of the Sinai covenant; and were thus,\nin the ordinary sense of the Mosaic ritual, clean, and competent to the\nenjoyment of the ordinances and privileges of Israel. But when they were\nset apart to a special nearness to God, in the service of the sanctuary,\nthey were required to undergo additional ceremonies of purifying. Moses\nwas instructed to \u201ctake the Levites from among the children of Israel\nand cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them.\nSprinkle water of purifying upon them; and let them shave all their\nflesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.\u201d\nThey were then to bring two bullocks; \u201cand the Levites shall lay their\nhands upon the heads of the bullocks, and thou shalt offer the one for a\nsin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, unto the Lord, to make\nan atonement for the Levites. And thou shalt set the Levites before\nAaron and before his sons, and offer them for an offering unto the Lord.\nThus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel;\nand the Levites shall be mine.\u201d\u2014Num. viii, 6-14.\n\n\n SECTION XX.\u2014_These all were one Baptism._\n\nThe baptism of the Levites was official and peculiar. Its analogies to\nthe other examples will readily occur to the reader, as we proceed. As\nto them, there is a common identity in all essential points, in form,\nmeaning, and office. The design of the first administration at Sinai,\nand of all the attendant circumstances, was to impress Israel with a\nprofound and abiding sense of the evil of sin, and of their own utter\nvileness and ruin as sinners in the presence of a God of infinite power,\nmajesty, and holiness; and to illustrate to them the manner in which\ngrace and salvation are given. In accepting that baptism, Israel\nprofessed to submit themselves to his sovereignty and accept him in the\noffices of his grace, as symbolized in the baptismal rites. On God\u2019s\nbehalf, the transaction was an acceptance and acknowledgment of them as\nhis covenant people. The laws of defilement and the rites of purifying\nwere continual reminders and re-enactings of the Sinai transaction, and\nfor the same essential purpose,\u2014the restoring to the fellowship of the\ncovenant of those who came under its forfeiture. In each several case,\nsacrificial elements\u2014blood or ashes\u2014were applied by sprinkling. In each,\nthose elements were mingled with running water, and the instrument for\nsprinkling was a bush of hyssop, and in each, scarlet and cedar were\nused.\n\nThe meaning of the scarlet, cedar, and hyssop is unexplained in the\nScriptures. Expositors have wandered in conjectures, leading to no\nsatisfactory conclusions. One result of their use is manifest. To us,\ndevoid of meaning, they more distinctly mark the essential identity of\nthe rites, in which they occupy the same place, and perform the same\noffice. This may have been one design of their use.\n\nThe essential identity of these rites is altogether consistent with the\nminute variations in their forms. These had respect to the diversity of\ncircumstances under which they were administered. The inferior dignity\nof a single person, a leper, as compared with the whole people, explains\nthe acceptance of lambs or birds for his offerings, while bulls and\ngoats were sacrificed for the nation. In the case of ordinary\nuncleannesses, the circumstances rendered special provision necessary.\nSacrifice was lawful only at the sanctuary, which was the figure of the\none holy place and altar where Christ ministers in heaven. But death and\nother causes of uncleanness were occurring everywhere. The ashes of the\nred heifer were, therefore, provided. They presented sacrificial\nelements in a form incorruptible and convenient for transportation. They\nwere a most fitting representation of the \u201cincorruptible blood of\nChrist.\u201d And, as the proper place of the priests was at the sanctuary,\nand their presence could not be expected on every occasion of\nuncleanness elsewhere, it was appointed that any clean person might\nperform the sprinkling. This was, in fact, a mere ministerial sequel to\nthe sacrificial rites, performed by the priest, at the burning of the\nred heifer. The probability of the circumstances, and intimations from\nthe rabbins, lead to the conclusion that, as the priests multiplied and\nwere released from the necessity of constant attendance at the\nsanctuary, they were commonly called to sprinkle the water of purifying.\nIn fact, the Talmud indicates that in the later times the\nadministration, when practicable, took place at Jerusalem, by the hands\nof the priests, with water from the pool of Siloam, which, flowing from\nbeneath the temple, was recognized as a type of the Holy Spirit.[11]\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Compare Ezek. xlvii, 2; John ix, 7. \u201cGo wash in the pool of Siloam,\n which is by interpretation, Sent.\u201d\n\nThe minute variations traceable in these rites only make it the more\nclear that essentially, in form, meaning, and office, they were one\nbaptism.\n\n\n SECTION XXI.\u2014_This Symbol was derived from the Rain._\n\nWe have seen, in the prophecy of Isaiah, the source whence the figure of\nsprinkling or pouring is derived. \u201cI will pour water upon him that is\nthirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy\nseed, and my blessing upon thine offspring; and they shall spring up as\namong the grass, as willows by the water courses.\u201d\u2014Isa. xliv, 3, 4. It\nis the descent of the rain from heaven, penetrating the earth, and\nconverting its deadness into life, abundance, and beauty.\n\nHerein the rites in question stand in beautiful contrast with the\nself-washings of the law. The latter accomplished a surface cleansing,\nby a process which neither could, nor was designed to penetrate the\nsubstance, or to affect its essential state or nature. They indicated to\nGod\u2019s people the duty of conforming the external life to the grace\nwrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. But the rite of sprinkling\nrepresented the rain of God, sent down from heaven, penetrating the\nsoil, pervading and saturating it, converting its hard, dead, and\nsterile clods into softness, life, and fertility, and causing the plants\nand fruits of the earth to spring forth, saturated with the same\nmoisture, and thus possessed and pervaded with the same spirit of life.\nThus was typified the work of the Spirit, entering, pervading, and\nsoftening the stony heart, converting all its powers and faculties as\ninstruments of holiness to God, and causing the plants of righteousness\nto spring up and grow in the life and conduct.\n\nThe two words, _sprinkle_, and _pour_, are used throughout the\nScriptures with reference to the same figure of rain, the only apparent\ndifference being that the word, pour, expresses the idea of abundance.\nNo phenomenon of nature is of greater manifest importance, or more\npervasive and vital in its influences than the rain of heaven, and none\nmore suitable to illustrate the method of grace. The land from which the\nrains are withheld is without fruit, or beauty, or attraction. It is\ngiven over to barrenness, death, and cursing; and, in the language of\nthe Scriptures, is accounted unclean, as being shut out from the favor\nof God, whose favor is life. Hence, the word of God, to the prophet,\nconcerning Israel: \u201cSon of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is\nnot _cleansed_, nor _rained upon_, in the day of indignation.\u201d\u2014Ezek.\nxxii, 24. Similar is the significance of our Savior\u2019s words: \u201cWhen the\nunclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places\u201d\n(_anhudr\u014dn top\u014dn_, \u201cwaterless places\u201d), places congenial to him because\nunblessed with the Spirit\u2019s presence. (Matt. xii, 43; Luke xi, 24.)\n\nIllustrations from the Scriptures might be multiplied, showing this\norigin of the form of baptism. Isaiah says of the blessings to be\nbestowed on Israel in the latter days, that the times of desolation\nshall continue \u201cuntil the Spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the\nwilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a\nforest.\u201d\u2014Isa. xxxii, 15. In another place he cries, \u201cDrop down, ye\nheavens from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the\nearth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness\nspring up together; I the Lord have created it.\u201d\u2014Isa. xlv, 8. Hosea says\nof him: \u201cHis going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come\nunto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the\nearth.\u201d\u2014Hosea vi, 3. And again, \u201cSow to yourselves in righteousness,\nreap in mercy; break up your fallow ground; for it is time to seek the\nLord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.\u201d\u2014Ib. x, 12.\n\nThe whole conception thus unfolded is assailed and repudiated by writers\nwho assume that physical phenomena can not be used to set forth\nspiritual realities. Dr. Carson insists that \u201cBaptism can not be either\npouring or dipping, for the sake of representing the manner of the\nconveyance of the Holy Spirit, for there is no such likeness. Pouring of\nthe Spirit is a phrase which is itself a figure, and not a reality to be\nrepresented by a figure.\u201d[12] The learned doctor has confounded himself\nwith his own subtlety. On the day of Pentecost, there was a blessed\n\u201creality\u201d of some kind experienced by the apostles and converts. There\nis no absurdity, such as he imagines, in the supposition that the\npouring or sprinkling of water may be an appropriate physical\nrepresentation and symbol of that spiritual reality, and that words\ndescriptive of that symbol may be appropriate for the verbal designation\nof the thing signified. If the assertion of Dr. Carson is to be\naccepted, it is fatal not to baptism only but to the other sacrament\nalso. \u201cExcept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye\nhave no life in you.\u201d\u2014John vi, 53. Shall we be told that this language\nof our Savior \u201cis itself a figure, and not a reality to be represented\nby a figure.\u201d Then, we may not eat the bread and drink the wine, to\nrepresent this very thing, the feeding of the soul, by faith, on Christ.\nTo do so is absurd if Dr. Carson\u2019s position is sound. It is true that a\nfigure of speech _of_ a figure of speech, would be nonsense. But it is\nequally true that it is the beauty of a metaphor,\u2014the figure in\nquestion,\u2014to be susceptible of physical representation. Nor is there any\nabsurdity in the supposition that a spiritual act may be represented by\ntwo co-ordinate figures,\u2014the one a figure of physical action, and the\nother a figure of speech, descriptive of that action.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Carson on Baptism, p. 167.\n\nBesides, the assertion that \u201cbaptism can not be either by pouring or\ndipping for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance of the\nHoly Spirit; for there is no such likeness,\u201d is not merely an assumption\nof knowledge concerning the invisible things of God which no mortal can\npossess. But, if the language is to be understood in any sense pertinent\nto the purpose of Dr. Carson, it is a plain contradiction of the\ntestimony of God himself on the subject. True, there is no _physical_\noutpouring predicable of God the Spirit. It is as true of the Doctor\u2019s\nown word;\u2014there is no physical \u201cconveyance of the Holy Spirit.\u201d Does it,\ntherefore, follow that there is _no_ conveyance, _no_ outpouring? He\nmight with as good reason quibble as to the exaltation of Christ,\nbecause height and depth are mere relative terms, which change their\ndirection, at every moment of the earth\u2019s motion on its axis and its\norbit. His objection equally applies to the entire ritual of the\nScriptures, robs it of all spiritual meaning and renders the whole\nutterly inane and worthless. And yet, if Paul\u2019s testimony be true, the\ntabernacle and all the vessels of ministry were \u201cpatterns of things in\nthe heavens.\u201d\u2014Heb. ix, 23. Are those heavenly things not spiritual?\nJesus himself was \u201cthe Lamb of God,\u201d the forerunner, John, being\nwitness. Is there any incongruity between this language, and the fact\nthat the sacrificial lambs of the ritual law meant the same thing? If\nDr. Carson is right, all this is absurd. Or, is there no spiritual truth\ninvolved in these figures? Either the physical analogies to which the\nWord of God constantly appeals, in figures of speech and similitudes,\nand upon which the whole ritual system is built, do so correspond with\nthe spiritual realities as to assist us to true conceptions of them,\nhowever inadequate,\u2014either the Scriptural figures, forms, and rites were\nselected because best adapted to convey and illustrate the spiritual\nideas designed, or we are mocked by a semblance of revelation which\nreveals nothing. The assertion cuts us off from all knowledge of the\nspiritual world. Nay, it leaves us ignorant of the very existence of\nangel or spirit. For, what is spirit, but the _spiritus_ or breath of\nman, the air or wind? How, then, upon the theory in question, can the\nword acquire or convey any idea of immaterial things? Until the\nportentous position of Dr. Carson shall have been established by\nsomething more conclusive than mere assertion, the contrary will stand\nas the truth of God. Moreover, the assertion, even if admitted, does not\naffect in the slightest degree, the argument against which it is\ndirected. The fact still remains, conspicuous and unanswerable,\u2014that,\nwhatever be the reason, sprinkling and pouring are, in the Scriptures,\nconstantly used, both in ritual forms, and in figures of speech, to\nsignify the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, by the Mediator, from his\nthrone on high.\n\n\n SECTION XXII.\u2014_This Ordinance meant, Life to the Dead._\n\nThe manner of these rites, and the style of the Scriptures in connection\nwith them are based upon the fundamental fact of man\u2019s spiritual\ncondition as by nature dead, by reason of the apostasy and the\ncurse,\u2014\u201cdead in trespasses and sins\u201d (Eph. ii, 1, 5); \u201cbeing alienated\nfrom the life of God\u201d (Ib. iv, 18), so that they are incapable of\nexercising any of the activities of true spiritual life unto God, and\nare, therefore, outcast as were the leper and the unclean, from the camp\nand society of the clean; being \u201caliens from the commonwealth of Israel,\nand strangers from the covenants of promise.\u201d\u2014Ib. ii, 12. In short, the\ndeath which by sin, through one man, entered the world was the death of\nthe soul. With reference to it, Jesus says,\u2014\u201cI am the resurrection and\nthe life: he that believeth in me though he were dead, yet shall he\nlive: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.\u201d\u2014John\nxi, 25, 26. But inasmuch as a dead soul can not sustain life in the\nbody, the latter too died with the soul, in the day of its death. For a\nlittle time, through the mercy of God, in order to salvation (2 Peter\niii, 15), an expiring struggle is maintained; but it is with bodies ever\nstooping to the grave and irresistibly drawn downward into its yawning\ngulf. It is in view of these facts that Paul describes the old man, the\ncarnal or inherited nature, as \u201cthe body of this death,\u201d or \u201cthis dead\nbody;\u201d and its works as \u201cdead works\u201d (Heb. vi, 1; ix, 14) which he\nrepresents to be \u201call manner of concupiscence,\u201d or evil desires, and\nconsequent evil deeds. (Rom. vii, 8-24.) Hence, the seven days\u2019\nuncleanness, signifying the deadness of the soul, and the offensiveness\nof its works. Coincident in meaning was the defilement of things by the\ncontagion of death. For man\u2019s sake, the ground itself is cursed (Gen.\niii, 17), and every product of the earth and every possession of man\nupon it is involved in the curse, and until delivered from it, is\nunsanctified to man\u2019s use. Hence, the house, the bed, the furniture and\nutensils, were defiled by the presence of the dead and unfitted for the\nuse of the clean, the living.\n\nSuch were the conceptions with reference to which the rites of Levitical\nbaptism were ordained. They were designed to answer the question: How\ncan these dead be made alive, this defilement be cleansed, and the curse\nlifted from man and the earth? They announced life to the dead, and the\nhealing of their corruption. They proclaimed Christ\u2019s atonement made to\nredeem us from the curse, and his Spirit given to implant in us new life\nand purge us from dead works to serve the living God. As the descending\nrain not only penetrates the soil and instils life into the clods and\nhardness, but washes and purges the surface, and gives freshness and\nbeauty to the scenes of nature, cleansing the face of the impenetrable\nand barren rock,\u2014so the Spirit sent down not only penetrates the heart\nand creates new life there, but pervades the outward life and conduct\nand purifies the whole. Thus, in the one figure of the sprinkling or\npouring of rain, are identified the two ideas of new life and cleansing;\nand hence, thus taught, the cry of the psalmist, in which he identifies\nboth with the sprinkled baptism. \u201cWash me thoroughly from my iniquity,\nand cleanse me from my sin.... Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be\nclean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.... Create in me a clean\nheart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.\u201d\u2014Ps. li, 2-10. The\nsame relation is recognized by Paul, who ascribes our salvation to \u201cthe\n_washing_ of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he\n_shed_ on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior.\u201d\u2014Tit. iii, 5,\n6.\n\nIn the promise of life signified in this baptism, two things were\nincluded under the one essential conception. These were, renewing to the\nsoul, and resurrection to the body. These are as inseparably related to\neach other as are the death of the soul and of the body; and that,\nbecause of the essential relation between those two parts, as identified\nin the one person. Christ gave himself, body and soul, for us, to\nsatisfy justice; and bought us unto himself in our whole being, body and\nsoul. If the Spirit of life be given us, it is given both to renew our\ndead souls and to make our bodies his temples. And, says Paul, \u201cIf the\nSpirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead dwell in you, he that\nraised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by\nhis spirit that dwelleth in you.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii, 11.\n\nThat this doctrine of the new life was the meaning of the baptismal\nrite, appears from many Scriptures. We have just seen the significant\nlanguage of the psalmist. By Ezekiel, the Lord says to Israel: \u201cThen\nwill I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean; from all\nyour filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart\nalso will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will\ntake away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart\nof flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27.\n\nThis view of the work of the Holy Spirit is exhibited very clearly in\nEzekiel\u2019s vision of the valley of dry bones, and the promises therewith\naddressed to Israel respecting the latter days. \u201cBehold, O my people, I\nwill open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and\nbring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord,\nwhen I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of\nyour graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.\u201d\u2014Ezek.\nxxxvii, 12-15.\n\nIn the same sense Paul interprets the Levitical baptisms. Having\ndesignated the ordinances of which they formed a part as figures of the\nheavenly things, he says: \u201cIf the blood of bulls and of goats, and the\nashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying\nof the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ ... purge your\nconscience from dead works, to serve the living God.\u201d\u2014Heb. ix, 13, 14.\nHere he contrasts the dead works of the unregenerate with the living\nworks of those who, as they are alive unto God, serve in newness of life\nhim who, being the living God, \u201cis not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxii, 32. Of this he recognizes the sprinklings to be a\nfigure.\n\nThe doctrine thus involved in the water of purifying sheds a beautiful\nlight on one of the most interesting facts in the life of our Savior.\nUpon the death of Lazarus, Jesus so timed his coming as to reach Bethany\non the fourth day. On the previous day, or, more probably, on that very\nsame day, the sisters and household of Lazarus had been baptized with\nthe water of purification. And now, as He stands by the sepulcher, the\nresurrection, in its highest sense, as including both soul and body, and\nrendering both superior to death, is the theme of his discourse. \u201cThy\nbrother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall\nrise again, in the resurrection, at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I\nam the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he\nwere dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me\nshall never die.\u201d\u2014John xi, 23-26.\n\n\n SECTION XXIII.\u2014_The Gospel in the Water of Separation._\n\nMuch of the spiritual significance of these rites has already appeared.\nBut in order to an adequate appreciation, they should be viewed in\nconnection.\n\n1. The red heifer was a sin-offering. This is denied by some, who would\ndraw a fine distinction. Says Bishop Patrick: \u201cThough this was not a\nsacrifice, it had something of that nature in it, and may be called a\n_piaculum_, an expiatory thing, though nothing was called _korban_, a\nsacrifice, but what was offered at the altar.\u201d But, (1.) _korban_ does\nnot mean a sacrifice, but a gift, a dedicated thing; and is used, not\nonly to designate sacrifices and offerings at the altar, but even the\nwagons and oxen which the princes gave for transporting the tabernacle\nand its furniture. (Num. vii, 3.) (2.) The blood of the heifer was\nsprinkled by the priest toward the door of the sanctuary. It was thus\nbrought into a relation to the altar and the mercy-seat, typically as\nmanifest and close as though it had been actually sprinkled on the\naltar. (3.) The law itself expressly declares it to be a sin-offering.\n\u201cIt is a purification for sin,\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 9. The original, here, is the\nsame that is in other places literally translated, \u201cIt is a\nsin-offering.\u201d\u2014Lev. iv, 24; v, 9, 11, 12. In this, its character as a\nsin-offering, lay the meaning of the rite as a purification. It\nrepresented atonement for sin, at the price of blood,\u2014the blood of\nChrist. Hence its use in purifying those uncleannesses which typified\nmoral corruption in its forms of intensest malignity and deadliness.\nHence the appeal to this meaning of the rite which the psalmist makes,\nin his penitence and sorrow for his crimes. \u201cBehold, I was shapen in\niniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.... Purge me with hyssop,\nand I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.... Hide\nthy face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities.\u201d\u2014Ps. li, 5, 7,\n9. The Targum thus paraphrases this place: \u201cThou wilt sprinkle me, as\nthe priest which sprinkleth the unclean with the purifying waters, with\nhyssop, with the ashes of an heifer, and I shall be clean.\u201d The same\nconception is apparent in God\u2019s language of grace to Israel, and to the\nnations. \u201cThen will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be\nclean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse\nyou.\u201d And, \u201cSo shall he sprinkle many nations.\u201d In a word, in every\ninstance in which this rite is appointed, or figuratively alluded to, it\nwill be found to indicate a typical impeachment of sin; and the design\nand effect of its use was the removal of that impeachment, the cleansing\nof the subject. It was _baptism unto the remission of sins_.\n\n2. The heifer was offered without the camp. In the detailed ritual of\nthe tabernacle and temple service, the holy of holies, the holy place,\nand the surrounding court, typified, respectively, God\u2019s heavenly\npresence chamber, the church, and the world. In a wider scheme, the\nwhole sanctuary was representative of God\u2019s house, whilst the camp and\nafterward the city of Jerusalem were the figure of the church, and the\noutside region stood for the world at large. Hence, the unclean were\nexcluded from the camp and the city. (Compare Rev. xxi, 27; xxii, 14,\n15.) And hence, the red heifer was offered without the camp, to signify\nthe reproach of Christ, who suffered without the gate, excommunicate and\naccursed. (Heb. xiii, 11-13.) The blood of the heifer, sprinkled from\nwithout toward the sanctuary, intimated in a very affecting manner, the\ndistance to which Christ came from yonder sanctuary in the heavens, to\nshed his blood, and therewith to sprinkle the throne of justice on high.\n\n3. Blood only was sprinkled toward the sanctuary, whilst it was water\nmingled with the blood or ashes, that was sprinkled on the unclean. For,\nhis own unmingled blood, offered by Christ himself before the throne on\nhigh, and that alone, makes satisfaction to justice for sin. But the\nHoly Spirit is the sole channel and agent through whom Christ bestows on\nhis people, or they can in any wise acquire, the virtue of that blood in\njustifying grace and holiness. Water, therefore, was the vehicle for\ncommunicating to Israel the blood of sprinkling.\n\n4. The blood was sprinkled seven times, to show the complete and\nexhaustive efficacy of the sufferings of Christ to satisfy justice,\nsanctify the soul, and make an end of sin forever.\n\n5. He that touched the dead was defiled seven days. This tactual\ndefilement typified not only the guilt and depravity which _we_ derive\nfrom Adam, but, especially, the contagion of man\u2019s guilt which came on\nthe Lord Jesus, by becoming the Son of man, born in our nature. Though\nhe knew no sin, yet was he laden with our curse. He signified this very\nthing, when in the days of his flesh, he defiled himself by touching the\nlepers and the dead, that he might restore them to soundness and life,\nat the price of his own life;\u2014\u201cThat it might be fulfilled which was\nspoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and\nbare our sicknesses.\u201d\u2014Matt. viii, 17. The same thing was set forth by\nthe fact that the priest that sprinkled the heifer\u2019s blood, each\nassistant at the burning and gathering of the ashes, and he that\nsprinkled the water of separation, all became thereby unclean until the\neven. They, together, represented the Lord Jesus, in the exercise of his\nmediatorial office, which involved his taking his people\u2019s curse upon\nhim, to free them. The seven days of this defilement have been already\nexplained, as typical of our native condition of depravity and guilt,\nwhich, if not purged, involves continuance and condemnation in the\nseventh, the last day, when the sentence will be uttered, \u201cHe that is\nfilthy let him be filthy still.\u201d\u2014Rev. xxii, 11.\n\n6. The ashes of the heifer were as familiar to the religious life of\nIsrael as was the blood of sacrifice. But the significance of the blood\nis so much more familiar to us, that a pause is here proper, to call\nattention to the wonderful propriety and instructiveness of the ashes.\nIn the blood we see the penalty of sin paid, and justice satisfied. But\nit is satisfied at the price of life, and leaves death in possession.\nBut, in the ashes, Israel saw the sacrifice come forth from the\nexhausted fires of justice, unconsumed and unconsumable. On them, the\nfire could no more take hold; but, mingled with the living water, they\nrepresented Christ\u2014the law satisfied and the curse exhausted in his\nblood\u2014coming forth by the Spirit, from the expiring flames, robed in\nlife and immortality. \u201cWhom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains\nof death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of\nit.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 24.\n\n7. The ashes were mingled with running water. Prior to the baptism of\nIsrael at Sinai, we hear of no sacramental rite setting forth the office\nand work of the Holy Spirit. But the living water, then ordained in the\ndivers baptisms of the Mosaic system, became thenceforward the standing\nrepresentation and type of the Third Person of the Godhead, as the\nSpirit of life, shed down from heaven by the Mediator.\n\n8. The sacrificial elements and water were _sprinkled_ on the unclean.\nTwo ideas were thus symbolized; the _bestowment_ by Christ from his\nthrone of the virtues of his blood and Spirit; and, their effectual\ninfluence upon the heart and conscience of him to whom they are given.\nAs the rain descends from heaven, penetrates the soil, and makes it\nfruitful, so Christ\u2019s Spirit shed down from him takes possession of the\ninmost heart, purges it from the guilt of past sins, and produces\nnewness of life and the fruits of holiness. With reference to the mode\nthus employed, and its symbolical relation to Christ\u2019s administration of\ngrace, the fact is worthy of special emphasis, that in every rite or\nfigure by which was represented the exercise by Christ of his office as\nadministrator in the Father\u2019s kingdom, the mode is affusion, whether it\nbe blood, water, or oil, expressive of grace bestowed on the people of\nGod, or indignation and fire poured down upon his enemies.\n\n9. The water of separation was to be sprinkled on the unclean on the\nthird day and on the seventh. \u201cAnd if he purify not himself the third\nday, then the seventh day he shall not be clean;\u201d for, Jesus who died\nunder our curse, rose again the third day. And \u201cKnow ye not that so many\nof us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?\nTherefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as\nChrist was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so\nwe also should walk in newness of life. For, if we have been planted\ntogether in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness\nof his resurrection.\u201d\u2014Rom. vi, 3-5. If we do not participate in the\nresurrection of Christ on the third day, by rising from the death of sin\nto the life of holiness, we can have no part in the resurrection and\nlife of glory. So, Paul testifies to the Ephesians, that the same mighty\npower which raised Christ from the dead and set him far above in the\nheavenly places, is at work in all his people, and by it they who were\ndead in sins are quickened together with him, and made to sit with him\nin the heavenly places. (Eph. i, 20; ii, 6.) Hence, Paul\u2019s earnest\ndesire and labor for himself,\u2014\u201cThat I may know him, and the power of his\nresurrection, ... if by any means, I might attain unto the resurrection\nof the dead.\u201d\u2014Phil. iii, 10, 11. \u201cMight know the power of his\nresurrection,\u201d\u2014by realizing within, the steady vigor of the new life in\nChrist Jesus, working holiness and grace.\n\nOf the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Paul says, that \u201che rose again\nthe third day, according to the Scriptures.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 4. But where, in\nthe Scriptures, is the third day thus specified? The Lord Jesus makes a\nsimilar statement, which goes far to answer the question. \u201cThese are the\nwords which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things\nmust be fulfilled which were written in _the law of Moses_, and in the\nprophets and in the Psalms concerning me. Then opened he their\nunderstanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto\nthem, Thus it is _written_, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to\nrise from the dead _the third day_.\u201d\u2014Luke xxiv, 44-46. In another place,\nthere is a remarkable allusion to the same thing. When Jesus, in\nresponse to the Jews demanding a sign, said, \u201cDestroy this temple, and\nin three days, I will raise it up,\u201d the disciples did not understand.\nBut \u201cwhen he was risen from the dead, they remembered that he had said\nthis unto them; and they believed _the Scripture_, and the word that\nJesus had said.\u201d\u2014John ii, 18-22. It would thus appear that the\nresurrection on the third day was _written_ in the Scriptures, and the\nreference to the law of Moses, and statement as to the opening of the\nunderstanding of the apostles, as though the matter were not patent on\nthe face of the record, both lead us to look in that direction for the\nprophetic anticipation of the third as the resurrection day. The other\nScriptures will be searched in vain for any thing to fulfill the\nrequirements of these statements of Christ and of Paul. The law\nconcerning the sprinkling of the water of separation contains the only\nintimation on the subject; and the allusions above cited appear\nundoubtedly to have had this typical prophecy in view.\n\nIn the design of this ordinance, as a prophecy of the resurrection, we\nhave the reason of its peculiar relation to that particular form of\ndefilement which arose from contact with the dead. Although designed as\nhas been seen for the cleansing of other defilements, also, it was\nordained in immediate connection with this particular uncleanness,\nbecause that is the connection in which this distinctive meaning shines\nforth most clearly.\n\n10. He that was purified with the water of separation was required to\nfollow it with an act of self-ablution. \u201cOn the seventh day, he shall\npurify himself, and wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and\nshall be clean at even.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 19. It has been asserted that this\nrule was meant for the administrator of the rite. But the exposition\nafterward given by Eleazar, the priest (Num. xxxi, 21-24), shows this to\nbe a mistake. The propriety and beauty of the requirement, in the\nconnection, are apparent. It was a perpetual monition to Israel that\nthose who have been redeemed with precious blood, and raised up to new\nlife by the Holy Spirit, should walk worthy of their calling, and keep\nthemselves from the evil that is in the world, in the blessed assurance\nof being freed from all corruption and evil, and made partakers in the\nperfection of holiness and life, on the great Sabbath day of redemption.\n\nThis thought was more fully developed in the rites concerning the leper.\nImmediately upon his baptism, he was required to shave his hair, wash\nhis garments and bathe his flesh. The hair and the defilement adhering\nto the garments and flesh were evident types of the outgrowth and fruits\nof his leprous life. Of the shaving and cleansing thus appointed, Paul\nmay give the interpretation\u2014\u201cThat ye put off concerning the former\nconversation, the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful\nlusts.\u201d\u2014Eph. iv, 22. After this, the meaning of the like shaving and\nwashing on the seventh day is apparent. It sets forth the final and\ncomplete putting off of the old carnal nature, in the resurrection of\nlife, when our bodies themselves also shall be transformed into the\nlikeness of Christ\u2019s glorious body, and be reunited to our souls,\nperfected in holiness.\n\n11. The defilement from the dead, and the purifying use of the water of\nseparation were not only incident to persons; but the tent or house\nwhere the dead lay, and every thing that was in it, became defiled, and\nmust be cleansed by the water of separation, sprinkled on the third day,\nand on the seventh. (Num. xix, 14, 18; xxxi, 20, 22, 23.) Thus were\nIsrael taught that the curse of sin is on the earth, also, and all that\nis in it, as well as on man; that, only as sanctified to him through the\natonement of Christ, can the productions and possessions of the earth be\nblessed, and that in the regeneration, the earth and the creatures\nthemselves, also, shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into\nthe glorious liberty of the sons of God, and \u201c_Holiness to the Lord_,\u201d\nbe written on the very bells of the horses. (Zech. xiv, 20.) \u201cFor,\u201d\nsaith the Lord, \u201cbehold I create new heavens and a new earth.\u201d\u2014Isa. lxv,\n17.\n\nThus, all the great truths of the Gospel, were set forth and symbolized\nin this ordinance, the last, the consummate and crowning sacrament of\nthe Old Testament.\n\n\n SECTION XXIV.\u2014_These were the Divers Baptisms._\n\nThat the sprinkled purifyings were the theme of Paul\u2019s argument is\nevident:\n\n1. He distributes the whole ritual system under two categories. His\nstatement (Heb. ix, 8, 9), literally translated, is, that \u201cthe first\ntabernacle,\u201d erected by Moses, was \u201c(_parabol\u0113 eis ton kairon\nenest\u0113kota_), an illustrative similitude, unto the present time (_kath\nhen_[13]) _in accordance with which_ (similitude), both gifts and\nsacrifices are offered, which, as to the conscience, can not perfect the\nworshipers; depending only on meats and drinks and divers\nbaptisms,\u2014righteousnesses of the flesh, imposed until the time of\nreformation.\u201d The word (_dikaiomata_) \u201crighteousnesses\u201d (from _dikaios_,\nrighteous), is repeatedly so translated in our English version (Rom. ii,\n26; v, 18; viii, 4), although in some other places beside the text it is\nrendered,\u2014\u201cordinances.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 6; Heb. ix, 1, 10. The latter rendering,\nhowever, fails to develop the true idea of the word, which\nis,\u2014ordinances imposed, _in order to the attaining of righteousness by\nobedience_. So it should be in the first verse of this chapter. \u201cThen,\nverily, the first covenant had also righteousnesses of worship,\u201d (ritual\nrighteousnesses), \u201cand an earthly holy place.\u201d By the phrase,\n\u201crighteousnesses of the flesh,\u201d the writer indicates the contrast\nbetween the outward ritual righteousnesses of the law,\u2014its circumcision\nof the flesh, its offerings of bulls and goats, and its washings and\nsprinklings with material elements,\u2014and \u201cthe circumcision of the heart;\u201d\n\u201cthe offering of Jesus Christ,\u201d and \u201cthe washing of regeneration and\nrenewing of the Holy Ghost.\u201d The ritual observances fulfilled the law of\ncarnal commandments, and were thus righteousnesses of the flesh, and\nfigures of the true, the righteousness of Christ.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n This reading is attested by codices Bez\u00e6, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,\n Sinaiticus, and is fully sustained by the internal evidence.\n\nPaul distributes these observances into the two categories of offerings\nand purifyings. The law required each sacrifice to be accompanied with a\nmeat offering made of fine flour mingled with oil, and a drink offering\nof wine. For the altar was God\u2019s table, where he as a Father fed and\ncommuned with his children. It must, therefore, be furnished with all\nthe provisions of a table. (Num. xv, 3-5, 7, etc.) Thus, the offerings\nupon the altar were all comprehended under the two heads of meats\n(_br\u014dmasi_, solid food), and drinks,\u2014nourishments for _the body_. Paul\u2019s\nother category is, the divers baptisms. These, of necessity, are the\npurifying rites of the Levitical system. For, he describes the whole\nsystem as including \u201c_only_ meats and drinks and divers baptisms;\u201d\nwhereas all were actually comprehended under the two heads of offerings,\nwhich symbolized atonement made, and purifyings, representing its\napplication, to the purging of sins. That it is of the purifyings that\nhe now speaks, is evident not only from the meaning of baptism, itself,\nbut from the whole tenor of his argument, which is directed exclusively\nto the two points just indicated, atonement made, and purification\naccomplished.\n\n2. The baptisms of which the apostle speaks were purifyings of persons\nand not of things. They were righteousnesses of the flesh, upon which\nmen in vain relied for the purging of their consciences, (vs. 9, 14.)\n\n3. There were but two ordinances to which Paul can possibly refer.\nExcept the sprinklings, and the self-performed washings, there was no\nrite in the Levitical system in which water was used, or to which the\nname of baptism is, or can be, attributed, with any pretense of reason\nor probability.\n\n4. The self-washings will be examined presently. As compared with the\nsprinklings, they were of minor importance. Separately used only for\nsuperficial defilements, they purged no essential corruption. They were\nwithout sacrifice, administrator, or sacramental meaning. They\nsymbolized no work of Christ, signified no bestowal of grace, and sealed\nno blessing of the covenant. In all this, they stood in eminent contrast\nwith the sprinkled rites. To suppose that Paul, in a discussion which\nhas respect to the cleansing efficacy of Christ\u2019s blood and Spirit, and\nthe Levitical types of it, should refer to the minor rite of\nself-washing, which did _not_ symbolize those things, and by an\nexclusive \u201c_only_\u201d reject from place or consideration the sprinklings\nwhich did, is absurd; as it is, moreover, to suppose that, in such an\nargument, the latter would not, of necessity, have a paramount place and\nconsideration.\n\n5. This conclusion is fully confirmed upon a critical examination of the\nconnection of Paul\u2019s argument. The \u201cmeats and drinks and divers\nbaptisms\u201d he characterizes as \u201crighteousnesses of the flesh,\u201d in\nconfirmation of the assertion just made, that they could not \u201cperfect,\u201d\nor purify the conscience of the worshiper. He then, immediately,\npresents in contrast the atonement of Christ. \u201cThey,\u201d says he, \u201cdepended\nonly on meats and drinks and divers baptisms, righteousnesses of the\nflesh imposed until the time of reformation. But Christ being come, ...\nneither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he\nentered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption\nfor us. _For_ if the blood of _bulls_ and _of goats_ and the _ashes of a\nheifer sprinkling_ the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the\nflesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ ... purge your\nconscience.\u201d Thus, in immediate exposition of his statement as to divers\nbaptisms, the apostle specifies the two most conspicuous forms of the\nsprinklings of Sinai, that of the whole people, upon the making of the\ncovenant, and that administered with the water of separation\u2014the one\nbeing the original of the ordinance, and the other its ordinary and\nperpetuated form. For, that there may be no mistake as to his reference,\nin speaking of the blood of bulls and of goats, he proceeds, a little\nfarther on to describe particularly its use in the Sinai baptism: \u201cFor\nwhen Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the\nlaw, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet\nwool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying,\nThis is the blood of the testament (the covenant), which God hath\nenjoined unto you.\u201d\u2014Vs. 19, 20. As we examine Paul\u2019s argument throughout\nthe chapter, we find his attention directed, from first to last, to the\nsprinklings of the law alone, while the self-washings are not once named\nnor alluded to. This, afterwards, very signally appears in that\nmagnificent contrast of Sinai and Sion, in which he sums up the whole\nargument of the epistle. The crowning feature in the attractions of Sion\nis \u201cthe blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of\nAbel.\u201d\u2014Heb. xii, 24. In the presence of it the self-washings are not\ncounted worthy to be named.\n\n6. The manner in which, in the next chapter, self-washing is at length\nintroduced is a singular confirmation of the view here taken. So long as\nthe writer is occupied in the argument as to Christ\u2019s work of expiation,\nhe makes no allusion to the self-washings. But when he proceeds to urge\nupon his readers the practical plea which his argument suggests, he does\nit by referring to the two rites, in the relation to each other which we\nhave indicated. \u201cHaving, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the\nholiest, by the blood of Jesus, ... and having a High Priest over the\nhouse of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of\nfaith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our own\nbodies washed with pure water.\u201d\u2014Heb. x, 19-22. To an unclean person,\ndesiring to claim the privileges of the sanctuary, the requirement of\nthe law was, Let him be sprinkled on the third day and on the seventh,\nto set forth Christ\u2019s and the Spirit\u2019s grace; and then, let him wash\nhimself, in token of the maintaining of personal holiness. From the\nrites which he has been discussing, Paul\u2019s exhortation takes form, and\nin them finds interpretation.\n\nThe conclusion is evident. Had Paul meant by the phrase in question to\ndesignate the self-washings, they were by affusion, and it would follow\nthat that is the mode of baptism. But that his reference was\ndistinctively and emphatically to the sprinkled rites is beyond candid\ncontradiction. We, therefore, plant ourselves upon this impregnable\nposition, and challenge assault. _For fifteen hundred years of the\nchurch\u2019s history, baptism was uniformly administered by sprinkling._ It\nwas so administered down to the time of Christ. It was so administered\nin the time of Paul. The word does _not_ then mean to dip or to immerse;\nfor, Paul being witness, the rite was not so performed. Had we no\nfurther evidence, this should be conclusive.\n\n\n PART IV.\n THE RITUAL SELF-WASHINGS.\n\n\n SECTION XXV.\u2014_Unclean until the Even._\n\nThe clean, that is those who had been purified by sprinkling, were\nliable to contract certain minor defilements, which were characterized\nby continuing until the even. Of these there were two classes. First,\nwere those which resulted from participation in expiatory rites. Among\nthe most conspicuous examples of this class were the uncleanness of the\npriests and assistants by whom the red heifer was sacrificed, the ashes\ncollected and the water of separation sprinkled on the unclean. These\nall were, by participation in those rites, rendered unclean until the\neven, and were required to wash their clothes, and bathe their flesh, in\norder to their cleansing. (Num. xix, 7, 8, 10, 21.) The meaning of this\nis evident. The red heifer was a sacrifice of expiation, \u201ca purification\nfor sin.\u201d\u2014Ib. 9. In it, the priests and assistants and he that sprinkled\nthe ashes, with the heifer itself, together, constituted a complex type\nof the Lord Jesus, offering himself a sacrifice to justice, sprinkling\nthe altar in heaven with his own blood, and applying it with his Spirit\nto his people for the purifying of their uncleanness. The defilements\nfor which the ashes of the heifer were provided were typical of our\nnative depravity and death in sin and the curse. From these, Christ\nfreed his people, by being himself made a curse for them (Gal. iii, 13),\ndying in their stead, that they might live. To represent this the\npriests, assistants, and administrator of the water of separation,\nbecame defiled, by participation in the cleansing rites. The same\nexplanation applies to the defilement which the high priest and others\nincurred by participation in the observances of the day of atonement.\n(Lev. xvi, 24, 26.)\n\nThe curse under which the Lord Jesus came exhausted itself on his\nnatural life, and expired as he rose from the dead. Of the period during\nwhich he bore its burden, and fulfilled his atoning work, he himself\nsays: \u201cI must work the works of him that sent me, _while it is day_; the\nnight cometh, when no man can work.\u201d\u2014John ix, 4. And on the night of the\nbetrayal he said to the Father, \u201cI have finished the work which thou\ngavest me to do.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvii, 4. It thus appears that a day is a symbol of\nthe period of man\u2019s natural life, the period during which the Lord Jesus\nwas under the curse. Hence the typical uncleanness of the priests and\nassistants was limited to the even of the day on which it was incurred.\nIt was removed by self-washing; for it was by his own power and Spirit\nthat Christ threw off the curse and rose from the dead. (Rom. viii, 2,\n11; John x, 17, 18.)\n\n2. The other class of uncleannesses until the even arose from the more\nor less intimate contact of the clean with persons or things that were\nunclean in the higher degree; or from other causes essentially similar\nin meaning. Defilements resulting from expiatory rites symbolized the\nputative guilt incurred by the Lord Jesus, in making atonement for us;\nwhile he ever remained, in himself, \u201choly, harmless, undefiled, separate\nfrom sinners.\u201d\u2014Heb. vii, 26. But the forms of uncleanness now under\nexamination resulted from contact with things that were typical of the\ndebasement, corruption, and depravity of the world. The uncleanness\nhence arising signified the spiritual defilement to which God\u2019s people\nare liable from contact with evil. Hence, the grades of defilement,\nconsequent upon the closeness and fellowship of the contact, and the\nnature of the uncleanness with which it took place. These were designed\nto teach the lesson with which James crowns his definition of pure\nreligion and undefiled. \u201cTo _keep himself_ unspotted from the\nworld.\u201d\u2014James i, 27. The same idea is presented by the beloved John. \u201cWe\nknow that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten\nof God _keepeth himself_, and that wicked one\u201d (that \u201cunclean spirit,\u201d\nthe representative and source of all moral evil) \u201ctoucheth him not\u201d (to\ndefile him, as would the touch of the leper or the unclean). \u201cAnd we\nknow that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.\u201d\nLiterally,\u2014\u201clieth in that wicked one,\u201d\u2014in his bosom, and the defilement\nof his contact and communion. (1 John v, 18, 19.) And, again, \u201cBeloved,\nnow are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be;\nbut we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we\nshall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him\n_purifieth_ himself, even as he is pure.\u201d\u20141 John iii, 2, 3.\n\nFrom many such Scriptures, the meaning of these uncleannesses and of the\nself-washings is easily gathered. The defilements which they symbolized\nare not of a radical nature, but extrinsic and superficial. They\nrepresented those spiritual defilements,\u2014those soilings of heart and\nconscience to which God\u2019s people are subject through contact and\nintercourse with an ungodly world. It is postulated only of those whose\nhearts have already been quickened and sanctified by the blood and\nSpirit of Christ, \u201conce for all\u201d (Heb. x, 10); and who are \u201cthe\nhabitation of God through the Spirit.\u201d They do not require a new\natonement and renewing of the Spirit, but the exercise of the graces of\nthat Spirit which is already in them. For their cleansing, therefore, no\nnew sacrificial rites nor official administrator were appointed; but\nthey were required to wash _themselves_. This did not prohibit the\nemployment of any customary assistance in the washing; as, for example,\nthat of a servant pouring water on the hands. But such assistance, if\nemployed, was merely ministerial, and not official. The washing, however\nperformed, was the duty and act of the subject of it, and therein lay\nits significance. Its language was that of the apostle; \u201cHaving,\ntherefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from\nall filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear\nof God.\u201d\u20142 Cor. vii, 1.\n\nThe termination of the defilement, upon the performance of the appointed\nself-washing, with the going down of the sun, certified the deliverance\nof God\u2019s people from sin and corruption, with the end of this present\nlife, in the coming rest of the believer\u2019s grave, awaiting the seventh\nday of resurrection and glory.\n\n\n SECTION XXVI.\u2014_Gradation of the Self-washings._\n\nThere was a noticeable gradation in the self-washings.\n\n1. First was the washing of the hands, alone. This was required of the\nmagistrates expiating a concealed murder. (Deut. xxi, 6.) It is also\nindicated in Leviticus xv, 11. It will be further examined hereafter.\nThe figure of washing the hands, as expressive of innocence and purity,\noccurs repeatedly in the Scriptures; and as the hands are the ordinary\ninstruments of the actions and labors of life, the meaning of the figure\nis very manifest. Says Job, in his complaint to God, \u201cIf I wash myself\nwith snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge\nme in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me.\u201d\u2014Job ix, 30, 31.\nThat is, \u201cThough I give the utmost heed to conform my whole life and\nconduct to the requirements of thy holiness, yet, in the severity and\npenetration of thy judgment, thou wilt discover and reveal me to myself\nas utterly unclean.\u201d The psalmist has recourse to the same figure, in a\nhappier spirit. \u201cI will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass\nthine altar, O Lord; that I may publish with the voice of thanksgiving,\nand tell of all thy wondrous works.\u201d\u2014Ps. xxvi, 6, 7.\n\n2. Next in the order of these observances was the ordinance requiring\nthe priests to wash their hands and feet in preparation for the duties\nof their ministry at the sanctuary. This will be discussed hereafter.\n\n3. In certain milder forms of uncleanness till the even, the person was\nrequired to wash his clothes, merely. This rule applied to such as he\nthat ate or slept in a house shut up on suspicion of leprosy (Lev. xiv,\n47); and he that carried an unclean carcase, or ate unclean flesh. (Lev.\nxi, 25, 28, 40.) From the time when our first parents, in the conscious\nnakedness of guilt, made themselves aprons of fig-leaves, which the Lord\nreplaced with coats of skins, the garments had a recognized\nsignificance, which is traceable long before the giving of the law; and,\nrunning through all the Scriptures, gives form to the imagery of the\nlast book of all. When Jacob, on his return from Chaldea, was required\nby God to go to Bethel and erect an altar, he called on his household\nand followers to be clean and change their garments (Gen. xxxv, 2); that\nis, to put off their soiled garments and put on clean. So, at Sinai, in\npreparation for its transactions, Moses was directed to \u201csanctify the\npeople to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes.\u201d\u2014Ex. xix,\n10, 14.\n\nA few other Scriptures will develop the meaning of this symbol. In the\nvision of Zechariah: \u201cHe showed me Joshua the high-priest, standing\nbefore the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to\nresist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan;\neven the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: Is not this a\nbrand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua, was clothed with filthy\ngarments and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake to those\nthat stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him.\nAnd unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from\nthee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.\u201d\u2014Zech. iii, 1-4.\n\u201cOthers save with fear,\u201d says Jude, \u201cpulling them out of the fire;\nhating even the garment spotted by the flesh.\u201d\u2014Jude 23. With this\ncompare the definition of \u201cpure religion and undefiled,\u201d\u2014\u201cto keep\nhimself unspotted from the world.\u201d\u2014Jas. i, 27. \u201cThou hast a few names\neven in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments; and they shall\nwalk with me in white; for they are worthy.\u201d\u2014Rev. iii, 4. In his\nvisions, John saw the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,\nand a great multitude out of every nation, \u201cclothed with white robes.\u201d\nAnd the angel told him, \u201cThese are they that have washed their robes,\nand made them white in the blood of the Lamb.\u201d\u2014Ib. vi, 11; vii, 9, 14.\n\u201cBehold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his\ngarments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvi, 15. To\nthe bride, the Lamb\u2019s wife, it \u201cwas granted that she should be arrayed\nin fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness\nof saints.\u201d\u2014Ib. xix, 8. Literally, \u201cis the righteousnesses of the\nsaints.\u201d\n\nFrom these Scriptures, it is evident: that clean or white garments\nprimarily and essentially mean, the righteousness of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, in which his people are robed, so that the shame of their\nspiritual nakedness may not appear (Rev. iii, 18; vii, 14; Phil, iii, 8,\n9); that keeping them clean, or unspotted, means, the maintaining of\nthat watchful holiness of heart and life which is becoming those who\nhave been bought and robed as are Christ\u2019s people; and that washing the\ngarments signifies recourse to the blood and Spirit of Christ, as the\nonly and effectual means of making and keeping them free from\ndefilement.\n\n4. In certain cases, the unclean until the even were required to wash\ntheir clothes and bathe their flesh. The characteristic examples of this\nobservance, are those who had carried or touched any thing on which one\ndefiled with an issue had sat or lain. (Lev. xv, 5, 6, etc.) A careful\nexamination of this class, in comparison with the preceding, proves them\nto be essentially one in meaning, the difference being mainly if not\nentirely in degree. The defilement in the present case was aggravated by\nthe fact that its cause was symbolical of man\u2019s depravity, breaking out\nin active corruption and transgression. On the other hand, the unclean\nanimals, from which the milder form of this uncleanness was contracted\nrepresented the evil of man\u2019s nature, simply as native and indwelling,\nwithout the active element of outbreaking depravity and wickedness.\nHence, the difference, in requiring the washing of both the flesh and\nthe garments, was designed to give emphasis to the admonition conveyed;\nand to teach the additional lesson, that whilst all contact with the\nungodly and the world is dangerous to the purity of Christian character,\nand renders necessary a continual recourse to the sanctifying power and\ngrace of the Holy Spirit; especially is this requisite in case of\nintimate relations with it, in its active forms of ungodliness and\ncorruption, dissipation and riot.\n\n5. The only other class, to be enumerated under this head, consists of\nthose who, in addition to other rites of purifying, were required to\nshave off their hair. Such were lepers, in their cleansing (Lev. xiv, 8,\n9); the Levites, upon their consecration (Num. viii, 7); a Nazarite,\ndefiled, before the completion of his vow (Num. vi, 9); and a captive\nwoman, chosen as a bride (Deut. xxi, 12). With these may be compared the\nNazarite, at the completion of his vow, although this did not belong to\nthe category of purifying. The Scriptures contain no formal explanation\nof this requirement. But the nature and circumstances of the cases as\ncompared with each other, and the general principles of typical analogy,\nindicate the interpretation. The hair of the leper, for example, was the\nproduct and outgrowth of his leprous state, and must therefore be put\noff and repudiated, with his entrance on the the new life of the clean.\nThe same principle applies to all the other cases, except that of the\nNazarite, upon the completion of his vow. His hair was the product of\nthe time during which, by the consecration of his vow, all belonged to\nGod. It could not, therefore, be retained, but was shaved off and\noffered upon the altar, as holy. (Num. vi, 18.) In the other cases, it\nwas cast away as unclean. Thus, as in all the preceding regulations, the\nsame lesson is repeated, which is so needful, and to our stupidity, so\nhard to learn;\u2014the lesson of putting off the old man and putting on the\nnew.\n\n\n SECTION XXVII.\u2014_Mode implied in the Meaning of the Rite._\n\nThe instructiveness and utility of types and symbols consist in an\nappreciable analogy between them and the spiritual things which they are\nappointed to symbolize. In the case of the Old Testament self-washings,\nI suppose it has never entered the imagination of any one that they were\ntypes of the burial of the Lord Jesus. Of such an interpretation there\nis not a trace anywhere in the Scriptures. On the contrary, such meaning\nis there attributed to them that, in order to a sustained analogy, the\nsubject of the rite should, by a voluntary and active exercise of his\nown powers take and apply the water to his members and person, for their\ncleansing. In this respect, they stand in emphatic contrast with the\nsprinkled water of purifying. That was designed to concentrate the\nattention of Israel upon the active agency of the Mediator, in bestowing\nthe baptism of his blood and Spirit, for the renewing and quickening of\ndead souls. In it, therefore, the subject was the passive recipient of\nrites dispensed by the hands of another. But the activity of the\nChristian life and warfare were symbolized by the self-washings.\nChrist\u2019s grace is given his people, not to sanction supineness and\nindolence; but to stimulate to activity in the pursuit of holiness. As\nthe Spirit is now to them an opened fountain, they are to have recourse\nto it, to seek and obtain, day by day, more grace, for the purging of\nthe flesh, for overcoming the world, for bringing forth the fruits of\nthe Spirit, for fighting the good fight of faith and laying hold on\neternal life.\n\nThis, which comprehends the whole matter of practical religion is urged\nin the Scriptures, not only by direct and continual admonitions, but in\nthe use of every variety of figures and illustrations. It was the lesson\ntaught, under the figure of self-washing. Pure water is alike adapted to\nquicken the soil, to quench the thirst, and to cleanse the garments and\nthe person. But, as the water of life will not quench the thirst of the\nsoul, unless we _come_ and _drink_, neither will it purge away the\ndefilements of evil, unless we take it and apply it, with diligence and\nlabor. \u201cWash ye! make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from\nbefore mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment,\nrelieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.\u201d\u2014Isa.\ni, 16, 17. The Spirit thus clearly indicates that self-washing signified\nan intense and life-pervasive activity,\u2014an activity applied, in detail,\nto each particular relation and duty, so as to purge out every principle\nof evil, and conform every act to the law of holiness. To correspond\nwith this meaning of the rite, its form should be such as to call forth\nthe active energies of the subject, by the application of the water to\nthe appointed parts and members of the person in detail; and by such\nsuccessive manipulation as is proper to secure a thorough cleansing. The\nordinary mode of washing, among Israel, as we shall presently see,\nperfectly met these requirements; whilst immersion would have been\nwholly inadequate, not to say directly contradictory to them, since it\nindicates a mere passive recipiency, and not an active appropriation and\nuse of the means of cleansing.\n\n\n SECTION XXVIII.\u2014_The Words used to designate the Washings._\n\nThe discriminating use of words on this subject, in the original\nScriptures is very noticeable, and is susceptible of being brought\nwithin the comprehension of any intelligent reader of the English\nversion. There are three which are worthy of special notice.\n\n1. _Sh\u0101taph_ means, to overflow, or rush over, as a swollen torrent or a\nbeating rain. Thus,\u2014\u201cBehold the Lord hath a mighty and strong one,\nwhich, as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty\nwaters _overflowing_,\u201d shall beat down the crown of pride. (Isa. xxviii,\n2.) Again,\u2014\u201cSay unto them which daub with untempered mortar that it\nshall fall; there shall be an _overflowing_ shower,\u201d beating it down.\n(Ezek. xiii, 11-14.) From this, the radical meaning of the word, is\nderived its use to signify the act of washing or rinsing, by means of\nwater dashed or flowed over the object. It is employed in application to\nvessels of wood and of brass (Lev. vi, 28; xv, 12), and to the hands of\nthe unclean. (Ib. xv, 11.) In all these places it is translated, to\nrinse.\n\n2. _K\u0101bas._ The radical meaning of this verb is, to tread, to trample.\nThe participle from it is used to designate the craft of the fuller, who\nfulled his goods by treading them with the feet. Hence its use to\nsignify the thorough cleansing and whitening of clothing and stuffs. The\nword occurs in the Old Testament forty-six times, with this uniform\nmeaning. It is used whenever the ritual washing of clothes is spoken of.\nFrom it a very striking figure is derived, which appears twice, to\nindicate the most thorough self-cleansing, under the idea of a garment\nscoured, with \u201cnitre and much soap\u201d (Jer. ii, 22; iv, 14), and twice, to\nindicate a like thorough cleansing wrought by the Holy Spirit. \u201c_Wash_\nme thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.... Purge\nme with hyssop, and I shall be clean: _wash_ me, and I shall be whiter\nthan snow\u201d (Psa. li, 2, 7), white, as a garment is made by the fuller\u2019s\nart. (Mark ix, 3.) These passages indicate the essential idea of the\nword. It is expressive of a scouring, or washing, which searches the\nvery texture of the fabric. It is, however, worthy of notice that in the\nTargum of Onkelos, on Numbers xix, 19, it is rendered, \u201cto sprinkle.\u201d\n\u201cThe clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the third day and\non the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall be clean; and he\n_shall sprinkle_ his raiment, and wash with water, and at even he shall\nbe clean.\u201c This rendering is very noteworthy, as it indicates the manner\nin which the law was understood on this point. In fact, as we have\nalready seen, sprinkling signified the most thorough cleansing.\n\n_R\u0101hatz._ While _k\u0101bas_ indicates a purifying of the substance, _r\u0101hatz_\nsignifies a washing of the surface. This is the word which is invariably\nused to express the ritual self-washings or bathings of the hands, the\nfeet, and the person. It is sometimes assumed that, like the English, to\nwash, _r\u0101hatz_ is strictly generic in its meaning\u2014that it signifies to\ncleanse with, or in, water, without any regard to mode. This is an\nerror, as a single fact shows. It is never used for the cleansing of\nskins, clothes, or garments. Nor is this an accidental omission. Such\nwashings are mentioned nearly fifty times, and in nineteen places they\nare brought into connection with the bathing of the person. But in no\none place is the word in question used either generically, as\ncomprehensive of both the person and garments, or specifically for the\nlatter. In every place where the two processes come in the same\nconnection, the language is accurately discriminated. The directions\nare, to _wash_, or scour (_k\u0101bas_), the clothes, and to _bathe_\n(_r\u0101hatz_) the flesh. This word occurs over seventy times. In five or\nsix places, it applies to the washing of sacrificial flesh, before it\nwas placed on the altar. (Lev. i, 9, 13, etc.) In every other instance\nit refers to the human person. It expresses cleansing with water\nactively applied to the surface. Thus, when Joseph \u201d_washed_ his face,\u201d\nto obliterate the traces of tears (Gen. xliii, 31), and when the Beloved\nis described, \u201cHis eyes, as the eyes of doves by the rivers [rivulets]\nof waters, _washed_ with milk and fitly set\u201d (Cant. v, 12), the\nreference is clearly to the familiar mode of washing the face with water\napplied. When the Lord, by Isaiah, speaks of the time when he \u201cshall\nhave _washed away_ the filth of the daughters of Zion\u201d (Isa. iv, 4), and\nwhen the Preacher describes \u201ca generation that are pure in their own\neyes, and yet is not _washed from_ their filthiness\u201d (Prov. xxx, 12),\nthe idea presented is the same\u2014that of water actively applied to the\nsurface, so as to detach and carry off the dirt. In another place this\ndefinition is even more imperatively indicated. \u201cThen (_r\u0101hatz_) washed\nI thee with water; yea (_sh\u0101taph_), I thoroughly washed away thy blood\nfrom thee, and I anointed thee with oil.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xvi, 9. Here three\nthings unite to determine the meaning of _r\u0101hatz_. 1. It is explained by\n_sh\u0101taph_, the signification of which we have seen. 2. The defilement\nfrom which the washing is promised, is that of _nidda_, for which\nexpressly the sprinkled \u201cwater of _nidda_\u201d was appointed and named. 3.\nThe construction is precisely the same in the two clauses of the verse,\n\u201cI washed thee _with_ water,\u201d and \u201cI anointed thee _with_ oil.\u201d Of the\nmode of the latter there can be no question. In both clauses the element\nnamed is the _instrument_ of the action specified. The ideas of washing\nand of immersion are not merely different, but sharply contrasted with\neach other. Where there is an immersion, there may also be a washing.\nBut it must be by additional action. _R\u0101hatz_ expresses the latter. It\nneither expresses nor implies the former.\n\n\n SECTION XXIX.\u2014_The Mode of Domestic Ablution._\n\nThe customs of Israel as to personal ablution would, it is evident,\ndecide the manner of these self-washings, in the absence of explicit\ndirections. The indications in their history are very decisive on this\npoint.\n\n1. The patriarchs were keepers of cattle, dwelling in tents. The\ncircumstances of such a mode of life forbid the supposition that they\nwere accustomed to the use of the immersion bath. The possession, the\ntransportation, and the use of the requisite vessels, are wholly foreign\nto that mode of life.\n\n2. Facts in the history of the patriarchs confirm the correctness of the\ninference thus indicated. Although in later ages, after Palestine had\nbeen pierced with wells, water was abundant for all the uses incident to\nthe mode of life of the people, the contrary was true, in earlier times.\nSurface streams are of rare occurrence. The substratum is a cavernous\nlimestone, into the cavities of which the rains quickly percolate. Hagar\nand Ishmael were in danger of perishing of thirst, when sent away by\nAbraham. (Gen. xxi, 15.) Abraham and Isaac relied on digging for water;\nand the scarcity and value of the element were indicated by the violence\nwith which the other inhabitants of the country seized wells digged by\neach of those patriarchs. (Gen. xxi, 25; xxvi, 19-22.) These were\nusually deep, and all the water used for personal washings, as well as\nfor drinking and for culinary uses, must be laboriously drawn and\ncarried by the maidens of the camp. We can thus see the bearing of the\nphraseology of Abraham in tendering his hospitality. \u201cLet a _little\nwater_, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet.\u201d\u2014Gen. xviii, 4.\n\n3. We may safely conclude that Jacob and his family did not take with\nthem into Egypt the habit of bathing by immersion. But may they not have\nacquired it in the land of their bondage? It happens that we have very\ninteresting evidence as to the custom of the Egyptians on this subject.\nSir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his splendid work on \u201cThe Manners and\nCustoms of the Ancient Egyptians,\u201d gives an engraved copy of the only\npictorial illustration on this subject found by him among the abundant\nremains of Egyptian art. It is taken from a tomb in Thebes. In it, a\nlady is represented with four attendants. One removes the jewelry and\nclothes which she has put off; another pours water from a vase over her\nhead: the third rubs her arms and body with open hands; and a fourth,\nseated near her, holds a flower to her nose, and supports her, as she\nsits. \u201cThe same subject,\u201d says Wilkinson, \u201cis treated nearly in the same\nmanner on some of the Greek vases, the water being poured over the\nbather, who kneels or is seated on the ground.\u201d[14] The Greeks were\ncolonists from Egypt, with which country their relations were always\nintimate. And the fact, which will hereafter appear, that this was the\nonly mode of domestic or in-door bathing, in use among them, is very\nsignificant, as to the customs of Egypt on the point.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n Wilkinson, vol. iii, p. 388; Abridged edition, ii, 349.\n\n4. It is hardly necessary to insist on the utter impossibility of the\nHebrew bondmen having acquired in Egypt more luxurious habits than those\nof their Egyptian taskmasters,\u2014habits, too, requiring much more\nexpensive appliances, such as would be necessary for immersion-bathing.\nAnd, when they left Egypt, \u201ctheir kneading troughs being bound up in\ntheir clothes upon their shoulders\u201d (Ex. xii, 34), the supposition that\nthey had with them a sufficient supply of bath tubs to serve for the\ncontinual immersions which, upon the Baptist theory, the Levitical law\ndemanded, does not need to be controverted. In fact, the customary mode\nof washing, among Israel, as traceable in all their history, was\nprecisely that which we have seen in use among the patriarchs and the\nEgyptians. It was, with water poured on, and the necessary rubbing by\nthe bather himself, or by an attendant. This custom was universal in\nIsrael, and throughout the east, from the earliest ages. At first, the\nonly utensil used was a pitcher or jar, out of which the water was\npoured. A case before referred to in the history of Abraham illustrates\nthe circumstances and manner of this usage. As he sat in his tent door,\nin the heat of the day, he saw three men approach. He ran to salute\nthem, and said, \u201cLet a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and\nrest yourselves under the tree.\u201d\u2014Gen. xviii, 1-4. The washing was done\nin the open air, and the earth received the flowing water. In the same\nregion, the Dead Sea expedition found the same custom among the\ntent-dwelling Arabs. On one occasion, \u201chaving as usual submitted to be\nstared at and their arms handed about and inspected, as if they were on\nmuster, water was brought and poured upon their hands, from a very\nequivocal water jar; after which followed the repast.\u201d[15]\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n Lynch\u2019s Dead Sea Expedition, p. 206.\n\nSo long as the simplicity of tent life was maintained, this was\nall-sufficient. But, afterward, the convenience of a bowl or basin was\nadded, which was so placed as to catch the water, as it flowed off, in\nwashing, thus preventing the wetting of the floor. The water, once used,\nwas not applied a second time, but rejected, as being defiled. The\nexamples of Bathsheba and Susanna indicate that, in bathing the person,\neven in the later times, the primitive custom still so far survived that\nresort was sometimes had to a retired place outside the house; no doubt\nbecause of the inconvenience of flooding the floor with the water, as it\nwas poured over the person. \u201cThe History of Susanna,\u201d (one of the\nApocryphal books), dates as far back as two centuries before Christ. The\nheroine is described as an eminently modest and virtuous woman. Her\nhusband, Joachim, \u201cwas a rich man, and had a fair garden adjoining his\nhouse.\u201d His house was a place of resort to the Jews, and the magistrates\ncommonly sat there, to exercise their office. It was Susanna\u2019s custom to\nwalk in the garden at noon, after the people had left the house. Two of\nthe elders are described as plotting against her. \u201cAnd it fell out, as\nthey watched a fit time, she went in as before with two maids only, and\nshe was desirous to wash herself in the garden; for it was hot. And\nthere was nobody there save the two elders, that had hid themselves and\nwatched her. Then she said to her maids, Bring me oil and washing balls,\nand shut the garden doors, that I may wash. And they did as she had bade\nthem, and shut the garden doors, and went out themselves at private\ndoors, to fetch the things that she had commanded them.\u201d Her purpose is\nprevented by the appearance of the two elders, from whose false\naccusation she is in the sequel rescued by the famous \u201cjudgment of\nDaniel.\u201d The same custom is illustrated by the case of Pharaoh\u2019s\ndaughter at the finding of Moses, and by the Egyptian picture, from\nWilkinson. A signal proof of the prevalence of the custom of washing\nwith water poured on by an attendant, presents itself, in the fact that\nthe designation of a body servant, or personal attendant, was derived\nfrom it. Elisha the prophet had been the minister or attendant of\nElijah, before the translation of the latter. Of this relation, king\nJehoshaphat was informed by the statement that it was he \u201cwhich poured\nwater on the hands of Elijah.\u201d\u20142 Kings iii, 11.\n\nThe circumstances render it certain that this was the form of washing in\nthe expiation of a concealed murder. The elders of the nearest city were\nrequired to take an unbroken heifer down into a rough and uncultivated\nvalley or gorge, and there, in the presence of the priests, strike off\nits head, wash their hands over the carcass, and call God to witness\ntheir innocence in the matter. Thus, the water flowing from their hands\nupon the carcass, transferred to it and the barren spot where it lay the\nputative guilt of the crime. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.)\n\nFrom this ordinance, the form seems to have become a familiar mode of\nprotesting innocence of crime, and is memorable for that occasion when\nPilate \u201ctook water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I\nam innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.\u201d\u2014Matt.\nxxvii, 24. Two primitive representations of this scene, in sculptured\nrelief, have been found in the catacombs at Rome. They date from the\nfirst centuries of the Christian era. In them the wife of Pilate appears\nin the background, with averted face. An attendant holds a vase or\npitcher in one hand, and in the other a bowl: while Pilate sits rubbing\nhis hands. The position of the bowl shows it to be empty. \u201cThe mode of\nwashing implied in the empty bowl is characteristic. In the east, the\nwater is still poured from the vase over the hands, and caught in the\nbowl, so that it should not pass over them twice.\u201d[16]\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Maitland\u2019s \u201cChurch of the Catacombs,\u201d p. 261. Also, Withrow\u2019s\n \u201cCatacombs,\u201d p. 333.\n\nThe manner of washing the feet is illustrated by a fact in the life of\nour Savior. At dinner, in the house of Simon, the Pharisee, a woman that\nwas a sinner \u201cbrought an alabaster box of ointment and stood at his\nfeet, behind him, weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and\ndid wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and\nanointed them with the ointment.\u201d\u2014Luke vii, 37, 38, 44. But how was it\npossible for the woman, coming behind him at table, to get access to his\nfeet: which, according to our custom, would be concealed under the\ntable? The ordinary mode of sitting, in the east, then as now, was, on\nthe ground or floor, squat, cross-legged, or reclining. Chairs were not\nin common use, but were reserved for purposes of state, and used almost\nexclusively by dignitaries. In later times a bench or settee was\nintroduced, which was without a back. Whether on it or the floor, the\nusual position, in eating was the same. The guests reclined on the left\nelbow, leaving the right hand free. The person next on the right thus\nleaned toward or against the breast of him who was at the head. (John\nxiii, 23.) The feet were drawn up behind. Persons who wore sandals,\nalways, on entering a house, left them at the door. These were not\nordinarily worn by the common people, but only upon occasions of special\ntravel; and our Savior, therefore, forbade his disciples to take time to\nprovide them, in the haste of the mission on which he first sent them to\npreach. (Matt. x, 10; Luke x, 4.) They poorly protected the feet from\nthe soiling and roughness of the way.[17] Decency, therefore, and\ncomfort both,\u2014especially in the case of guests coming from a distance,\nrequired that the feet should be washed, immediately upon entrance, and\nthe addition of oil or ointment was not only agreeable, for the perfumes\ncommonly mixed with it, but very soothing and grateful to the weary and\nexcoriated feet. It was one of the first obligations of hospitality to\nprovide for this washing of the feet of guests. (Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2;\netc.) Where special respect was intended, the office was sometimes\nperformed by the master of the house, or his wife. As the guest\nreclined, his feet projecting over the edge of the seat behind him, a\nbasin was placed beneath, so as to receive the flowing water, as it was\npoured over them. To this mode there is an allusion in the language of\nour Savior, to Simon the Pharisee, upon the occasion just referred to,\nwhich is lost in our translation. \u201cI entered thine house. Water _upon_\nmy feet thou didst not give.\u201d\u2014Luke vii, 44.[18] So, the night of the\nbetrayal, Jesus took water and a towel and washed and wiped the\ndisciples\u2019 feet, as they reclined; and thus the woman came behind him at\nthe table, and bedewed his feet with her tears. To this customary rite\nof hospitality Paul refers, when he describes a widow\u2014\u201cif she have\nlodged strangers, if she have washed the saints\u2019 feet.\u201d\u20141 Tim. v, 10. To\nit, Abigail alludes, when, in response to David\u2019s offer of marriage, she\nreplies,\u2014\u201cBehold, let thine handmaid be a servant, to wash the feet of\nthe servants of my lord.\u201d\u20141 Sam. xxv, 41. If the ritual bathings of\nIsrael were immersions, the mode was without precedent in the domestic\nhabits of the people; as it was without prescription in the law.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n \u201cSeveral of them [Arabs of the Jordan] wore sandals, a rude invention\n to protect the feet. It was a thick piece of hide, confined by a thong\n passing under the sole at the hollow of the foot, around the heel, and\n between the great toe and the one which adjoins it.\u201d\u2014Lynch\u2019s \u201cDead Sea\n Expedition,\u201d p. 282. These thongs were the \u201clatchets\u201d of Mark i, 7.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n \u201c\u1f5d\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d The preposition, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9, with the\n accusative, means _upon_, with the idea of previous or present\n motion,\u2014to wit, (in this place,) of the water, poured and flowing upon\n the feet.\n\n\n SECTION XXX.\u2014_The Facilities requisite._\n\nNot only was the rite of immersion without precedent in the domestic\ncustoms of Israel. It was wholly impracticable as an observance to be\nfulfilled with the frequency of the ritual washings of the law. On this\npoint, delicacy forbids unnecessary detail. But an examination of the\nvarious requirements on the subject of uncleanness, and especially as\ncontained in the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus, will establish the fact\nthat recourse to those washings, was a matter of constant,\u2014almost\ndaily,\u2014necessity, in every household, and for both men and women. In\norder to fulfil these obligations, the supposition that immersion was\nthe mode would render two things imperatively necessary in every\nfamily,\u2014a very large supply of water;\u2014and a capacious bath-tub or tank\nin which the immersions might be performed. As to these points, but few\nwords are necessary. The people of Israel did not usually live on their\nlands in the country; but, like all other populations of the east, were\ngathered in towns and villages, to which they resorted at night; going\nforth in the day-time to their labors in the field. This mode of life\nwas rendered necessary to avoid exposure to the depredations of bands of\nwandering marauders; and was equally congenial to the social disposition\nand habits of the people. The population of each village was accustomed\nto depend, for the supply of water, upon a well to which all resorted,\nand which was usually near the gate of the village. From this source,\neach household was supplied; the water being carried in pitchers, or\njars, on the shoulders of the females of the family.[19] It is\nunnecessary to protract argument. The facts are of themselves\nconclusive. The washings can not have been immersions.\n\nThis conclusion is confirmed by the absence of vessels of any kind\nsuited to the performance of such a rite. Neither in the Old Testament\nnor the New, neither in the Apocrypha, Philo, nor Josephus is there any\nmention of such facilities, or such a rite, nor allusion to them. In\nfact, with all the advantages and appliances of modern civilization,\nthere is not, and there never was a people on the globe of whom one in a\nhundred could comply with the law of Moses, if interpreted in the\nBaptist sense. And it is certain that no primitive people ever adopted\nthat mode of domestic bathing\u2014a mode which implies a very great advance\nin luxury and its appliances. The Greeks themselves did not use it,\nexcept as they sometimes resorted to rivers and streams. In their\narrangements for bathing, domestic and public, the immersion bath was\nunknown until introduced with the luxury of imperial Rome. In Homer\u2019s\ndescription of the bath of Ulysses in the palace of Circe, the hero is\ndescribed as seated in a vessel which contained no water, but was\ndesigned to receive that which was poured over him; and the bathing was\nperformed in a manner identical with that which we have seen practiced\nin Egypt. In the remains of antique Greek art, the bath is frequently\nrepresented. But the mode is invariably the same. The bather is placed\n_beside_ the vessel containing the water, which is taken thence in a\ndipper or jar, and poured over him.[20]\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Gen. xxiv, 13.\u2014; Ex. ii, 15-19; Judges v, 11; Ruth ii, 1-4; 2 Sam.\n xxiii, 15; 1 Sam. ix, 11; John iv, 7; Matt. xx, 1-7.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n See Wilkinson, above quoted, and Smith\u2019s Greek and Roman Antiquities,\n _article_ \u201cBalne\u00e6;\u201d and below pp. 200, 207.\n\nHomer\u2019s description of the bath of Ulysses is thus rendered by Bryant:\n\n A nymph\u2014\u201cthe fourth\n Brought water from the fountain, and beneath\n A massive tripod kindled a great fire,\n And warmed the water. When it boiled, within\n The shining brass, she led me to the bath,\n And washed me from the tripod. On my head\n And shoulders, pleasantly, she shed the streams\n That from my members took away the sense\n Of weariness, unmanning body and mind.\u201d[21]\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n Bryant\u2019s Odyssey, Book X, 429-437.\n\n\n SECTION XXXI.\u2014_The Washings of the Priests._\n\nWriters upon the types and symbols of the Scriptures too often fail to\nrecognize or appreciate their unity, symmetry, and completeness as a\nsystem, and the just proportion and propriety of each several part in\nits relation to the whole. That such must have been their character was\nimpressively intimated to Israel by the emphasis with which Moses was\nadmonished to \u201clook that thou make them after their pattern, which was\nshewed thee in the mount.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxv, 40; xxvii, 8; Num. viii, 4. The\nreason of this particularity is stated by Paul. \u201cWho serve unto the\nexample and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God\nwhen he was about to make the tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou\nmake all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the\nmount.\u201d\u2014Heb. viii, 5. The tabernacle and its appurtenances were a\nsystematic and luminous exposition of the plan of grace. Approaching it\nfrom without, the first object that presented itself was the brazen\naltar of burnt-offering, exhibiting the price of redemption. Between it\nand the door of the tabernacle stood the laver, the pure water of which\nsymbolized the Holy Spirit, through whom is the washing of regeneration\nand renewing of the Holy Ghost, the essential condition precedent to\nadmittance to the fold of Christ. Entering the tabernacle, the first\napartment represented the church on earth, the fold of the covenant. In\nit the light always shone from the seven branched golden candlestick,\nthe lamps of which, continually replenished with oil by the priest,\nsymbolized the church shining as the light of the world, through the oil\nof grace, the unction of the Holy One, ministered by our great High\nPriest. The table of show bread always supplied with twelve loaves,\naccording to the number of the twelve tribes, set forth that Bread of\nlife ever abundant for all, which nourishes the people of God in the\nearthly church, in preparation for the heavenly. Immediately before the\nveil, and before the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies stood the\naltar of incense, the fire of which, kindled with coals from the altar\nof burnt-offering, set forth the prayers of God\u2019s people, made\nacceptable and fragrant before the throne, by virtue of the atonement\nand intercession of Christ. Within the veil,\u2014thin curtain between the\nearthly and the heavenly house,\u2014the mercy seat covering the ark, and the\ntables of the covenant law enclosed therein, represented the throne of\nGod\u2019s grace resting upon the firm foundation of his eternal law, thus\nshowing that mercy to man is conditioned upon satisfaction to that law\nby the blood of atonement sprinkled there. All the other features of the\nsystem, its rites and ceremonies, were constructed and ordered in a\nstrictly symmetrical and congruous relation to these. A recollection of\nthese points will aid in a just appreciation of the points involved in\nthe present discussion.\n\nOf the form and dimensions of the laver, the Scriptures give no account,\nexcept that it stood on a foot or pedestal. (Ex. xxx, 18.) It was,\nhowever, of such size and proportions as to be carried about with Israel\nin their journeyings, probably with bars, borne on the shoulders of the\nLevites, as was the altar. In preparing facilities for the purpose of\nimmersion, our Baptist brethren invariably sink the font to such a level\nthat the minister and the subjects of the rite may descend into it. And\nthis arrangement is a dictate, not of convenience only, but of decency,\nin the performance of the service. But, to suppose the laver\nsufficiently large and deep to serve as an immersion font, and then\nplace it upon a pedestal, involves an elevation which must have rendered\nit, practically, inaccessible for such purposes, and precludes the idea\nthat it was intended to be so used. In fact, the laver was not a bath\ntub, nor ever used as such, but a containing vessel from which was drawn\nwater for all the uses of the sanctuary. The engravings which appear on\npages 200, 207 below, precisely correspond with the Mosaic description\nof the laver, and probably give a very closely approximate idea of its\nform, size, and proportions.\n\nIn the temple of Solomon, the one laver of the tabernacle was replaced\nby a \u201csea of brass,\u201d and ten lavers. The sea was appropriated to the\nwashings of the priests, whilst the lavers were used for washing the\nsacrifices. That they were used as fountains of supply, and not as\nvessels in which the sacrifices were washed, appears from the fact that\nthey rested on bases four cubits square, by three cubits high, and were\nof the same proportions. (1 Kings vii, 27, 38.) The Hebrew text gives\nthe length, breadth, and height of the bases, but only the length and\nbreadth of the lavers. The Septuagint and Josephus give the former\ndimensions, and add the height of the lavers\u2014three cubits. Thus, the\nbottoms of the lavers were four and a half feet above the pavement on\nwhich they stood, and their brims, nine feet above it. They were,\nmoreover, provided with wheels, so as to be removed from place to place,\nas occasion required. That the sacrifices were not immersed in them is\nevident. The Talmud states that they were washed upon marble tables; and\nthis is the mode for which provision is made in the vision of Ezekiel.\n(Ezek. xl, 38-43.)\n\nThe sea of brass was ten cubits in diameter, and five cubits high; that\nis, about fifteen feet by seven and a half. It was elevated on twelve\nbrazen oxen, the height of which is not given. But if we allow them no\ngreater height than the bases of the lavers, the whole height was about\ntwelve feet; a height not suggestive of convenience for immersions.\n\n2. The brazen sea was no part of the tabernacle furniture when God\ndirected Moses to \u201cbring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the\ntabernacle of the congregation and wash them with water.\u201d\u2014Ex. xl, 12;\ncomp. xxix, 4. \u201cAnd Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing\nwhich the Lord commanded to be done. And Moses brought Aaron and his\nsons and washed them with water.\u201d\u2014Lev. viii, 5, 6. Respecting this, the\nfacts are so evident as to admit but one conclusion. (1.) The command\ngiven was not to immerse Aaron and his sons, but (_r\u0101hatz_), to wash\nthem, according to the proper meaning of that word, as already shown,\nand after the ordinary manner of ablution. (2.) The transaction is\nthrice described, in the places referred to above; but the laver is not\nonce mentioned, nor any means of immersion. (3.) The place of the\nwashing is so described as to exclude immersion. Thrice repeated, it is\nstill, \u201c_at_ the door,\u201d of the tabernacle. (Lev. viii, 4.) If the\npriests were immersed, on this occasion, the laver was the only vessel\nin which it can have been done; and, not only was it so constructed as\nto render its use impossible, but the language of the account is such as\nto conceal the fact. But here was no immersion. As commanded, Moses\n_washed_ Aaron and his sons.\n\n3. When Moses was ordered to make the laver, its purpose was stated:\n\u201cAaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat; when\nthey go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with\nwater, that they die not; or, when they come near to the altar, to\nminister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord. So they shall\nwash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a\nstatute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their\ngenerations.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxx, 19-21. Not only were the priests thus to wash\ntheir hands and their feet, but also certain parts of the\nsacrifices.\u2014\u201cThe priests, Aaron\u2019s sons, shall lay the parts, the head\nand the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the\naltar; but his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water; and the\npriest shall burn all on the altar.\u201d\u2014Lev. i, 8, 9, 13; viii, 21; ix, 14.\n\nShould we set aside the arguments arising from the meaning of the word\nemployed,\u2014from the customs of the people as to personal ablutions,\u2014and\nfrom the form and elevation of the laver, the present facts discover an\ninsurmountable objection to the idea of immersion. Or, will it be\ninsisted that the priests as they came into the sanctuary at the\nappointed times of service, successively, climbed to the top of the\nlaver and, balancing on its brim, immersed their hands and feet; and,\nthen, in fulfillment of their official duties, immersed in the water\nthus fouled, the inwards, or bowels and intestines, and the pieces of\nthe sacrifices, about to be offered to God? The supposition would be\nindecent and profane. And yet, this is the unavoidable result of\ndemanding immersion, in this case. For, the same language is used in\nrequiring the washing of the priests and of the sacrifices, and there\nwas but one laver, to supply all demands for water at the sanctuary.\n\n4. But, again: On the day of atonement, the high priest was required, at\na certain time in the order of observances for the day, being alone in\nthe sanctuary, to \u201cwash his flesh with water in the holy place.\u201d\u2014Lev.\nxvi, 24. Here, at least, there is no room for controversy. The laver was\noutside the door of the tabernacle. The priest was within, \u201cin the holy\nplace.\u201d In it, there was no vessel in which an immersion could take\nplace. Immersion was not merely improbable.\u2014It was impossible. The\ncircumstances compel us to accept the language of the place, just as it\nstands; and to believe that the high priest, on this occasion _washed_\nhimself, and that he did so, as all washings of the person are\nperformed, \u201c_with_ water,\u201d as an instrumental means; and that it was\napplied with his own hands to his own person.\n\n5. Living or fresh water is the most familiar Scriptural symbol of the\nHoly Spirit. This is fully considered elsewhere. In the symbolism of the\ntabernacle and temple, the water of the lavers and sea of brass was the\nappointed symbol of that blessed Person, as the source of all cleansing\nand sanctifying influences. In this view, the fact is instructive, that,\nin the temple of Ezekiel\u2019s vision, (Ezek. xl-xlviii) there was no laver;\nbut, instead, the waters of the river of life flowed from the spot on\nwhich the laver should have stood. Jewish tradition states the laver to\nhave stood on the south side of the door of the tabernacle, which looked\ntoward the east. That was the position of the brazen sea. \u201cHe set the\nsea on the right side of the house, eastward, over against the south.\u201d\u20141\nKings vii, 39. \u201cOn the right side of the east end, over against the\nsouth.\u201d\u20142 Chron. iv, 10. In Ezekiel, \u201cthe forefront of the house stood\ntoward the east, and the waters came down from under, from the right\nside of the house at the south side of the altar.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xlvii, 1. Nor\nis it unworthy of consideration, that, if the laver was designed as a\nbaptistery or immersion font, the living stream described by Ezekiel was\nwholly inadequate to such a purpose; being, at that point, but a\nrivulet, not ankle deep. (Ib. 3-5.)\n\n6. The meaning of the water, taken in connection with the relation which\nMoses, by divine appointment, sustained to Aaron, suggests the\ninterpretation of the washing of the latter by Moses. Moses was to Aaron\n\u201cinstead of God\u201d (Ex. iv, 16); and since Aaron\u2019s priesthood was typical\nof that of the Lord Jesus, it follows, that the action of Moses, in\nwashing his brother, and then robing him in the holy garments of the\npriesthood, was typical of the agency of the Father, in endowing our\ngreat High Priest, through the Holy Spirit, with a sinless humanity,\n(Heb. x, 5-7) and in it, investing him with the eternal priesthood which\nhe now fulfills. This washing of Aaron is to be discriminated from his\nofficial anointing. The latter signified the official gifts and\nqualifications of Christ, whilst the former had respect to his birth and\ngrowth in personal holiness. (Luke ii, 52.)\n\n7. The significance of the feet, in the figurative system of the\nScriptures, appears in the proverb, which, among the things that the\nLord hates, enumerates \u201cfeet that be swift in running to\nmischief.\u201d\u2014Prov. vi, 18. On the other hand, the Psalmist says,\u2014\u201cI turned\nmy feet unto thy testimonies.\u201d\u2014\u201cI refrained my feet from every evil\nway.\u201d\u2014Ps. cxix, 59, 101. The hands and feet, together, represent, fully,\nthe active energies of man. And the priests washing their hands and\nfeet, when they came to minister at the altar was typical of the active\nrighteousness of the Lord Jesus. This is the more apparent, when\nassociated with the other fact, that in fulfilling the office for which\nthey thus washed themselves, they were required, as already stated, to\nwash the inwards and the legs of the burnt offerings, (Lev. i, 9, 13;\netc.); the inwards, or bowels representing the affections, and the legs\nthe active powers. Thus, the priests and the sacrifices together\ntypified the essential holiness and the active obedience of the Lord\nJesus, \u201cwho, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself, without spot,\nto God.\u201d\u2014Heb. ix, 14. In all this, there is still nothing to demand, to\nsuggest, or allow, the idea of immersion. The significance of the rites\naccords perfectly with all the other irresistible indications, which\nlead us to the conclusion that under no circumstances was immersion ever\nused in the washings of the priests, or the rites of the tabernacle and\ntemple service.\n\n\n SECTION XXXII.\u2014_Like these were the Washings of the People._\n\nThe conclusion just indicated as to the washings of the priests, carries\nwith it a like decision respecting all the self-performed washings.\n\n1. The word _r\u0101hatz_, to wash, is used in the same manner, in the\ndirections given with respect to all the various cases, of hands, feet\nand person,\u2014of priests and people, and of the sacrificial pieces, alike.\n\n2. The self-washings imposed on the people were of the same essential\nnature and meaning as those of the priests. In both, the idea was that\nof holiness and purity of heart and life, maintained by personal\nwatchfulness and efficiency through the grace of the Holy Spirit. If\nthis idea was properly symbolized by the priestly ablutions without\nimmersion, the conclusion is unavoidable, that among the people\nimmersion was unknown. To them, the mode used by the priests would be\nthe standard of propriety.\n\n3. It is impossible to elicit any consistent meaning out of the supposed\nimmersions. The ritual system was characterized by congruity in all its\nparts, and meaning everywhere. What else upon Baptist principles, can\nthe immersions be thought to mean, if not the burial of Christ? But how,\nthen, are we to understand the grades of washings, of the hands, and\nfeet, and garments, as so carefully distinguished from each other, and\nfrom that of the person? What means the fact, which is so clearly\nmarked, that these washings were self-performed? Did Christ entomb\nhimself? How are we to explain the washing of Aaron by Moses? If\nimmersion is typical of the burial of the Lord Jesus, what pertinence\ncould it have to his birth and inauguration as priest? What mean the\npeculiar times at which the self-washings were to be performed,\u2014the\npriests being required always to wash _before_ offering sacrifice or\nministering at the altar; whilst, the unclean for seven days performed\nthe same rite at the end of the seven days, _after_ they had been\nrestored from typical death? Was Christ buried _before_ he had made of\nhimself an offering and a sacrifice? Or, again, was it _after_ he had,\nby the Spirit, risen from the dead? On the immersion theory, the facts\ncan not be reconciled.\n\nWhilst all these considerations point decisively to one conclusion,\nthere is not a fact nor a circumstance to occasion even a moment\u2019s\nembarrassment in its acceptance. Assume the washings to have been\nimmersions, and confusion and perplexity invest the subject. Recognize\nthem in their true character as ablutions and not immersions, and all is\nclear and congruous. The customs of the people,\u2014the circumstances in\nwhich the rites were performed,\u2014the words used to describe them,\u2014the\nritual relations in which they occur,\u2014the analogies of the whole\nsystem,\u2014the examples of the priests, and every casual incident and\nallusion,\u2014all find, in this view, a center around which they cluster and\nshine, in perfect harmony, clearness and congruity of meaning.\n\nThe conclusion is impregnable. Immersion, as a rite of cleansing or\npurifying, was utterly unknown to Israel. And, particularly, there is\nnothing whatever to be found, in all the records of the Levitical system\nto which the advocates of immersion can point and say,\u2014\u201cHere are the\nordinances of which Paul speaks, wherein divers immersions were imposed\non Israel, until the time of reformation.\u201d It is therefore certain that\n_in the vocabulary of Paul_, BAPTIZO _did not mean, to immerse, and\nbaptism is not so performed_.\n\n\n SECTION XXXIII.\u2014_Defilements and Purifyings of Things._\n\nThings, as well as persons, were liable to defilements, both the major\nand the minor, and the law made correspondent provision for their\ncleansing.\n\n1. To the class of minor defilements belonged those of wooden vessels,\nand bags of cloth or skin, which had been touched by the dead carcase of\nan unclean animal. \u201cIt must be put into water,\u201d and be unclean until the\neven. (Lev. xi, 32.) Here, at last, is an immersion; the only one found\nin the entire law. The case is of great interest as illustrating the\nease and clearness with which immersion is expressed when it was\nintended. We search in vain for any corresponding directions, in the\ncase of persons:\u2014\u201cThey must be put into water.\u201d This rule moreover is of\ngreat importance, as constituting a standard of reference by which to\nascertain the divine estimation of the value of immersion as a ritual\npurifying. Of certain animals, the ordinance was that \u201cwhosoever doth\ntouch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. And upon\nwhatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be\nunclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack,\nwhatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be put into\nwater, and it shall be unclean until the even;\u2014so it shall be\ncleansed.\u201d\u2014Ib. 31, 32. Thus, it appears, from both examples,\u2014of persons\nand of things,\u2014that the uncleanness described was of the minor grade,\nwhich continued only till the even. In fact, it seems to have been the\nlightest form of this grade. For, while the law provided that he that\nbore such carcase must \u201cwash his clothes,\u201d (vs. 25, 28) and be unclean\nuntil the even,\u2014it directed, concerning the present case of mere casual\nand momentary contact by touching it, that he shall be \u201cunclean until\nthe even,\u201d without any prescription of cleansing rites. (Compare also,\nv. 29.) The meaning of this may be gathered from a comparison of 1 Cor.\nv, 9-13. In the Levitical system, unclean beasts seem to represent\nunregenerate men. To God\u2019s people, a certain amount of contact with them\nis inevitable; from which, therefore, and its defiling influences, the\nonly remedy is to be looked for in the ending of this life, and the\nentrance upon heaven\u2019s rest. The emphasis of the ritual warnings was,\ntherefore, directed, not against involuntary and casual contact with the\nevil, but against dalliance with it, expressed by carrying and eating\nthe unclean. The immersion which we have found to be prescribed, was\nappointed, not for persons, but for things,\u2014and for things tainted with\nthis slightest of all the defilements known to the law. On the other\nhand, as we shall presently see, for major defilements of things,\u2014by the\ndead and by leprosy,\u2014the same sacrificial rites, and sprinkling of water\nwere ordained, as in the case of persons. Such is the divine testimony\nas to the relative ritual value of immersion and sprinkling. I will not\nwrong the intelligence of the reader, by discussing the possibility of\nthis immersion, being what Paul meant by the \u201cdivers baptisms\u201d of the\nlaw.\n\nOther minor defilements of things were, (1.) Brazen vessels used for\ncooking the flesh of the sin offerings. They were to be \u201cscoured and\nrinsed in water.\u201d If the vessel was of earthenware, it was to be broken.\n(Lev. vi, 28. Compare 1 Cor. xi, 24.) (2.) \u201cThe vessel of earth that he\ntoucheth, which hath an issue, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood\nshall be rinsed in water.\u201d\u2014Ib. xv, 12.\n\n2. Things defiled by the dead, were to be sprinkled with the water of\nseparation, on the third day and on the seventh. (Num. xix, 14, 15, 18.)\nIn the case of the spoil of Midian, there was a further\npurifying.\u2014\u201cEvery thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go\nthrough the fire; and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be\npurified with the water of separation; and all that abideth not the fire\nye shall make go through the water.\u201d\u2014Num. xxxi, 23. The word \u201cgo\nthrough,\u201d here, is the same that is used when Jesse is said to have\ncaused seven of his sons to \u201cpass by,\u201d and to \u201cpass before\u201d Samuel, (1\nSam. xvi, 9, 10); when Jacob caused his household to \u201cpass over\u201d the\nbrook, (margin, Gen. xxxii, 23); and when God promised to make all his\ngoodness to \u201cpass before\u201d Moses. (Ex. xxxiii, 19.) The alternatives here\nof fire and water seem to have reference to the two great facts of\npurgation in the world\u2019s history, of which Peter speaks. (2 Pet. iii,\n5-7.) The deluge was a purifying of the earth, defiled by sin, and so\nwill the fire be, in the final day.\n\n3. A house infected with leprosy, when cured, was treated in a manner\nessentially the same as was a person so afflicted. (Lev. xiv, 34-53.)\n\n\n\n\n PART V.\n LATER TRACES OF THE SPRINKLED BAPTISMS.\n\n\n SECTION XXXIV.\u2014_Old Testament Allusions._\n\nThe rite of purifying with the ashes of the red heifer was one of the\nmost familiar and impressive of the Mosaic institutions. That its\nobservance was maintained through the whole course of Israel\u2019s history,\nis evinced by the frequent allusions of the sacred writers. King Saul\nfound in the ordinances on this subject an explanation of David\u2019s\nabsence from his table.\u2014\u201cSomething hath befallen him. He is not clean:\nsurely he is not clean.\u201d\u20141 Sam. xx, 26. The words of David himself have\nbeen referred to already, as he cries,\u2014\u201cPurge me with hyssop, and I\nshall be clean.\u201d\u2014Psa. li, 7. This was written about five hundred years\nafter the giving of the law. Three centuries later, the Lord says to\nIsrael by Hosea,\u2014\u201cTheir sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of\nmourners,\u201d (that is, bread made or touched by those that were defiled by\nthe dead), \u201call that eat thereof shall be polluted.\u201d\u2014Hosea ix, 4. Isaiah\nbegan his prophecy about twenty-five years later,\u2014about B. C. 760-698.\nIn his time a great revival took place, under the hand of King Hezekiah,\nin connection with which the laws of purification came into prominent\nnotice. It began with the exhortation of Hezekiah, to the priests and\nLevites.\u2014\u201cHear me, ye Levites; _sanctify_\u201d (or, cleanse) \u201cnow\nyourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers; and\ncarry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.\u201d\u20142 Chron. xxix, 5.\nWhen this was done, the king appointed a service of dedication. In it\n\u201cthe priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt\nofferings; wherefore, their brethren the Levites did help them, till the\nwork was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves:\nfor the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than\nthe priests.\u201d\u2014vs. 34. Immediately afterward the king kept a great\npassover, gathering the remnants of the ten tribes, with Judah. \u201cAnd the\npriests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves, ... for\nthere were many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore\nthe Levites had charge of the killing of the passovers for every one\nthat was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord. For a multitude of\nthe people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had\nnot cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it\nwas written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon\nevery one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his\nfathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the\nsanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the\npeople.\u201d\u2014Ib. xxx, 15-20.\n\nIn Isaiah, occurs that prophecy of God\u2019s grace for the Gentiles, \u201cBehold\nmy servant, ... as many were astonied at thee, his visage was so marred\nmore than any man, and his form more than the sons of men; so shall he\n_sprinkle_ many nations.\u201d\u2014Isa. lii, 13-15. There are two words in the\noriginal Hebrew, meaning, to sprinkle. That which here occurs is used to\ndescribe the purifying of the leper, and of those defiled by the dead.\nThe priest, with the scarlet wool, cedar wood and hyssop, \u201cshall\n_sprinkle_ upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven\ntimes.\u201d\u2014Lev. xiv, 7. \u201cA clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the\nwater, and _sprinkle_ it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and\nupon the persons.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 18. The Jewish translators of the\nSeptuagint, have rendered the passage, \u201cso shall he _astonish_ many\nnations.\u201d But this only shows how willingly those writers would have\nobliterated from the text the promise of salvation for the Gentiles,\nwhich it contains. We know that the Gentiles were by the law, held to be\nunclean\u2014\u201cdead in trespasses and sins.\u201d\u2014Eph. ii, 1, 11; Acts x, 14-16,\n28; xv, 9. We have seen baptism by sprinkling to have been appointed for\nthe purifying of every kind of uncleanness, and witnessed its use in the\nreception of the children of Midian. Moreover, the word here found in\nthe original is everywhere else used in the sense of sprinkling. With\none exception, it is invariably employed as descriptive of the ritual\npurifyings. The exception describes the sprinkling or spattering of the\nblood of Jezebel, when she was hurled from the height of the palace. (2\nKings ix, 33.) There is no conceivable reason for making the text an\nexception to the meaning thus invariably indicated. Christ, the\nBaptizer, will sprinkle many nations. He \u201cwill pour out of his Spirit on\nall flesh.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 17; Joel ii, 28. Of this it is that Isaiah speaks\nin the place in question.\n\nThe same grace was promised to Israel by the prophet Ezekiel (B. C.\n595-574), in language which we have already quoted, \u201cThen will I\nsprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xxxvi,\n24-27. In this prophet\u2019s vision of the future temple, he says of the\npriests: \u201cThey shall come at no dead person to defile themselves: but\nfor father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or\nfor sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves. And\nafter he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven days. And in the\nday that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court to minister\nin the sanctuary he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord\nGod.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xliv, 25-27.\n\nAbout fifty years after the close of Ezekiel\u2019s prophecy Haggai was sent\nto Judah (B. C. 520). He inquires of the priests, respecting \u201cbread, or\npottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat,\u201d \u201cIf one that is unclean by a\ndead body touch any of these shall it be unclean? And the priests\nanswered, and said, It shall be unclean.\u201d\u2014Hag. ii, 13.\n\nExcept the brief testimony of Malachi, Zechariah was the last of the\nprophets. His ministry closed, about B. C. 487. In his prophecy occurs\nthat promise of \u201ca fountain opened to the house of David and to the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.\u201d\u2014Zech. xiii, 1.\nThe word, \u201cfountain,\u201d in the original means a flowing spring, \u201copened,\u201d\nas was the rock in the wilderness; of which the Psalmist says, \u201cHe\nopened the rock and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places\nlike a river.\u201d\u2014Psa. cv, 41. The language of Zechariah seems to be an\nallusion to this.\n\nWe have thus traced the baptism of purifying with the water of\nseparation through the writings of the prophets for a thousand years,\nfrom the time of its institution to within less than five hundred years\nof the coming of Christ. We shall presently follow it down to the time\nof Christ and to the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\n\n SECTION XXXV.\u2014_Rabbinic Traditions as to the Red Heifer._\n\nAccording to Jewish tradition the burning of the red heifer took place\nbut nine times, from the beginning, until the final dispersion of the\nnation. The first was by Eleazar, in the wilderness. (Num. xix, 3.)\nThis, they say, was not repeated for more than a thousand years, when\nEzra offered the second, upon the return of the captivity from Babylon.\nFrom that time, until the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was about\nfive hundred years, during which they report seven heifers to have been\nburned\u2014two by Simon, the just, two by Johanan, the father of Matthias,\none by Elioenai, the son of Hakkoph, one by Hananeel Hammizri, and one\nby Ishmael, the son of Fabi. Since then, it has been impossible for them\nto fulfill the rite according to the law, as the altar and temple are no\nmore. The tenth they say will be offered by the Messiah, at his\ncoming.[22] Lightfoot finds in the increased frequency with which the\nheifer was burned, during the later period of Jewish history, a\ncircumstantial illustration of the growing spirit of ritualism, which\nmultiplied the occasions of using the ashes. It is, however, impossible\nto accept the account, at least, as to the earlier period, as authentic\nhistory. It is probably mere conjecture, suggested by the silence of the\nScriptures, and is most improbable in itself. But the later tradition is\nmore reliable; as, at the time when it was put upon record, the Jews\nwere undoubtedly in possession of abundant historical materials, for the\nperiod subsequent to the return of the captivity under Ezra. According\nto this account, seven heifers served all the purposes of that form of\npurification, for five hundred years. In that time, over fifteen\ngenerations, or not less than fifty millions of Jews were consigned to\nthe sepulcher, and the consequent sprinkling administered to the\nfamilies, attendants, houses, and furniture. If we ignore all other\napplications of these ashes, to those defiled by the slain in battle,\nand to those subject to other causes of defilement, it is still evident\nthat the sufficiency and virtue of the rite were not held to depend upon\nthe quantity of the ashes employed, and that the amount actually used\nwas so minute that it can not have been perceptible in the water. The\nmanner of administration was thus true to the nature of the ordinance,\nas having no intrinsic virtue, in itself, but only in its significance\nas addressed to intelligence and faith. And it prepared the minds of the\npeople to witness without perplexity, the change from water in which an\ninappreciable quantity of ashes appealed to the imagination, to that in\nwhich, while no ashes were used, the association of ideas and meaning\nremained the same.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n Juchasin, fol 16, in Lightfoot.\n\n\n SECTION XXXVI.\u2014_The Festival of the Outpouring of Water._\n\nNot only are the Old Testament Scriptures full of the doctrine of the\noutpouring of the Spirit, under the figure of living water; but one of\nthe most remarkable of the institutions observed by the Jews from the\ndays of the prophets here last quoted, had immediate relation to the\nsame thing. It was called \u201cThe festival of the outpouring of water.\u201d Its\norigin was by the Jews attributed to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah,\nunder whose ministry the temple was rebuilt, and the ordinances\nrestored; a tradition which is confirmed by internal evidence. The\nfestival was incorporated with the feast of the ingathering, or\ntabernacles. That feast seems to have been the pre-eminent type of the\nprosperity, the rest and gladness of the kingdom of Messiah. By the law,\nthe people were required to gather \u201cthe boughs\u201d (in the margin, \u201cthe\nfruit\u201d) \u201cof goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of\nthick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the\nLord your God seven days.\u201d\u2014Lev. xxiii, 40. They used the fruit of the\ncitron or lemon, with branches of the palm and the myrtle, and willows\nfrom the brook Kedron. These tied together in one bunch were called, the\n_lulab_. Early on the morning of the first day of the feast, the people,\nclothed in holiday garb, assembled at the temple, each having a lulab in\none hand and a citron in the other, and each carrying a branch of\nwillow, with which they adorned the altar round about. As soon as the\nmorning sacrifice was placed on the altar, a priest descended to the\nfountain of Siloam, which flowed from the foot of the temple mount,\nbearing a golden vase or pitcher, which he filled with water. As he\nentered the court, through that gate which was hence called \u201cthe water\ngate,\u201d the trumpets sounded. He ascended to the great altar of burnt\noffering, where were placed two silver bowls, one on the east side of\nthe altar and the other on the west, one of which contained wine. Into\nthe other, he poured the water from the golden vessel, and then mingling\nthe water and wine, slowly poured it on the ground, as it would seem, to\nthe east and to the west, as the bowls were placed. (Compare Zech. xiv,\n8.) In the mean time the temple choir sang the Hallel to the\naccompaniment of instruments of music.[23] Then, the people who thronged\nthe court marched in procession about the altar, waving their lulabs,\nand setting them bending toward it, the trumpets sounding and the people\nshouting, \u201cHallelujah!\u201d and \u201cHosanna!\u201d with ejaculations of prayer,\nthanksgiving and praise, selected from the Psalms. In this service, even\nthe little children, as soon as able to wave a palm branch, were\nencouraged to join. After this they went home to dine, and spent the\nafternoon reading the law or hearing the expositions of learned scribes.\nIn the evening commenced the festive joy of the outpouring of the water.\nThe water was drawn and poured out, at the time of the morning sacrifice\nand in connection with it,\u2014a solemnity in the presence of which any\nhilarious demonstrations were inopportune. The festivity was therefore\nreserved until the evening. The multitude then assembled in the court of\nthe women, that being the largest court, and the nearest approach that\nthe women as a body could make to the holy house. On this occasion they\noccupied the galleries which surrounded the court, whilst the men\nthronged the open space. At suitable places, in the court there were\ngreat candelabra of such size and height that they overlooked the whole\ntemple mount. A ladder stood by each, by means of which young priests\nfrom time to time ascended and replenished the oil, of which each bowl\nis reported by the Talmud to have held seven or eight gallons. Many of\nthe people also carried torches, so that the whole mount was flooded\nwith light. The festivity was begun by the temple choir of priests, who,\nstanding in order upon the fifteen steps that led down from the court of\nIsrael to that of the women, chanted some of the \u201csongs of degrees,\u201d to\nthe accompaniment of instruments; whilst such of the people as were\nskilled in music joined their voices and instruments. Then, the chief\nmen of the nation, rulers of synagogues, members of the sanhedrim,\nscribes, doctors of the law, and all such as were of eminent rank or\nrepute for gifts or piety laid off their outer robes, and joined in a\njoyous leaping and dancing, in the presence of the multitude, singing\nand shouting Hosannas and Hallelujahs, and ejaculating the praises of\nGod. Thus a great part of the night was expended, each one emulating the\nothers in imitation of the humility of David, at the bringing up of the\nark (2 Sam. vi, 15, 16); for, the excitement now indulged in, the\nleaping and dancing, were, at other times, accounted unbecoming the\ndignity of the nobles of Israel. At length, two of the priests, standing\nin the gate of Nicanor, which was at the head of the stairway, sounded\ntheir trumpets, and descending the steps continued to sound as they\ntraversed the court, until they came to the eastern gate. Here they\nturned around toward the west, so as to face the temple. They then\ncried,\u2014\u201cOur fathers who were in this place, turned their backs to the\ntemple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east.[24] But as for us,\nwe turn to Him, and our eyes look unto Him.\u201d The assembly then\ndispersed. With slight variations, the same order was observed each of\nthe seven days of the feast.[25]\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n Ps. cxiii-cxviii, were known among the Jews as, the Hallel, that is,\n Praise, being sung at the temple on the first of each month, and at\n the annual feasts.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n See Ezek. viii, 16.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n Lightfoot on this Feast and that of Tabernacles. Lewis\u2019s \u201cOrigines\n Hebrae\u00e6.\u201d Pool\u2019s \u201cSynopsis,\u201d etc.\n\nThe joy of the people at the ingathering of the harvest and the\nprosperous end of the labors of the year,\u2014the gay and festive appearance\nof the city, every housetop and open space, and even the sides and top\nof the mount of Olives, covered with the green booths,\u2014the extraordinary\nservices at the temple, where more sacrifices were offered during the\nweek than in all the other feasts of the year together,\u2014the green\nwillows adorning the altar and daily renewed\u2014the processions around it,\nthe branches carried by the people,\u2014the trumpets, songs, and\nHosannas,\u2014and, at night, the flaming lights, the jubliant concourse, the\nwaving of the lulabs, the music and dancing, the shoutings, songs, and\ntrumpets, must have presented a scene of exhilaration and gladness hard\nto conceive. It was a saying of the rabbins, that \u201cHe that has not\nwitnessed the festivity of the pouring out of the water, has never seen\nfestivity at all.\u201d\n\nThe rabbins are obscure in their explanations of the observance here\ndescribed. Some would represent it as a thanksgiving for the rains by\nwhich the soil had been fertilized and the harvests matured. But with a\nbetter appreciation, Rabbi Levi is reported in the Talmud, \u201cWhy is it\ncalled the drawing of water? Says Rabbi Levi, Because of the receiving\nof the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written,\u2014With joy will we\ndraw water from the wells of salvation.\u201d\u2014Isa. xii, 3. That the\noutpouring had reference, not to the receiving of the Spirit by Israel,\nbut to its outpouring upon the Gentiles, in the days of the Messiah, is\nconfirmed by the tenor of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, the\nauthors of the observance, and by language of our Savior, which\nexpositors agree in referring to this rite. Both of those prophets\nencouraged Judah in rebuilding the temple by the assurance that \u201cthe\nDesire of all nations should come\u201d to it.\u2014Hag. ii, 7. Said the Lord, by\nZechariah, \u201cRejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; Shout, O daughter of\nJerusalem; behold thy King cometh unto thee: he is just and having\nsalvation: lowly and riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an\nass.... It shall come to pass, in that day, that I will seek to destroy\nall the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the\nhouse of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace\nand of supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have\npierced, and they shall mourn for him.... In that day there shall be a\nfountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of\nJerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.... And it shall be in that day,\nthat living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them toward the\nformer sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea. In summer and winter\nshall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: In that day\nthere shall be one Lord, and his name one.... And it shall come to pass\nthat every one that is left of all the nations which came against\nJerusalem, shall even go up, from year to year, to worship the King, the\nLord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.\u201d\u2014Zech. ix, 9; xii,\n9, 10; xiii, 1; xiv, 8, 9, 16.\n\nTo all this, reference is evidently had in the incident related by the\nevangelist, John, as occurring at this feast.\u2014\u201cIn the last day, that\ngreat day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man\nthirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the\nScripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.\nBut this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should\nreceive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was\nnot yet glorified.\u201d\u2014John vii, 37-39. These words of Jesus, as will\nhereafter appear, had distinct reference to the giving of the gospel to\nthe Gentiles. A few additional facts will shed a clearer light upon the\nmeaning of the festival.\n\nThe feast of tabernacles, strictly so called, was of seven days\u2019\ncontinuance; during which the people dwelt in booths. On the eighth day,\nthey removed the booths and re-entered their houses. They observed that\nday as a distinct and peculiar festival. \u201cOn the eighth day shall be a\nholy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire\nunto the Lord; it is a solemn assembly.\u201d (Lev. xxiii, 36; Deut. xvi,\n13-15.) During the seven days the offerings upon the altar had a very\nremarkable order. On the first day, they were \u201cthirteen young bullocks,\ntwo rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year,\u201d and one kid of the\ngoats for a sin offering. These were in addition to the ordinary daily\nofferings. On each successive day, the number of the bullocks was\nreduced by one, whilst the other offerings remained the same. But on the\neighth day the offering was one bullock, one ram, and seven lambs, and\none goat for a sin offering. (Num. xxix, 12-38.) On this peculiar order\nof sacrifices, the explanations of the scribes are various. In the\nTalmud, Rabbi Solomon states the bullocks, whose aggregate number for\nthe seven days was seventy, to have represented the seventy idolatrous\nnations; that being, as the Jews supposed, their number. These must be\ncontinually diminished, while Israel, represented by the other\nofferings, remains.[26] Says Pool,\u2014\u201cThe eighth day was the great day,\nnot by divine appointment, but from the opinion of the Jews, who\nregarded the sacrifices and prayers of the other days as made, not so\nmuch for themselves as for the other nations; but the eighth, as being\nsolely for themselves.\u201d[27] Hence the Targum,\u2014\u201c_The eighth day shall be\nholy_. Thou seest, O God, that Israel in the feast of tabernacles,\noffers before thee seventy bullocks, for the seventy nations, for which\nthey ought to love us. But for our love, they are our adversaries. The\nholy blessed God therefore saith to Israel, Offer for yourselves on the\neighth day.\u201d[28]\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n Rabbi Solomon on Num. xxix, in Lightfoot on this feast.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n Pool\u2019s Synopsis, on John vii, 37. He refers to Grotius.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n Lewis\u2019s Origines Hebrae\u00e6, p. 606.\n\nThe gospels render us familiar with the religion of the scribes. By the\nhelp of tradition it sought to divest the law of God of its claim upon\nthe allegiance of the heart, to obscure and set aside the spiritual\nmeaning of its rites, and to substitute a system of minute outward\nobservances, and a fanatical pride in the blood of Abraham, which looked\nscornfully down on all other nations as unclean and accursed. This\nsystem was embodied in the Talmud, and culminated in the compilation of\nthat work, several centuries after the destruction of the temple and the\ndownfall of the nation. When, therefore, among the idle traditions which\nfill the pages of that work, we come upon occasional traces of a\nprofounder spiritual exegesis, and sentiments respecting the Gentiles\nmore in harmony with the spirit of Old Testament prophecy, we may\nconfidently recognize them as precious vestiges of truth, which have\nescaped obliteration, as they were transmitted through that uncongenial\nchannel, from a distant and purer antiquity.\n\nSuch is the conviction which will result from a careful comparison of\nthe traditions above cited with the accounts of the rites in question,\nthe language of the prophets, and the words of Jesus to which reference\nhas just been made. By the light thus concentrated, we see, in the\ningathering of the harvest of the holy land and the festivities\nfollowing, a type and prophecy of the ingathering of the nations into\nthe fold of Israel, under the scepter of Messiah, and the songs and joy\nthat hail their coming. Then the solemnity of the eighth day may have\nanticipated the time when, opposition withdrawn, all nations \u201cshall go\nup from year to year to worship the King the Lord of hosts, and to keep\nthe feast of tabernacles,\u201d when \u201cthe Lord shall be King over all the\nearth, and there shall be one Lord, and his name One.\u201d In this light,\nIsrael appears in her lofty character and office as the priest-kingdom,\nstanding as mediator for the nations, and making for them offerings of\natonement and intercessions. Nor less significant was the drawing of the\nwater from\n\n \u201cSiloah\u2019s brook that flowed\n Fast by the oracle of God,\u201d\n\nand its outpouring by the priest upon the earth, mingled with wine. From\nthat same fountain, during the same period of Israel\u2019s history, it was\nthe rule to draw all water that was used at Jerusalem for purification\nwith the water of separation, especially for those who came to the\nannual feasts. To this, Zechariah alludes in his prophecy of that day\nwhen \u201cthere shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.\u201d\u2014Zech. xiii, 1.\nBy her great High Priest, was to be dispensed to Israel and through her\nto all the earth, the Spirit\u2019s grace, conveying to the nations of the\nGentiles the virtue of the blood of Calvary. Jerusalem and the temple\nwere to be the source of those healing waters which were to flow to the\neast and to the west, \u201ctoward the former sea, and toward the hinder\nsea,\u201d to gladden the world. (Zech. xiv, 8.)\n\n\n SECTION XXXVII.\u2014_The Hellenistic Greek._\n\nAfter the close of Old Testament prophecy, the conquests of Alexander of\nMacedon, the consequent diffusion of the Greeks, and the favor which\nthat prince and his successors showed to the Jews, introduced an\nintimate intercourse between them and the Greeks. By him Alexandria in\nEgypt was founded, designated by his own name, and intended to be the\nwestern capital of his empire. In this new Greek capital, its founder\nassigned the Jews an extensive section, and equal privileges with the\nMacedonians. After the death of Alexander, and the subdivision of his\nempire, the Ptolemies, the Greek kings of Egypt, continued to favor the\nJews, treating them on terms of equality with the Greeks. During the\nsame period, the persecutions suffered by the Jews of Palestine from the\nkings of Syria, drove multitudes into exile, many of whom were attracted\nto Egypt, so that the Jewish population of Alexandria was at one time\nestimated at nearly a million of souls, occupying two of the five\ndistricts of the city; and at least, for a time, governed by their own\nethnarch, or superior magistrate. Among these Jews, and those elsewhere\nscattered in the Greek colonies, their own language was gradually\nsuperseded by the Greek, into which, at length, the Old Testament\nScriptures were translated, in a version known as the Septuagint. Of the\nprecise time and circumstances in which this version was made, there is\nno reliable information, except that it was done in Alexandria, within\nthe first quarter of the third century before Christ. In the time of\nChrist, the Greek had become the language of literature and of commerce\nfor the civilized world. Among the Jews dispersed everywhere, it was\nprevalent, and was extensively used even in Palestine itself, and thus\nbecame the divinely prepared channel for communicating the gospel to all\nnations.\n\nBut the language thus employed\u2014the Greek of the Septuagint, the\nApocrypha and the New Testament\u2014was not what is known as classic Greek.\nThe Jews did not learn it in the schools of Greece, nor from a study of\nher poets, orators, and philosophers. It was the product of social and\nbusiness contact and intercourse of the one people with the other, in a\nland foreign to both.\n\nAlready the purity of the Attic had been lost, by the commingling of the\nMacedonians with the various tribes of Greece proper and her\ndependencies, in the armies from which Alexander\u2019s colonists were taken;\nand still further by the mixed multitude which flocked to their new\nsettlements. In the process of adaptation to the expression of Jewish\nthought, it was inevitably subjected to further modifications, in\ndefinition, in syntax, in order and construction\u2014in the very tone and\nspirit which pervade the whole. By these modifications, the language,\nwhich had grown up as the native and coeval expression of the idolatrous\nreligion, the arts and philosophy of pagan Greece, was adapted to become\na repository for the system of divine and saving truth, contained in the\nScriptures. Those Jews who resided in Alexandria and other Greek cities,\nwho spake this Greek language, and were more or less conformed to the\nmanners of the Gentiles among whom they lived, were known among their\nbrethren, as Hellenists, that is, Greek Jews, and hence, the Greek\ndialect used by them has acquired the designation of Hellenistic Greek.\n\nThe authors of the New Testament adopted this as the language of their\nwritings, and, in their references to the Old Testament, their\nquotations are mostly made, not from the Hebrew, but from the\nSeptuagint, or Hellenistic version. It was ordinarily used by the Lord\nJesus himself in his discourses. It thus appears as the source and\nstandard of the language of the New Testament.\n\nTogether with these Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, there have\nbeen transmitted to us several other Jewish documents of the same\nperiod, written in the same Hellenistic Greek. They are invaluable for\nthe light which they shed upon the history, customs, and modes of\nthought and language of the Jews of that time; although the attempt of\nthe church of Rome, to exalt some of them to an equal authority with the\nScriptures, has tended to fix a stigma on them, as known to us under the\nname of Apocrypha. Incautious recourse to the rules and definitions of\nclassic Greek is liable to deceive and mislead us in the critical study\nof the New Testament. But conclusions intelligently deduced from the\nlanguage of the Septuagint and of the other Jewish writers of that age,\nare to be respected as of the highest authority on all questions of the\nNew Testament language. On the subject of our present investigation,\nthese authorities shed a flood of light. In them, we first find the\nverb, _baptizo_, used to designate rites of religious purifying. Once in\nthe Septuagint, and twice in the Apocrypha, it is applied to Hebrew\nrites of this nature.\n\nThat the use of the word to designate religious observances is peculiar\nto the Hellenistic, as contradistinguished from classic Greek, is\nindisputable; and it is worthy of consideration, how it came to be\nselected from the Greek vocabulary for this purpose. The Hebrews of\nEgypt, in their exile from the land of their fathers, had not abandoned\nbut rather augmented their zeal for the institutions of Moses. A\ncircumstance in their own history, which at first might have seemed to\nthreaten a dissolution of the ties that bound them to the temple at\nJerusalem, operated in fact to renovate and strengthen them. This was,\nthe erection by some of their number, of a temple at Onias in Egypt, in\nimitation of that at Jerusalem. Here, the Levitical rites were\npunctually observed under priests of the Aaronic line and Levites of the\nsacred tribe. For this they claimed warrant from the prophecy of Isaiah,\nxix, 19.\u2014\u201cIn that day, shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst\nof the land of Egypt.\u201d The adherents of this movement do not seem to\nhave been numerous, and its effect was rather to increase the devotion\nof the people to the temple at Jerusalem, and the ordinances there\nmaintained. Among them, was developed the same disposition which was\nprevalent in Judea to give undue importance to multiplied rites of\npurifying; and hence an increased and constant necessity of finding, in\nthe Greek language which they were now adopting, some word suitable to\ndesignate these rites. In that language was the verb, _bapto_, meaning\n(1) to dip; (2) to wet by dipping; (3) to wet, irrespective of the\nmanner; (4) to dye by dipping, and thence, to dye, without respect to\nmode\u2014even by sprinkling. But, as we have seen, the rites in question\nwere not dippings, nor were they dyeings, and the word was never used by\nthe Jews to designate them. From this root, the Greeks derived the verb\n_baptizo_. (1.) Its primary meaning, as used by them, was,\u2014to bring into\nthe state of mersion. This meaning had no respect to the mode of action,\nwhether by putting the subject under the fluid, pouring it over him, or\nin whatever manner. In other words, it expressed not _im_mersion, but\nmersion,\u2014not the mode of inducing the state, but the state induced,\u2014that\nof being embosomed in the mersing element. From this primary\nsignification, was derived a secondary use of the word. As any thing\nthat is mersed is in the possession and control of the mersing element,\nthe word was hence used to express the establishing of a complete\npossession and controlling influence. As we say that a man is\ndrowned,\u2014immersed,\u2014overwhelmed, in business, in trouble, in drunkenness,\nor in sleep; having, in these expressions, no reference whatever to the\nmode in which the described condition was brought about; so the Greeks\nused the verb _baptizo_. They spoke of men as baptized with grief, with\npassion, with business cares. An intoxicated person was \u201cbaptized with\nwine,\u201d etc. In such use of the word, the essential idea is that of the\naction of a pervasive potency by which the subject is brought and held\nin a new state or condition. On this subject, no authority could be\nbetter or more conclusive than that of the Rev. Dr. T. J. Conant, a\nscholar of unquestioned eminence and whose researches on this subject\nwere undertaken at the request of the American (Baptist) Bible Union.\nThe result of his investigations he thus states. \u201cThe word, _baptizein_,\nduring the whole existence of the Greek as a spoken language, had a\nperfectly defined and unvarying import. In its literal use, it meant, as\nhas been shown,\u2014to put entirely into or under a liquid, or other\npenetrable substance, generally water, so that the object was wholly\ncovered by the enclosing element. By analogy it expressed _the coming\ninto a new state of life or experience_, in which one was, as it were,\ninclosed and swallowed up, so that temporarily or permanently, he\nbelonged wholly to it.\u201d[29] Dr. Dale has been at the trouble to list and\nenumerate no less than forty different words which Dr. Conant employs in\nhis translations of this word of \u201cperfectly defined and unvarying\nimport.\u201d It is, however, enough for our present purpose, that this\ndistinguished scholar here expressly admits with Italic emphasis, that\n\u201cby analogy,\u201d the word \u201cexpressed the coming into _a new state of life\nor experience_, in which one was, as it were, inclosed and swallowed up,\nso that temporarily or permanently he belonged wholly to it.\u201d\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n \u201cThe Meaning and Use of _Baptizein_, Philologically and Historically\n investigated for the American Bible Union. By T. J. Conant, D. D.,\u201d p.\n 158. The italics are by Dr. C.\n\nNow, here was the very word required to designate the Mosaic rites of\npurifying. Of dippings and immersions, Israel had none; and, if these\nhad been found in their ritual, the verbs, _bapto, to dip, and kataduo,\nto plunge into, to immerse_, and the nouns, _baph\u0113_ and _katadusis_,\u2014_a\ndipping, an immersion_, were at hand and specific in meaning. But they\ndid want words to express that potency by which the unclean were, in the\nwords of Dr. Conant, introduced into \u201ca new state of life,\u201d\u2014a state of\nritual cleanness, typical of the spiritual newness of life in Christ\nJesus which God\u2019s people receive, by the baptism of the Spirit. To\nexpress the working of that change, they appropriated the word _baptizo,\nto baptize_; that is, to cleanse, to purify. Then, to give name to the\nrites by which that change was accomplished, they formed from it the two\nsacred words, _baptisma_ and _baptismos_, words wholly unknown to\nclassic Greek literature. They are, as to etymology and meaning\nidentical. By grammarians, the termination, _mos_, is said generally to\nindicate the act signified by the verb, while _ma_ indicates its effect.\nBut the rule is neither absolute nor universal; and the sacred writers\ndo not maintain the distinction. By them _baptisma_ is used alike to\nsignify the act of baptizing, and the effect, the new state produced by\nit. In their writings, the distinction seems to consist in the\nemployment of _baptismos_ generically, as designating divers kinds of\npurifying rites; while _baptisma_ is specifically applied to the baptism\nof John and of Christ. It is found in no other writings of that or\npreceding ages. Outside the Scriptures, _baptismos_ occurs once, in the\nworks of Josephus, who thus designates John\u2019s baptism.[30]\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n \u201cAntiquities of the Jews,\u201d XVIII, vi, 2.\n\n\n SECTION XXXVIII.\u2014_The Baptism of Naaman._\n\nIn the Septuagint or Greek Scriptures, _baptizo_ first appears in the\naccount of the healing of Naaman. \u201cElisha sent a messenger unto him\nsaying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come\nagain to thee, and thou shalt be clean.... Then went he down, and dipped\nhimself seven times in Jordan according to the saying of the man of\nGod.\u201d\u20142 Kings v, 10, 14. It is asserted that here is clearly an\nimmersion.\u2014\u201cHe went down and _dipped_ himself seven times.\u201d Respecting\nthe question thus raised, it is, in the first place, to be distinctly\nnoticed, that the decision, whatever it be, can not in any way\nneutralize or diminish the force of the argument already developed from\nthe divers baptisms of the epistle to the Hebrews. Were we to allow that\nNaaman was immersed, that fact would constitute no reply to the\ndemonstration that no immersions were \u201cimposed on Israel,\u201d although\ndivers baptisms were imposed. But, that there was no immersion in this\ncase, will appear in what follows.\n\n1. The word upon which the immersion argument here rests, is the Hebrew\n_t\u0101bal_, which is translated, \u201che dipped.\u201d As to its meaning in this\nplace, there are several available sources of information. First, is the\nmanner in which the word is employed elsewhere in the Scriptures. It\noccurs, in all, but fifteen times. It is evident, that while these\nplaces are sufficient to establish the fact that the word was used as\nthey illustrate, they are wholly insufficient to constitute a basis for\nthe assumption that it was never used in a sense not there found, or in\na sense not there doubly illustrated. For example, Gesenius gives, \u201cto\nimmerse,\u201d as one of the meanings, and appeals to the text of Naaman as\nthe only example. Without pretending to emulate the learning of that\ngreat scholar, I venture to assert that, although the definition be not\nillustrated by other examples, there is abundant and various evidence\nthat the word is here used as the equivalent of _r\u0101hatz, to wash_,\naccording to the proper sense of that word as already ascertained. The\nprimary and essential idea of _t\u0101bal_ appears to be contact by touch, a\ncontact which may be of the slightest and most superficial kind, as when\nthe priest was directed to dip the finger of his right hand in a few\ndrops of oil held in the palm of his left hand (Lev. xiv, 15, 16), and\nwhen those who bore the ark dipped the soles of their feet in the brim\nor edge of Jordan and the waters instantly fled away. (Josh. iii, 13,\n15.) Again, it is used to describe the staining or smearing of Joseph\u2019s\ncoat with the blood of the kid. (Gen. xxxvii, 31.) In this case, there\ncan have been no immersion, since the blood of a kid would have been\nwholly insufficient, and the uniform stain thus induced would have\ndetected the fraud of Joseph\u2019s brothers, as the violence of a wild beast\nwould not have produced such a result. How the word, in this place was\nunderstood by the rabbins of Alexandria, is shown by the Greek of the\nSeptuagint, in which it is represented by _moluno_, to soil, to stain,\nto smear. \u201cThey stained or smeared his coat with the blood.\u201d The same is\nno doubt the meaning of Job, when he says to God, \u201cYet shalt thou\n_plunge me_ in the ditch and mine own clothes shall abhor me.\u201d\u2014Job ix,\n31. Not the mode of action, but the soiling contact, was the thought\npresent to Job\u2019s mind. The usage of the word in the Scriptures does not\njustify the belief that it is ever employed in the energy of meaning\nexpressed by \u201c_plunge_.\u201d \u201cYet shalt thou _soil_ me in the ditch.\u201d\n\nAnother source of information is the direction given to Naaman by\nElisha. He dipped himself seven times \u201c_according to the saying_, of the\nman of God.\u201d What was that saying? Did Elisha direct him to be immersed\nseven times? Elisha sent to him, saying \u201cGo, _wash_ in Jordan seven\ntimes.\u201d The verb, _r\u0101hatz_, to wash, we have examined. It means, to\nperform ablution _with water applied to the person_. It does not mean,\nto immerse, nor can the action expressed by it be accomplished by\nimmersion. It is, moreover, observable, that, as though to emphasize the\nemployment of this word, it is twice repeated in the narrative. Upon\nreceiving Elisha\u2019s message, Naaman exclaims,\u2014\u201cAbana and Pharpar.... May\nI not _wash_ in them and be clean?\u201d And his servants reply,\u2014\u201cIf he had\nbid thee do some great thing, ... how much rather, when he saith to\nthee, _Wash_, and be clean.\u201d Manifestly, the thing which the Syrian was\ncommanded, was not, to immerse, but, to _wash_ himself. And when to the\nmeaning of that verb, we add the facts already developed as to the\ncustoms of ablution in those lands, the conclusion is manifest. Naaman\nwas not directed to dip or immerse himself, but expressly, to wash; and\nif he was in fact dipped, it was not \u201caccording to the saying of the man\nof God,\u201d but in express contravention of it. It may be objected, that a\nsprinkling is not a washing. But the Psalmist gives a different\ntestimony. \u201c_Purge me_ with hyssop, and I shall be _clean_. _Wash me_\nand I shall be whiter than snow.\u201d Here, the word, \u201cWash,\u201d which is made\nparallel and equivalent to \u201cPurge me with hyssop,\u201d is not _r\u0101hatz_, but\nthe yet stronger term, _k\u0101bas, scour me_. The very designation of \u201cthe\nunclean,\u201d for whose \u201ccleansing\u201d those rites were appointed is conclusive\non the point. That the sprinklings thus ordained were, in the law\neverywhere, viewed as washings, is undeniable; and in fact, to wash with\nwater applied, which is the meaning of _r\u0101hatz_, is the very action of\nsprinkling. Moreover, in Ezek. xvi, 9, the cleansing of the defilement\nof _nidda_, for which sprinkling was the ritual remedy, is described as\na washing of the most vigorous and thorough nature. \u201cThen (_r\u0101hatz_)\n_washed_ I thee with water; yea (_sh\u0101taph_), _I thoroughly washed away_\nthy blood from thee.\u201d How the sprinkling of water can be expressive of\nsuch thorough cleansing, we have already seen. It is very strikingly\nillustrated by the language of the Lord to Israel by Ezekiel. \u201cThen will\nI sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean; from all your\nfilthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xxxvi, 25.\n\nThe usage of the Scriptures, as to words equivalent to _t\u0101bal_, will\nshed further light on the present question. The word is ordinarily\nrepresented in the Septuagint Greek, by _bapto_. Of this verb, we have\nalready stated that it means to dip; to wet, by dipping; to wet in any\nmode; to stain or dye by dipping; to dye, even by sprinkling. In the\nChaldee of the book of Daniel, the word equivalent to _t\u0101bal_ is\n_tzeba_. It thrice occurs in the description of the calamity of\nNebuchadnezzar, when he was cast out with the beasts of the field, and\n\u201chis body _was wet_ with the dew of heaven.\u201d\u2014Dan. iv, 23, 25, 33. In\neach of these places, the Septuagint has _bapto_, an illustration of the\nfact that the latter word, even, does not \u201calways mean, to dip.\u201d If\n_t\u0101bal_ followed the analogy of these its Greek and Chaldee equivalents,\nwe are to expect among its secondary meanings that of wetting by\naffusion. In the place concerning Naaman, the word by which _t\u0101bal_ is\ntranslated into the Greek is _baptizo_. This fact of itself makes it\ncertain that the Septuagint translators did not understand Naaman to\nhave been dipped, or immersed; else they would have expressed the fact\nby _bapto_, or _kataduo_, instead of _baptizo_, which, in their\nvocabulary, as we shall presently show, was used to express purification\nby sprinkling with the water of separation; as we have already seen Paul\nto employ it in the same way.\n\n2. While these facts, of themselves, make it certain that Naaman was not\nimmersed, there remains evidence even more conclusive, in the relation\nwhich Elisha himself and this whole transaction sustained to the\ncovenant law, as given to Israel at Sinai. In considering this case,\nthere are certain fundamental facts to be held ever in view. (1.)\nLeprosy was, at once, a disease and a ritual uncleanness; and was\ndistinctly recognized in these two several aspects, in the law of God;\nand hence the leper could not but be ritually unclean, whilst the mere\nhealing of the disease left him still unclean. He must be purified as\nwell as healed. (2.) The ritual law was not a scheme of arbitrary or\nunmeaning regulations, but a system of accordant symbols, each of which\nhad its own distinct meaning, and all of which together constituted a\ncomplete and intelligible exposition of the doctrine of sin and\nredemption. Particularly had the ritual respecting leprosy a meaning at\nonce manifest, impressive, and profound. So important was it, in the\nestimation of the divine Lawgiver of Israel, that the strict observance\nof all its requirements was enforced by a new and special admonition\naddressed to them on the banks of Jordan, after the forty years\nwandering in the wilderness. \u201cTake heed, in the plague of leprosy, that\nthou observe diligently and do according to all that the priests the\nLevites shall teach you; as I commanded them, so ye shall observe to do.\nRemember what the Lord thy God did unto Miriam by the way, after that ye\nwere come forth out of Egypt.\u201d\u2014Deut. xxiv, 8, 9. (3.) This law had now\nbeen in operation for six hundred years, whilst its regulations were\nsuch as to arrest and fix the attention of all observers. (4.) To\nNaaman, a Syrian, of a country immediately contiguous to the land of\nIsrael, and belonging to a people of kindred blood, language,\ntraditions, and customs, the Hebrew ideas on this subject, so\ninteresting to him, can not have been unknown or strange. Even had he\nbeen otherwise ignorant, he could not but have been informed by the\nHebrew maiden at whose suggestion he undertook his journey to the court\nof Israel, in quest of healing. That hers must have been a character of\nboth intelligence and piety, is evident from the whole narrative, and\nespecially from the fact that it inspired such confidence as led the\nSyrian, at her suggestion, to obtain from his king letters to the king\nof Israel, and to go to that court, in the hope of cure, bearing with\nhim rich gifts, designed as tokens of gratitude. (2 Kings, v, 2-5.) (5.)\nThe whole history shows this episode in the life of Elisha to have been\nany thing but a casual incident. It bears every mark of a special and\nextraordinary providence, designed to bring home to the Syrians and to\nIsrael a signal testimony to the power and grace of the true God. The\npeculiar relation which Elijah and Elisha bore to the Syrians is\nillustrated by the fact that, at this very time, the latter held a\ncommission from God through Elijah to anoint Hazael to be king of Syria,\ninstead of the reigning king Benhadad; by Elisha\u2019s subsequent presence\nin Damascus, in fulfillment of that commission, and by the application\nwhich Benhadad made to him, to inquire of the Lord as to the issue of\nthe disease which was then upon him. (1 Kings xix, 15-17; 2 Kings viii,\n7-13.)\n\n3. Elisha treats the case of Naaman as typical in its nature, and as\ncoming under the provisions of the law for the cleansing of leprosy.\nThis is manifest from three things which appear in the very brief\nnarrative. (1) In his message to Naaman, he distinguishes between the\nphysical healing, and the ritual cleansing. \u201cThy flesh shall _come\nagain_ unto thee; and, thou shalt _be clean_.\u201d Thus each is separately\npromised. (2.) He requires Naaman to \u201cwash _seven times_.\u201d The meaning\nof this seven times we have seen. It symbolized a radical cure of the\nevil of heart leprosy, the native corruption of sin\u2014a cure by which the\nsinner will be presented pure and sanctified in the seventh, or judgment\nday. The mode of this cure was represented in the law by sprinkling\nseven times. The priest \u201cshall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed\nfrom the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean.\u201d\u2014Lev. xiv,\n7. (3.) He must wash in the river Jordan, and nowhere else. But why\nthere? Because the cleansing of the leper, according to the law must be\nby sprinkling with \u201crunning water.\u201d\u2014Lev. xiv, 5, 6, 50-52. For the\nself-washing, no such prescription was given. The Jordan was appointed,\nbecause healing to the leper meant life to the dead. It meant the\nrenewing grace of the Holy Spirit, and for this none but the water of\nlife that flows in the river of the heavenly Canaan will suffice. And\ninasmuch as the land of Israel was typical of that better country, no\nwater so proper for the present occasion as that which flowed in the one\nriver of Israel. If Palestine was made a type of heaven, the one river\nof Palestine at once became the proper type of that \u201criver of God, which\nis full of water.\u201d\n\n4. Naaman recognized the significance of the directions given by the\nprophet, and was offended at them.\u2014\u201cBehold, I thought, He will surely\ncome out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and\nstrike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and\nPharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I\nnot wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.\u201d\u20142\nKings v, 11, 12. Here (1.) Naaman sharply distinguishes between the\nhealing and the cleansing. For the latter purpose, the waters of Abana\nand Pharpar were sufficient for him,\u2014better than all those of Israel.\nAll he wanted was, that the prophet should heal him; and for this he was\nready to reward him liberally. But, instead of being treated with the\nconsideration due to a lordly patron, he feels himself insulted, by\nbeing expected to take the position of an unclean and humble suppliant;\nand that, too, at the feet of the God of Israel. For, (2.) he indicates\nhis understanding of what was meant by the prophet\u2019s message. If Elisha\nhad come out and healed the leprosy, as Naaman expected, it would have\nbeen perfectly consistent with the idolatrous religion of the Syrian to\nrecognize Elisha as a great prophet, and the God of Elisha as one of the\ngreat gods; although entitled to no exclusive worship from the Syrians,\nwhose tutelary deity was Rimmon. But, when the prophet, instead of this,\nsent him to _Jordan_ to be _cleansed_, and that by washing seven times,\nthe Syrian recognized that he was thus required to own allegiance to the\nGod of Israel, and to humble himself, as utterly unclean in His sight,\nand look to him, as alone able to heal his leprosy, or cleanse his sins.\nIn a word, he was, by the message of the prophet, brought face to face\nwith the glad but humbling word of the gospel, as it spake so clearly in\nthe rites of cleansing for leprosy. That, in the result, he accepted the\ngood tidings thus announced, may not be asserted with confidence. But,\nthat he professed to do so, the narrative assures us. \u201cBehold, now, I\nknow that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.\u201d\u2014vs. 15. By\nthis profession of faith, and by his application to Elisha for two\nmules\u2019 burden of the earth of Canaan, with which to make an altar to the\nGod of Israel, the Syrian showed his intelligent appreciation of the\nissues involved in the observances required by Elisha, and of the\ntypical meaning of the land and river of Israel. The purpose of the\nearth for which he asked was to make an altar, after the manner of those\nappointed in the law; which appear to have been frames or boxes filled\nwith earth on which the fire was kindled. (Ex. xx, 24.)\n\n5. The attempt of some writers to derive countenance to the idea of\nimmersion, in this case, from the Levitical rites of purifying for\nleprosy, is wholly futile. They refer to the self-washings which were\nrequired of the cleansed leper, and assume, without a pretense of proof,\nthat they were immersions. We have seen that they were not immersions,\nbut affusions. But, that it was not to them, but to the sprinklings of\nthe law that the directions of Elisha refer, is unmistakably indicated\nby the seven times required. The self-washings were to be performed but\ntwice. On the first day, the seven sprinklings were administered, and\nthe person was then, by the priest, officially _proclaimed to be clean_.\n(Lev. xiv, 7.) It was after this, that the man thus clean, was required\nto perform the first self-washing. This was repeated once only,\u2014on the\neighth day. This distinction between the sprinklings which cleansed the\nleper, and the self-washings which were required of him as being clean,\nis not casual, but essential, and intimately involved in the difference\nof meaning between them. By no system of interpretation, therefore, can\nseven supposed immersions of Naaman be identified with the two\nself-washings required by the law. To imagine the Syrian to have been\ndirected to seek cleansing by means of the latter, and not by the seven\nsprinklings, would be to suppose him instructed by the prophet to seek\nto his own outward righteousness as the means of purging away his sins,\nand not to the virtue of the blood and Spirit of Christ, penetrating to\nhis heart and renewing the inner man. Self-washing, as dependent upon\nand subordinate to the sprinkling of the water and blood, is beautifully\nsignificant of that evangelical obedience and holiness which believers\ncultivate, whilst resting wholly on the righteousness of Christ; and\nwhich is acceptable only thus. But a self-washing, without the\nsprinkling, or even magnified to equality with it, can mean nothing else\nthan a disparagement and rejection of Christ\u2019s blood and Spirit, and a\ntrusting to our own works of righteousness,\u2014to a cleansing and holiness\nself-attained. It would be a denial of the need of the Spirit\u2019s renewing\ngrace.\n\n6. Israel and the ordinances given her were appointed to be a gospel\nbeacon to the nations. In furtherance of this purpose, the rites and\nordinances with which she was endowed were clothed in forms of\ntransparent significance, selected by divine wisdom as best adapted to\nset forth the gospel for men\u2019s instruction. To suppose Elisha, on this\noccasion, to have ignored or essentially modified those respecting\nleprosy, would imply him to have deliberately veiled the light which God\nhad kindled for the Gentiles. If any ritual observances were required of\nNaaman, the alternative was inevitable, that they be those appointed in\nthe law, or that by neglect these be dishonored. No motive for the\nsupposed change can be suggested that will not imply a disparagement of\nthe neglected rite.\n\n7. The distinctive office successively filled by Elijah and Elisha was\nthat of prophet to the separated kingdom of Israel, to whom they were\nsent to vindicate the repudiated covenant of Sinai against the\napostasies and sins of that people. (1 Kings, xix, 8, 10, 14-18.) They\nwere appointed to keep alive in Israel the knowledge and faith of the\ncovenant God and King whose worship and ordinances at Jerusalem they had\nwickedly abandoned. In the extraordinary circumstances of Naaman the\nofferings which the cleansed leper was required to make at the temple on\nthe eighth day after his purifying, may have been omitted. But the\nsupposition that the rites proper to the purifying, itself, were changed\nwithout necessity or apparent motive, so that instead of being\n_sprinkled_ seven times, Naaman was seven times _immersed_, would imply\nthat Elisha not only thus publicly repudiated the authority of the\nLevitical law, but at the same time and in so doing gave direct sanction\nto the conduct of Israel, in separating themselves from the temple at\nJerusalem and the ordinances and worship which, by divine command, were\nthere observed. The rites of purifying were part and parcel of the\nsystem of ordinances given to Israel and concentrated at the\nsanctuary,\u2014a system, in all its parts, congruous and interdependent;\neach shedding mutual light on all the rest. If Naaman was sprinkled\nseven times, according to the Levitical order, that fact would of itself\nhave referred him to the Word and ordinances of God, for light and\ninformation, as to the vastly important questions suggested to him by\nthe nature and manner of his disease and cleansing. But, if he was\nimmersed, the observance was without authority in the law; without\nexample in the Word, then possessed or afterward given to Israel;\nwithout point of contact or principle of congruity or connection with\nthe system therein unfolded; without explanation anywhere, and without\nconceivable motive or meaning, unless it was, to repudiate the authority\nof the Levitical law. Instead, therefore, of the ordinance being a guide\nline, to lead Naaman to the Word and worship of the true God, the\nnatural effect of such a change as is supposed would have been to deter\nhim from any such inquiries. The facts would have certified him that the\nGod of Elisha was not the same that reigned at Jerusalem;\u2014that the\ndoctrine of the one, set forth in the rite of sprinkling, was manifestly\ndifferent from that of the other expressed by immersion,\u2014and that,\ntherefore, the Word and ordinances of the God who dwelt in Zion were\nlikely to mislead him, rather than to shed a true light upon the\ncharacter of the God of Elisha, by whom he had been healed. The snare\nthus presented to the mind of Naaman would have been the more insidious\nand fatal in proportion as he should still have recognized an intimate\nrelation, or even a kind of identity, between the God of Israel and the\nGod of Judah. It was a general characteristic of the ancient idolatries,\nthat the same gods, as worshiped at different places, were supposed to\nbe endowed with different attributes and affinities, and to require\ndifferent rites of worship. Thus, Zeus Olympius, Jupiter Capitolinus,\nand Jupiter Amon, were looked upon as the same deity; but revealing one\ncharacter, as on Olympus he was worshiped by the tribes of Greece;\nanother, as, on the Capitoline hill he presided over the destinies of\nmighty Rome; and yet another to the dark tribes who assembled at his\ntemple in Thebes in Upper Egypt. Such was the idolatry which the\nsupposed rite would have tended to confirm in the mind of Naaman. To all\nthis we are to add the fact that the very purpose of the miracle wrought\nby Elisha was to let the Syrian \u201cknow that there is a prophet in\nIsrael.\u201d\u20142 Kings v, 8. Not, certainly, that Elisha thus proposed to\nglorify himself: but to announce himself a prophet and witness, for the\nonly living and true God, the God of Israel, whose sanctuary was in\nZion. (Compare Ib. 15-18.)\n\n8. The fact that no administrator is mentioned, but Naaman is said to\nhave \u201cbaptized himself,\u201d is no embarrassment to our position. The\nself-baptism implied by the phrase, in the English translation, is not\nrequired by the form of the Greek nor of the Hebrew. The same kind of\nexpression is used, in the directions originally given as to the water\nof separation. \u201cIf he purify not _himself_ the third day, then the\nseventh day he shall not be clean. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of\nany man that is dead, and purifieth not _himself_ ... the water of\nseparation was not _sprinkled on him_; he shall be unclean.... A clean\nperson shall _sprinkle on the unclean_ on the third day and on the\nseventh.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 12, 13, 19. The form of expression is intended to\nemphasize the responsibility of the person in the matter of his own\ncleansing, and is equivalent in meaning to the phrase,\u2014\u201ccause himself to\nbe sprinkled.\u201d Although he can not cleanse himself, he is not therefore\nirresponsible. He must seek to the cleansing, if he would enjoy it. The\nsame form is used by Paul, who speaks of Ananias as saying to him\n(_Anastas_, _baptisai_), \u201cRising, baptize thyself, and wash away thy\nsins.\u201d\u2014Acts xxii, 16. In the parallel account, we are told that \u201che\narose and was baptized.\u201d\u2014Acts ix, 18.\n\nIt has been shown already that, in the epistle to the Hebrews,\n_baptismoi_ means the sprinklings ordained in the law for defilements of\nwhich leprosy was one. In our next section, it will appear that the\nsprinkling of the water of separation, upon those defiled by the dead,\nwas familiarly known as a _baptizing_. And as to the case of Naaman, the\nconsiderations here presented render it certain that _baptizo_ is there\nused in the same sense. He was not immersed, but sprinkled seven times,\naccording to the law. _T\u0101bal_ is here used, not in a modal sense, but to\nexpress a cleansing, without defining the manner of it.\n\n\n SECTION XXXIX.\u2014\u201c_Baptized from the Dead._\u201d\n\nThe book of Ecclesiasticus, or \u201cThe Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,\u201d\nis one of the Apochrypha. It was written by Joshua ben Sira ben Eliezer,\na priest, at Jerusalem, about two hundred years before the coming of\nChrist. \u201cThe original Hebrew, with the exception of a few fragments in\nthe Gemaras and Midrashim, is no longer extant, but we have translations\nin Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. The work has been always held in high\nesteem, by both Jews and Christians, and was judged by some of the\nTalmudists to be worthy of a place among the canonical Scriptures.\u201d[31]\nIn this work, the priestly author has written this proverb, \u201cHe that is\nbaptized from the dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his\nwashing?\u201d\u2014Ecclus. xxxi, 30 (xxxiv, 25 of the English version). Here, it\nis unquestionable that reference is had to the cleansing of those who\nwere defiled by the dead. Such persons were \u201cbaptized from the dead,\u201d\nthat is, purged from the defilement, incurred through the touch of the\ndead, by the sprinkling of the water of separation. It has been said, by\nBaptist writers, that the author of the proverb meant to designate the\nself-washing which was required of those who had been thus sprinkled.\nBut, in the first place, we must again repeat it, the self-washings were\nnot immersions. In the second, they were not the purification from the\ndead. On that point, the law was express. \u201cThe man that shall be\nunclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from\namong the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the\nLord: _the water of separation_ hath not been _sprinkled_ upon him; he\nis unclean.\u201d\u2014Num. xix, 20. The self-washings are never called\npurifyings, nor alluded to by that name. Besides, as before remarked, on\nanother point, the pre-eminence thus assigned to those washings, as\ncompared with the sprinklings, is contrary to the whole spirit and tenor\nof the law, and would imply a preference given to our own righteousness,\nwhich the former symbolized, over the blood of sprinkling of the Lord\nJesus, and his renewing Spirit, typified by the latter. Moreover, upon\nthis view, we are to suppose that the author of the proverb, himself a\npriest, ignored that official sprinkling which must be performed by a\nclean person, acting in priestly capacity, and which, in his days, was\nperformed almost invariably by the priests, and falsely attributed the\nconsequent cleansing to the self-washing, which was a private personal\nduty of the cleansed. On the relative position of the two ordinances,\nthe prayer of the Psalmist, in his deep sense of guilt and defilement is\nvery significant. \u201cPurge me with hyssop. Wash me.\u201d He does not once\nthink of self-washing, but looks up to the great High Priest for all. It\nwas unquestionably of the sprinkled water of separation that this writer\nsays, \u201cHe that is baptized from the dead, and again toucheth the dead\nwhat availeth his washing?\u201d Here again we have an impregnable\ndemonstration. We have before seen that Paul testifies that the\nsprinklings of the Mosaic system were baptisms. We now have the added\nvoice of the son of Sirach certifying the same thing. By the mouth of\ntwo or three witnesses shall every word be established. These witnesses\nare ignorant or false, or else _baptizo_ does not here mean, to dip, to\nimmerse.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n J. W. Etheridge, in \u201cJerusalem and Tiberias.\u201d P. 105.\n\nThis conclusion is yet farther confirmed by the light which the above\nproverb sheds upon a passage in the writings of Paul, which has greatly\nperplexed expositors. \u201cElse what shall they do which are baptized for\nthe dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for\nthe dead?\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 29. Paul is discussing the doctrine of the\nresurrection. As elsewhere in the epistle, so here, he assumes his\nreaders to know the law of Moses. (Compare 1 Cor. ix, 8-10; x, 1-10.) To\nit, he, therefore, appeals.\u2014\u201cYou know that there is in the law an\nordinance for the ritual restoration of such as, by contact with the\ndead, have become ritually dead. But what means this rite? If the saints\nshall not really be raised up, to what intent is this ritual\nresurrection?\u201d That such was the meaning of Paul, will hardly be\nquestioned by any who consider, (1.) That the law of defilement by the\ndead, and of purification with the water of separation, was a statute of\nuniversal obligation to Israel, at home, and in foreign lands: (2.) That\nthe ordinance and its observance were so familiar that, two hundred\nyears before Christ, it was made the ground of the proverb above cited.\nAs we shall presently see, it is mentioned by Philo and by Josephus as,\nin their days, universally observed: (3.) That it was known to Paul by\nthe name of baptism: (4.) That it meant the giving of life to the dead:\n(5.) That, hence, whatever might be Paul\u2019s allusion, it was a fact,\nthroughout the dwellings of Israel, that, whenever death visited a\nhouse, it involved the consequent necessity of the baptism of the family\nand attendants,\u2014a baptism which signified the resurrection of the dead.\nIt is, therefore, beyond question that Paul meant to refer to that\nLevitical purification. Such were the facts that his readers could not\nbut so understand him. Moreover, his expression here, and that which we\nhave heretofore examined concerning the divers baptisms of the law,\nmutually illustrate each other and confirm all our conclusions on the\nsubject.\n\nThus, starting with the \u201cdivers baptisms\u201d of the epistle to the Hebrews,\nwe have identified them with the seal of the Sinai covenant and the\nwater of separation. We have traced the ordinance in the historical\nbooks, the Psalms and the prophets; have found it, in the time of the\nson of Sirach, familiarly known as baptism, and have recognized it in\nthe New Testament itself, referred to by the same name, by that Hebrew\nof the Hebrews, the apostle Paul. We may add that the same apostle again\nrefers to imitations of this ordinance in his dissuasive against\n\u201cdoctrines of baptisms.\u201d (Heb. vi, 2.) Here, he alludes to those\nPharisaic rites which under the same name were condemned by the Lord\nJesus, who reproved them as \u201cteaching for doctrines the commandments of\nmen,\u201d concerning their baptizings. (Mark, vii, 7, 8.)\n\n\n SECTION XL.\u2014_Judith\u2019s Baptisms._\n\nReturning to the Apocrypha, the next example of baptism occurs in the\nbook of Judith. The book dates from the period of the Maccabean kings of\nJudah, between one and two hundred years before Christ; is a historical\nfiction, and is designed to present, in the person of Judith, an ideal\ntype of female piety, courage, and virtue, as conceived by the Jews of\nthat age. According to the story, \u201cNabuchodonosor, the king of Nineveh,\u201d\nbeing incensed against the Jews, had doomed them to destruction. He\ntherefore sent Holofernes, with a large army to execute his vengeance.\nThis army being re-enforced by the Ammonites and the sons of Esau, the\nmighty host, enters on the siege of Bethulia, a frontier city of Judah.\nSurrounding the city and filling the whole country, they seize \u201cthe\nwater and the fountain of waters,\u201d upon which Bethulia depended for its\nsupply. Soon, \u201call the vessels of water failed all the inhabitants of\nBethulia, and the cisterns were emptied, so that they had not water, to\ndrink their fill, one day; for they gave them drink by measure.\u201d\u2014Judith\nvii, 12-21.\n\nIn this extremity, the elders of the city yield to the clamor of the\nfamished populace, and promise that if succor should not come within\nfive days they will surrender the city to the Assyrians. It is now that\nthe young and beautiful widow, Judith, appears on the scene. Rebuking\nthe elders, for their lack of faith and courage, she decks herself and\ngoes forth to beguile Holofernes, whom, in the sequel, she slays, in his\ndrunkenness, with his own sword, and so delivers her nation. When she\ncame to the Assyrians, \u201cthe servants of Holofernes brought her into the\ntent, and she slept until midnight, and she arose at the morning watch,\nand sent to Holofernes, saying, Let my lord now command that thy\nhandmaid be allowed to go out for prayer. And Holofernes commanded his\nbody-guard not to hinder her; and she remained in the tent three days,\nand went out nightly into the valley of Bethulia and _baptized_ in the\ncamp, at the fountain of water. And as she returned, she besought the\nLord God of Israel to direct her way to the raising up the children of\nher people\u201d\u2014Jud. xii, 5-8.\n\nJudith\u2019s _baptism_, was evidently not one of those required by the law.\nIt was performed statedly every night, as a preparation for prayer, and\nwas, no doubt, one of those washings which Jewish tradition was, at that\ntime, multiplying, and which were so rife in the days of our Savior.\nJudith\u2019s maid was with her, and this baptism was no doubt performed in\nthe ordinary mode of washing, with water poured on her hands. As to the\nplace of her baptism, the language is explicit. It was (_en_) _in_ the\ncamp, but (_epi_) _at_ and _not in_ the fountain. Not only does the\nlanguage thus forbid the supposition that she was immersed in the\nfountain, but the circumstances were equally conclusive. She was a young\nand beautiful woman, in the midst of a host of rude and licentious\nsoldiers and followers of the army. They held the fountain with jealous\ncare, both for the convenience of their own supply, and as the sure\nmeans of bringing Bethulia to surrender. Judith could not there be\nprivate for a moment, even at midnight, and such exposure as is imagined\nwould have been an invitation to certain violence, even though there had\nbeen no question of defiling the very fountain whence the camp drew its\nsupply of water.\n\nBaptist writers, to prove that Judith, nevertheless, immersed herself,\ncite the fact that \u201cas she _went up_ (_aneb\u0113_), she besought the Lord\nGod of Israel to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her\npeople.\u201d But Dr. Dale has pointed out the fact that the very same\nlanguage occurs in a parallel place in the Septuagint Greek, where no\none ever pretended to find an immersion. Rebekah \u201cwent down to the well,\nand filled her pitcher and _went up_ (_aneb\u0113_).\u201d\u2014Gen. xxiv, 15, 16. The\nfountain of Bethulia was in the valley, to which Judith had to go down\nfrom the head-quarters of Holofernes, which would be in an elevated\nposition, so as to command a view of the situation. To suppose the\n_going up_ to be out of the water, would give her a time for prayer so\nbrief and in circumstances so peculiar as to give the suggestion an air\nof ridicule.\n\nIt is well known that the impostor Mohammed was assisted in constructing\nhis institutions by renegade Jews, who early became his proselytes. The\nfollowing precept of the Koran will illustrate the practice of baptism\nbefore prayer: \u201cO true believers, when ye prepare to pray, wash your\nfaces and your hands unto the elbows; and rub your heads and your feet\nunto the ankles; and if ye be polluted ... wash yourselves (all over).\nBut if ye be defiled, and ye find no water, take fine sand, and rub your\nfaces and your hands therewith. God would not put a difficulty upon you.\nBut he desireth to purify you, and to complete his favor upon you, that\nye may give thanks.\u201d[32] This regulation by Mohammed is remarkable in\nrelation to that request of Peter,\u2014\u201cLord not my feet only, but also my\nhands and my head.\u201d\u2014John xiii, 9. Both he and the prophet of Mecca would\nseem to have had in view the same custom of the scribes.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Sale\u2019s \u201cKoran,\u201d chapter v.\n\nFrom the passages thus examined it appears that in Hellenistic Greek the\nword, _baptizo_ was employed to designate two classes of cleansings,\u2014the\nsacramental sprinklings of the law, and the self-imposed washings of\ntradition, the mode of which, whether performed by affusion or\nsprinkling, is not clear. As to the former: the proverb of the son of\nSirach is clearly a reference to the sprinkled water of separation. To\nthe same class, the arguments adduced entitle us to refer the baptism of\nNaaman. To the rites of self-washing the case of Judith is to be\nassigned,\u2014not to those appointed by the law, but those imitations of the\nscribes which obscured the meaning of the ordinance, as appointed of\nGod.\n\n\n SECTION XLI.\u2014_The Water of Separation in Philo and Josephus._\n\nPhilo, commonly called Jud\u00e6us, was a Jew of Alexandria, who was\ncotemporary with the apostles. He thus expounds the laws of\npurification:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe law requires him who brings a sacrifice to be clean in body and\nsoul;\u2014in his soul, from all passions, disorder and vices, whether in\nword or deed; and pure in body, from such things as ritually defile\nit.[33] And it has appointed a purification for each of these; for the\nsoul, by animals suitable for sacrifice;\u2014for the body, by (_loutr\u014dn kai\nperirrhant\u0113ri\u014dn_) ablutions and sprinklings.... The body is purified, as\nI have said by washings and sprinklings; nor does the law allow a person\nwashed and sprinkled once to enter immediately the sacred courts; but\nrequires him to wait without, seven days; and to be sprinkled twice, on\nthe third day and on the seventh; and after these, having washed\nhimself, it admits him to enter and share the sacred rites. It is to be\nconsidered what judgment and philosophy there is in this. For, nearly\nall other people are sprinkled with mere water, the most drawing it from\nthe sea; some from rivers, and others again out of vessels of water\nreplenished from fountains. But Moses, providing ashes from sacrificial\nfire (and in what manner will be shown presently), directed that some of\nthese should be put into a vessel, and water poured upon them; and then\ndipping twigs of hyssop in the mixture, to sprinkle those who were to be\ncleansed.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f61\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014\u201cFrom those things which custom causes to\n defile it.\u201d \u1f1c\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, commonly means a custom grounded in law. (Compare\n Acts vi, 14; xv, 1; xvi, 21; xxi, 21; xxv, 16; xxvi, 3; xxviii, 17;\n etc.)\n\n\u201cIt is now proper to explain the suitableness of these ashes. For they\nare not bare ashes of wood, consumed by fire, but of an animal suited to\nsuch purification. For it is required that a red heifer which has never\nborne the yoke be sacrificed outside the city, and that the high priest,\ntaking some of the blood, shall seven times sprinkle with it toward the\nfront of the temple, and shall then burn the whole animal with its hide\nand flesh, its viscera and dung. And when the flame declines, that these\nthree things be cast into the midst of it;\u2014a stick of cedar, a stick of\nhyssop, and a bunch of cummin. And when the fire has wholly expired, it\nis required, that a clean person collect the ashes and deposit them\noutside the city, in a clean place.\u201d[34]\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Philonis Jud\u00e6i Opera omnia, Frankofurti, 1691, De Victimas\n Offerentibus.\n\nJosephus was a Jewish priest, who was made prisoner by Titus, in the war\nwhich ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. He afterward, at Rome,\nwrote his Jewish \u201cAntiquities,\u201d and his \u201cHistory.\u201d He thus describes the\nmanner of purifying with the ashes of the heifer. \u201cAny persons being\ndefiled by a dead body, they put a little of these ashes and hyssop into\nspring water, and _baptizing_ with these ashes in water, sprinkled them\non the third day and on the seventh.\u201d[35] This is a literal translation\nfrom the Greek of Josephus; but differs from the popular version of\nWhiston. He renders it,\u2014\u201cThey put a little of these ashes into spring\nwater with hyssop, and dipping part of these ashes in it, they sprinkled\nthem with it,\u201d etc. But this is a very incorrect translation, is\nincongruous to the ordinance as described by Moses, and converts the\naccount into nonsense. According to it, the ashes are in the first place\nput into the water, and then part of them \u201cdipped in it!\u201d How they were\nrecovered from the water, in order to the dipping, and how the ashes\ncould be _dipped_ in the water at all, we need not inquire, as the\ntranslation is incorrect. \u201cBaptizing with these ashes-in-water,\u201d truly\nrepresents the original.[36] \u201cBaptizing,\u201d was the action; the mixture of\n\u201cashes in water,\u201d was the element; \u201csprinkling,\u201d the mode; and \u201cthe\nthird and seventh days,\u201d the time. In fact, in using the water of\nseparation, according to the law, there was no dipping of any sort,\nexcept of the hyssop bush, with which the water was sprinkled. The only\naction to which Josephus can refer,\u2014that to which he does undoubtedly\nrefer,\u2014by the word, \u201cbaptizing,\u201d is the purifying rite, of which he\nimmediately states the form to have been a _sprinkling_.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Josephus, Antiquities, IV, iv, 6.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd.\u201d \u03a4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is\n the partitive and instrumental Genitive, and indicates the\n ashes-in-water, as that with which the baptism was to be performed.\n (Compare John ii, 7.\u2014\u201cFill the water pots _with_ water.\u201d)\n\nTo get rid of the force of this passage, Baptist writers have proposed\nan arbitrary alteration of the text, by the erasure of the entire clause\n(_te kai\u2014p\u0113g\u0113n_) \u201cwith these ashes in water.\u201d The change thus suggested\nis purely gratuitous. The reading which they propose is without the\npretense of sanction from any manuscript of Josephus, and is sustained\nby no sound principles of criticism. Its only warrant is the necessities\nof the Baptist position. On the contrary, the rendering which we have\ngiven is, in some of the manuscripts of Josephus, enforced by the\npreposition (_meta_) _with_, after the word, \u201cbaptizing.\u201d According to\nthis version, the passage can be read no otherwise than as we have given\nit. \u201cBaptizing _with_ these ashes in water.\u201d\n\nIn the writings of Josephus there is another and very characteristic\nnotice as to the use of the water of separation. Speaking of the funeral\nrites, he says, \u201cOur law also ordains that the house and its inhabitants\nshall be purified after the funeral is over, that every one may thence\nlearn to keep at a great distance from the thought of being pure, if he\nhath once been guilty of murder.\u201d[37] We are not to suppose that the\nspiritual meaning of these rites had been so utterly lost by the Jews,\nthat Josephus, a priest, a Pharisee, a man of extensive learning and\nreputation, imagined this to be a true account of the nature and meaning\nof the ordinance. But he was speaking in defense of Judaism, against the\nassaults of Apion, a Greek philosopher of Alexandria, at the bar of the\npagan philosophy of Greece and Rome. He affects, for himself, a\nprofoundly philosophic style and spirit, and aims to vindicate a similar\ncharacter for the laws and institutions of Moses. Knowing that the\ntruths of God as committed to Israel would be foolishness to the wise,\nto whose applause he aspired, he sets them aside in favor of his own\n\u201cphilosophic\u201d inventions. He seems to have taken the suggestion from\ncertain heathen observances, of which we shall see more further on.\n\nThe foregoing extracts not only illustrate the law as to the water of\nseparation, and the use of the word, _baptizo_, with reference to it,\nbut indicate the place held by the ordinance among the observances of\nIsrael, down to the time of Jerusalem\u2019s desolation.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n Josephus against Apion. Book ii, 27.\n\n\n SECTION XLII.\u2014_Imitations of these Rites by the Greeks and Romans._\n\nPlaced as was Israel in the very center of the civilization of the\nancient world, and on the direct line of communication between its\npeoples and empires, her influence upon the institutions and religious\nrites of other nations must have been very great, and is traceable in\nevery direction. There is reason to believe that Greece and its colonies\nin Italy, from which sprang the republic and empire of Rome, derived\nfrom Israel the first great impulses of their civilization, as well as\ncontinual subsequent contributions to its maintenance and growth. Israel\nhad dwelt in the land of Canaan about three hundred years before the\nsupposed era of the siege of Troy, and seven hundred before the reputed\ndate of the great poems of Homer, from the silence of which it is\nevident that to him letters were wholly unknown. According to the\nearliest Greek tradition, Cadmus, \u201cthe man of the east,\u201d coming with a\ncolony of Ph\u0153nicians settled in Greece, bringing with him the art of\nalphabetic writing. But at what age he lived, or whether he was not, in\nfact, wholly a mythical character is a matter of conjecture. The\ntradition, however, distinctly points to Ph\u0153nicia as the land whence the\nart was introduced into Greece; and the circumstances accord with this\nsupposition. That the Greek letters were derived from those called\nPh\u0153nician is an undoubted fact. The extensive commerce maintained by the\nships of Ph\u0153nicia was a constant and efficient means of disseminating\nthe seeds of her advancing civilization; and besides, the sages of\nGreece were accustomed to travel to Egypt, Ph\u0153nicia, and the east, in\nsearch of knowledge; and returned thence with acquisitions of which all\nGreece was the beneficiary. About four hundred years before Christ,\nPlato himself was in Egypt in search of knowledge, a student of the\npriests of On. At this time, Egypt was full of Jews, and it is not to be\nimagined that such an inquirer would wholly fail to catch some glimpses\nof the light which shone in the institutions and literature of Israel.\n\nMany things concur to show that neither Egypt nor Ph\u0153nicia was the\noriginal fountain of much that was thus disseminated to Greece. In some\ninstances, the attendant circumstances, and in others the internal\nevidence, unmistakably indicate an Israelite origin. Ph\u0153nicia was a\nstrip of sea-coast, ten or twelve miles wide, lying between the northern\npart of the land of Israel and the Mediterranean Sea. Tyre and Sidon,\nits two chief cities, were the only practicable sea-ports on the coast\nof Palestine. They were distant, the former, about one hundred and\ntwenty miles, and the latter, one hundred, from Jerusalem. Their\nsupplies were derived largely from the fields, the vineyards, and the\nolive groves of Israel. (2 Chron. ii, 10; Acts xii, 20.) Except slight\nprovincial differences, the language of the two people was the same; and\nthe intimacy of the relations is seen in the fact that the drift of\ndialect in the two closely coincided. Hiram king of Tyre, was David\u2019s\nintimate friend, and Solomon\u2019s faithful and efficient ally, in the\nerection of the temple and his own palace, in adorning Jerusalem, and in\ncommercial enterprises. His relation with David, and his message of\nsalutation to Solomon (2 Chron. ii, 12) argue him a professed worshiper\nof the God of Israel. Thus, whilst the Ph\u0153nician territory was a mask by\nwhich Israel was concealed from the Mediterranean countries, the\nPh\u0153nicians, themselves, can not but have realized a profound impression\nfrom the wonderful system of religious rites and the testimonies of\nreligious truth which were maintained in Israel and centered around that\ntemple on Mount Sion, which was a monument of Ph\u0153nician skill in\narchitecture and the mechanic arts. The ideas thus communicated and the\nimpressions thus produced must have been borne abroad by every wind that\nfilled a Ph\u0153nician sail, and disseminated to every land that was touched\nby a Ph\u0153nician prow.\n\nThe art of alphabetic writing is an illustration of this. It did not\noriginate in Ph\u0153nicia, but, as internal evidence demonstrates,\u2014with the\nArameans, of whom Israel was a branch. The Ph\u0153nician characters were the\nsame as the Old Hebrew. Once acquired by that maritime people, the art\nwas diffused to Greece, to Rome, and the world. The Egyptians no less\nthan the Ph\u0153nicians were idolaters, having lords many and gods many.\nWhen, therefore, the sages of Greece returned from their explorations,\nprepared to whisper to their confidential disciples the sublime doctrine\nof the divine unity, and even to erect an altar \u201c_To the Unknown\nGod_,\u201d[38] we are justified in the conviction that at some point in the\ncourse of their travels, they had caught an echo of that voice which\nspake to the twelve tribes in the wilderness,\u2014\u201cHear, O Israel: the Lord\nour God is one Lord.\u201d\u2014Deut. vi, 4. To the same originals undoubtedly are\nto be referred many of the ceremonials of their religion. Of this, the\nrules of uncleanness, and rites of purifying are remarkable\nillustrations.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n That this altar was the expression of a blind though real groping\n after the true God, is distinctly attested by Paul.\u2014\u201cWhom therefore ye\n ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.\u201d\u2014Acts xvii, 23. To suppose\n as do some that the altar was erected by one who was uncertain which\n of the tutelary deities he should propitiate, implies Paul to have\n resorted to a weak pretense, founded on the mere jingle of words,\n which, so far from constituting an appropriate and impressive basis\n for his argument and appeal, would have invited the derision and\n contempt of his skeptical audience. He adopted no such artifice; but\n appealed to a recognized and affecting fact.\n\nOf the various forms of purification among the Greeks, Plato makes an\nenumeration.\u2014\u201cThe _purifications_ (_katharmoi_) both according to\nmedicine and vaticination, both the pharmacial _drugs_, (_pharmakois_),\nand the vaticinal _fumigations_ (_perithei\u014dseis_) as also the _washings_\n(_loutra_) in such rites, and the _sprinklings_ (_perirrhanseis_);\u2014are\nnot all these effectual to one end,\u2014to render a man pure, both as to\nbody and soul?\u201d[39]\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n Plato, in Cratylo, xxii.\n\nOn this subject, the historian Grote makes some noteworthy\nstatements.\u2014\u201cThe names of Orpheus and Musaeus (as well as that of\nPythagoras, looking at one side of his character), represent facts of\nimportance in the history of the Grecian mind, ... the gradual influx of\nThracian, Phrygian and Egyptian religious ceremonies and feelings, and\nthe increasing diffusion of special mysteries, schemes for religious\npurification, and orgies (I venture to Anglicize the Greek word, which\ncontains in its original meaning no implication of the ideas of excess\nto which it was afterward diverted), in honor of some particular god,\ndistinct from the public solemnities, and from the gentile solemnities\nof primitive Greece.... During the interval between Hesiod and\nOnomakritus [B. C. 610-510], the revolution in the religious mind of\nGreece was such as to place both these deities [Dyonisus and Demeter,\nthe Bacchus and Ceres of the Latins] in the front rank.... From all\nthese countries [Egypt, Thrace, Phrygia and Lydia], novelties unknown to\nthe Homeric men found their way into the Grecian worship; and there is\none amongst them which deserves to be specially noticed, because it\nmarks the generation of the new class of ideas in their theology. Homer\nmentions many guilty of private or involuntary homicide, and compelled\neither to go into exile, or to make pecuniary satisfaction; but he never\nonce describes any of them to have either received or required\npurification for the crime. Now, in the times subsequent to Homer,\npurification for homicide comes to be indispensable. The guilty person\nis regarded as unfit for the society of men, or the worship of the gods,\nuntil he has received it; and special ceremonies are prescribed whereby\nit is to be administered. Herodotus tells us that the ceremony of\npurification was the same among the Lydians and the Greeks. We know that\nit formed no part of the early religion of the latter, and we may\nreasonably suspect that they borrowed from the former.... The\npurification of a murderer was originally operated not by the hands of\nany priest or specially sanctified man, but by those of a chief or king\nwho goes through the appropriate ceremonies in the manner represented by\nHerodotus, in his pathetic narrative respecting Cr\u0153sus and Adrastus.[40]\nThe idea of a special taint of crime, and of the necessity, as well as\nthe sufficiency of prescribed religious ceremonies, as a means of\nremoving it, appears thus to have got footing in Grecian practice\nsubsequent to the time of Homer.\u201d[41]\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n But Herodotus does not \u201crepresent\u201d the manner of the purifying of\n Adrastus. Moreover, the legend of Cr\u0153sus and Adrastus, is fabulous, as\n appears from internal evidence (see Rawlinson\u2019s note on the place);\n and with it, the theory of Grote, as to the Lydian origin of the Greek\n purifying rites falls to the ground. See Rawlinson\u2019s Herodotus, Hist.\n I. 35.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n Grote i, 29-35.\n\nAgain he says,\u2014\u201cHerodotus had been profoundly impressed with what he saw\nand heard in Egypt. The wonderful monuments, the evident antiquity, and\nthe peculiar civilization of that country acquired such preponderance in\nhis mind, over his own native legends, that he is disposed to trace the\noldest religious names or institutions of Greece, to Egyptian or\nPh\u0153nician original, setting aside, in favor of this hypothesis, the\nGrecian legends of Dyonisus and Pan.\u201d[42]\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Ib. 530.\n\nIn these statements, the eminent historian seems studiously to avoid a\nrecognition of the direction to which all his facts so distinctly point.\nAll the countries mentioned by him border on the Mediterranean, and were\nin constant and intimate communication with Egypt and Ph\u0153nicia, the\nrelations of which with Israel are too well known to need emphasis. They\nwere, in fact, the channels through which Hebrew ideas must ordinarily\npass, in order to gain access to Greece and the continent of Europe. To\nwhatever source the Greeks may have been immediately indebted for the\nnovel ideas of a special stain or defilement, resulting from crime, and\nof ritual purifying from it, we know that they were incorporated in the\nlaws and ritual of Moses ages before there is a trace of them in any of\nthe countries mentioned. The disposition of Herodotus to refer them to\nEgypt and Ph\u0153nicia is therefore entitled to more respectful\nconsideration than our author gives it. That the Gentile rites in\nquestion, however grossly corrupted, were derived from divine originals,\nmust be manifest to any one who will compare the significance and beauty\nof the Scriptural rites as connected with the spiritual truths of\nrevelation, which they symbolized, with the bareness and absurdity by\nwhich they are characterized, in their distorted Gentile forms, detached\nfrom the spiritual connection to which they natively belonged.\n\nOn the matters of which it treats, no authority is higher than Dr. Wm.\nSmith\u2019s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. As to the present\nsubject, it testifies that their purifyings, \u201cin every case of which we\nhave any certain knowledge were _connected with sacrifices_ and other\nreligious rites, and consisted in the _sprinkling of water_, by means of\na _branch of laurel or olive_; and at Rome, sometimes by means of the\n_aspergillum_, and in the burning of certain materials the smoke of\nwhich was thought to have a purifying effect.\u201d[43]\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n Smith\u2019s Greek and Roman Antiquities, _article_, \u201cLustratio.\u201d\n\nOf the Greek heroes the Abbe Barthelemi says,\u2014\u201cThey shuddered at the\nblood they had spilt, and abandoning their throne and native land, went\nto implore the aid of expiation in some distant country. After the\nsacrifices enjoined them by the ceremony, a purifying water was poured\nupon the guilty hand, after which they again returned into society and\nprepared themselves for new combats.\u201d[44]\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n Travels of Anacharsis, Introduction.\n\nOf the Romans, Ovid says:\u2014\u201cOur fathers believed purifications to be\neffectual for blotting out every crime and every cause of penalty.\nGreece was the source of the custom. She believes the guilty, when\npurified with lustral rites, to be freed from the guilt of their evil\ndeeds. Thus Peleus purified the grandson of Actor; and thus Acastus,\nwith the waters of H\u00e6mus, cleansed Peleus himself, from the blood of\nPhocus.\u2014Ah credulous people! who suppose that the dreadful crime of\nmurder can be obliterated by (_fluminea aqua_), running waters.\u201d[45]\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Ovidii Fast. ii, vs. 27-46.\n\nThe same poet describes the festival of Pales, the tutelary goddess of\nshepherds. Some days before her festival, cows were sacrificed and the\nunborn offspring torn from their bowels and burned with fire by the\neldest of the Vestals, \u201cthat their ashes may purify the people on the\nday of Pales.\u201d On the festival day he sings: \u201cI am called to the\nPalilia.... Often, truly, have I carried in my full hand the ashes of\nthe calf and the bean stalks, hallowed purifiers. Truly I have leaped\nover the fires kindled in three rows, and the dripping branch of laurel\nhas scattered the water.... Go, ye people, seek the fumigation from the\naltar of the virgin! Vesta will give it. By the grace of Vesta, you\nshall be purified. The blood of a horse shall be your fumigatory, with\nthe ashes of the calf, and third the empty husk of the hard bean.\nShepherd, purify your full fed flocks in the early twilight. Water\nshould first sprinkle them, and a twig broom should sweep the\nground.\u201d[46] Again, he tells of \u201ca fountain of Mercury near the Capanian\ngate. If we choose to believe those who have tried it, it has a divine\nvirtue. Hither comes the merchant with purse-girdled tunic, and being\npurified, draws water which he may carry away in a perfumed vase. In\nthis, a branch of laurel is moistened, and with the wet laurel all\nthings are sprinkled that are to have new owners. He sprinkles his own\nlocks, also, with the dripping bush, and with a voice familiar with\ndeceit offers his prayers. \u2018Wash away my past perjuries,\u2019 says he: \u2018Wash\naway the falsehoods of the past day. Whether I have called thee\n(Mercury), to witness, or have called upon the great majesty of Jove,\nwishing him _not_ to hear; or, if I have been false to any other god or\ngoddess, let the swift zephyrs carry away my dishonest words, and let my\nperjuries be obliterated by to-morrow. Let not the superior powers give\nheed to what I may say.\u2019\u201d[47]\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Ib. iv, 633-640; 731-736.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Ovidii Fast. ii, v, 673-688.\n\nIn Virgil, \u00c6neas, preparing for flight from the overthrow of Troy, says\nto his father,\u2014\u201cDo you, my father, in your hand take the consecrated\nthings and the ancestral gods? To me, just returned from such and so\nrecent a battle and slaughter, it were sacrilege to touch them, until I\nshall have washed in a living stream.\u201d[48] In another place the closing\nrites at the funeral pyre of Misenus are thus described,\u2014\u201cThe same\n(Chorinaeus) passed thrice around his companions with water, sprinkling\nthem with a gentle spray, and with a branch of the auspicious olive\npurified the men and uttered the parting words.\u201d[49]\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n \u00c6n. ii, 717.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n Ibid. vi, 229.\u2014The (novissima verba) last or parting words, were\n addressed to the deceased,\u2014\u201cVale! Vale! Vale!\u201d Farewell! Farewell!\n Farewell!\n\nOf funeral lustrations at Rome, Adams in his Antiquities, gives this\naccount: \u201cWhen the remains of the dead were laid in the tomb, those\npresent were, three times, sprinkled by a priest with pure water, from a\nbranch of olive or laurel, to purify them.... The friends when they\nreturned home, as a further purification, after being sprinkled with\nwater, stepped over a fire.[50]... The house itself also was purified\nand swept with a certain kind of a broom.\u201d The classic writers\nfrequently refer to similar observances among the Greeks. Thus, in\nEuripides, the people are perplexed as to the death of Alcestis, king\nAdmetus\u2019 wife, because \u201cthey do not see the lustral water before the\ndoor, as is customary at the doors of the dead.\u201d[51]\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n Compare above, p. 138.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n Euripides in Alcest. 398. See, also, Aristophanes in Eccl. 1025.\n\nThe census of the population of Rome was taken every five years, and was\nfollowed by a lustration of the city. From this custom the word\n_lustrum_ (a lustration), came to signify a period of five years. There\nwas also a lustration for new born infants, when their names were given.\nFor boys it was usually on the ninth day after birth; for girls, by\nsome, on the eighth day, and by others, on the fifth, or the third day,\nwhile some performed it on the last day of the week wherein the child\nwas born. \u201cOn the lustral day, a feast was prepared, over which the\ngoddess Nundina was supposed to preside. The assembled women handed the\nchild backward and forward around the fire burning on the altar of the\ngods; after which they sprinkled it with water, in which were mingled\nsaliva and dust.\u201d[52]\n\nPhilo Judaeus, was a resident of the Greek colony of Alexandria. He was\na man of learning, and especially versed in the religious doctrines and\nrites of the Gentiles, as well as of Moses, of which he wrote largely.\nWe have seen that, in contrasting the purifying rites of other nations\nwith those of Israel, he says that \u201cnearly all other people are\nsprinkled with unmixed water, mostly drawing it from _the sea_, some\nfrom rivers and others again from vessels replenished from\nfountains.\u201d[53] This preference of the water of the sea, probably\noriginated in a desire to differentiate the Gentile imitations from the\ndivine originals as observed by Israel. Of it an illustration appears in\nEuripides. Iphigenia speaks of Orestes and his companions, defiled with\ndreadful crimes,\u2014\u201cFirst would I (_nipsai_) _imbue_ them with holy\npurifyings.\u201d\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n Rees\u2019s Encyclopedia, article, \u201cLustration.\u201d\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n Above, p. 175.\n\nKING THOAS. \u201cFrom springs of waters? Or, from spray of the sea?\u201d\n\nIPHIGENIA. \u201cThe sea spray (_kluzei_[54]) washes away all the crimes of\nmen.\u201d[55]\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n \u039a\u03bb\u03c5\u03b6\u03c9 (klyz\u014d) to besprinkle, to water, to rinse, to dash over. \u201cThe\n sea, besprinkling, washes away all the crimes of men.\u201d\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n Iphigenia in Taur. 1192-1194.\n\nThe rites used in the Greek _mysteries_ illustrate the same subject.\n\u201cThe benefits which the initiated hoped to obtain were security against\nthe vicissitudes of fortune and protection from dangers both in this\nlife and in the life to come. The principal part of the initiation, and\nthat which was thought to be most efficacious in producing the desired\neffects, were the lustrations and purifications, whence the mysteries\nthemselves are sometimes called _katharsia_ or _katharmoi_.\u201d[56]\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n Smith\u2019s Dictionary, _article_ \u201cMysteria.\u201d\n\nThose of Eleusis were a manifest imitation of the Levitical feast of\ningathering or tabernacles. They were celebrated at the same\nseason,\u2014immediately after the bringing in of the harvest; and were in\nhonor of Demeter, or Ceres, the patroness of agriculture. The\ncelebration proper, continued for seven days, after which there was an\nadditional eighth day, appropriated to the initiation of those who had\nbeen too late for the regular observances. This, again, was followed by\na ninth day, which was named _pl\u0113mochoai_, from a vase called\n_pl\u0113mocho\u0113_. \u201cTwo of these vessels were on this day filled with water or\nwine,\u201d (Should it not be \u201cwater _and_ wine?\u201d) \u201cand the contents of one\nthrown to the east, and those of the other to the west, while those who\nperformed this rite uttered some mystical words.\u201d[57] From the\nappropriating of a ninth day to the outpouring of the water and wine, it\nseems probable that the mysteries were originally imitated from the\nLevitical feast before the festival of the outpouring was instituted;\nand that when the latter rite was introduced, an additional day was\nappropriated to it, so as to avoid any change in what had become the\nestablished and consecrated order of the preceding days.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n Smith, _article_ \u201cEleusinia.\u201d Compare above, p. 144.\n\nThese mysteries were of two orders. The less were celebrated at Agr\u00e6,\nand were essential as a preparation for the greater at Eleusis. In the\npreparatory rites, the candidates were required to keep themselves\ncontinent and unpolluted for nine days; and were purified with water\nsprinkled on them, by an officer who was thence called the\n_hydranos_.[58] At Eleusis they offered sacrifices and prayers, wearing\ngarlands of flowers; and, standing on the skin of a sacrificial animal,\nwere again purified by the sprinkling of water by the _hydranos_.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n \u201c\u1f59\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (hydranos), a waterer, a sprinkler with water; from \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\n to water, to sprinkle any one with water, to pour out\n libations.\u201d\u2014Liddell & Scott\u2019s Greek Lexicon.\n\nThat the observances thus illustrated were corrupted forms derived from\nthe rites and institutions of Moses, is apparent. So manifest is this,\nthat in the third and fourth centuries it was made the ground of a\nspecious theory by means of which the advocates of paganism sought to\nstay the progress of Christianity. \u201cAmong those who wished to appear\nwise, and to take moderate ground, many were induced to devise a kind of\nreconciling religion, intermediate between the old superstition and\nChristianity, and to imagine that Christ had enjoined the very same\nthings which had long been represented by the pagan priests, under the\nenvelope of their ceremonies and fables.\u201d[59]\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Book II., Part i, \u00a7 18.\n\nThere was, no doubt, an element of truth in this conception. The rites\nof Gentile idolatry were, it is evident, corrupted forms derived from\ndivinely appointed institutions, partly, it may be, by tradition, from\nthe parents of the race; but chiefly by imitation of the ritual of\nMoses.\n\n\n SECTION XLIII.\u2014_Baptism in Egypt and among the Aztecs._\n\nI am indebted to the courtesy of W. H. Ryland, F. S. A. Secretary of the\n(British) Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, for a copy of the proceedings\nat a meeting held on the 4th of May, 1880. From it I make the following\nextract including part of a communication read from M. Paul Pierret. It\nis descriptive of \u201cthe Libation Vase of Osor-ur,\u201d preserved in the\nMuseum of the Louvre (No. 908), an inscription on which has been\ndeciphered by M. Pierret.\n\n\u201cThe vase, of the Saitic epoch, is of bronze, and of an oblong form,\ncovered with an inscription, finely traced with a pointed instrument.\nThe text has been published, by M. Pierret in the second volume of his\n\u2018Recueil d\u2019Inscriptions du Louvre,\u2019 in the eighth number of the \u2018Etudes\nEgyptologiques.\u2019 The goddess, Nout, is represented standing in her\nsycamore, pouring the water which is received by the deceased, on one\nside, and by his soul, on the other. \u2018Saith the Osiris, divine father\nand first prophet of Ammon Osor-ur, truthful;\u2014Oh, Sycamore of Nout! give\nme the water and the breath [of life] which proceed from thee. That I\nmay have the vigor of the goddess of vigor; that I may have the life of\nthe goddess of life; that I may breathe the breath of the goddess of the\nrespiration of breaths; for I am Toum. Saith Nout;\u2014Oh the Osiris, divine\nfather, etc., thou receivest the libation from my own hands; I, thy\nbeneficent mother, I bring thee the vase, containing the abundant water\nfor rejoicing thy heart by its effusion, that thou mayest breathe the\nbreath [of life] resulting from it, that thy flesh may live by it. For,\nI give water to every mummy; I give breath to him whose throat is\ndeprived of it, to those whose body is hidden, to those who have no\nfuneral chapel. I am with thee. I reunite thee to thy soul, which will\nseparate itself no more from thee, never.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe Saitic epoch, to which this vase is referred, began with the\naccession of Psammetichus I, about 664, B. C., and closed with the\nconquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525. The parallel period of Jewish\nhistory extends from the closing years of Manasseh\u2019s reign to the time\nof the machinations by which the decree of Cyrus for rebuilding the\ntemple was suspended. But, although the date thus given is such as might\nsuggest the idea of derivation from the institutions of Moses, it seems\nhighly probable that the inscription presents a vestige, in a greatly\ncorrupted form, of the primitive faith touching the resurrection, as\nheld by Noah and the patriarchs of the old world, and transmitted to the\nfounders of the Egyptian empire. Whatever the view adopted on that\npoint, the relation of the inscription to the subject of the present\ntreatise is manifest and very interesting. Not only does it very\nstrikingly illustrate the doctrine of life to the dead, as symbolized by\nthe effusion of water, but it brings together the two symbols of water\nand the breath of life, in such a manner as presents a very remarkable\nanalogy to the similar association of ideas presented in the scene of\nPentecost, as unfolded hereafter.\n\nVery remarkable was the rite of infant baptism, as it was found by the\nSpanish conquerors among the Aztecs of Mexico.[60]\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n As this work goes into the hands of the printers, the newspapers\n announce that \u201cthe Rev. Professor Campbell of Montreal has discovered\n that the Hittite and Aztec alphabets are identical, and by applying\n the latter to the former, he has been enabled to read inscriptions\n belonging to the ninth century before Christ.\u201d Should this\n announcement prove true, it brings the Aztecs into a relation to\n Israel which the reader will at once recognize.\n\n\u201cWhen everything necessary for the baptism had been made ready, all the\nrelations of the child were assembled, and the midwife, who was the\nperson that performed the rite of baptism, was summoned. At early dawn,\nthey met together in the court-yard of the house. When the sun had\nrisen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms, called for a little\nearthen vessel of water, while those about her placed the ornaments\nwhich had been prepared for the baptism in the midst of the court. To\nperform the rite of baptism, she placed herself with her face toward the\nwest, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies.... After\nthis she sprinkled water on the head of the infant, saying, \u2018O, my\nchild! take and receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our\nlife, and is given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to\nwash and to purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your\nbody and dwell there: that they may destroy and remove from you all the\nevil and sin which was given you before the beginning of the world;\nsince all of us are under its power, being all the children of\nChalchivitlycue goddess She then washed the body of the child with\nwater, and spoke in this manner: \u2018Whence thou comest, thou that art\nhurtful to this child; leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth\nanew, and is born anew; now is he purified and cleansed afresh and our\nmother, Chalchivitlycue, again bringeth him into the world.\u2019 Having thus\nprayed, the midwife took the child in both hands, and lifting him toward\nheaven, said,\u2014\u2018O Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom thou hast sent\ninto the world, this place of sorrow, suffering, and penitence. Grant\nhim, O Lord, thy gifts, and thine inspiration, for thou art the great\nGod, and with thee is the great goddess.\u2019 Torches of pine were kept\nburning during the performance of these ceremonies. When these things\nwere ended, they gave the child the name of some one of his ancestors,\nin the hope that he might shed a new luster over it. The name was given\nby the same midwife or priestess who baptized him.\u201d[61]\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n Sahagun. Hist. de Nueva Espana, vi, 37. In Prescott\u2019s \u201cConquest of\n Mexico.\u201d Vol. III, p. 385.\n\nHow like, yet how different, the Gr\u00e6co-Roman, the Egyptian, and the\nMexican rites, from each other, and from those of Israel and of Christ,\nappears at a glance.\n\n\n SECTION XLIV.\u2014_The Levitical Baptisms in the Christian Fathers._\n\nThe writers of the primitive church distinctly recognize the Old\nTestament sprinklings, and especially the water of separation, by the\nname of baptism. By the same name, they designate the idolatrous\nimitations above described. Tertullian was born about fifty years after\nthe death of the apostle John. In allusion to the renewing efficacy\nwhich he attributed to Christian baptism and the futility of the Gentile\nrites, he says,\u2014\u201cThe nations, strangers to all understanding of true\nspiritual potencies, ascribe to their idols the self-same efficacy. But\nthey defraud themselves with unwedded waters; for they are initiated, by\nwashing, into certain of their sacred mysteries\u2014as for example of Isis,\nor Mithras. Even their gods themselves they honor with lavations.\nMoreover, everywhere, country seats, houses, temples and whole cities\nare purified by sprinkling with water carried around. So, it is certain\nthey are imbued (_tinguntur_) in the rituals of Apollo and Eleusis; and\nthey imagine this to accomplish for them renewing and impunity for their\nperjuries. Moreover, among the ancients, whoever was polluted with\nmurder, expiated himself with purifying waters.... We see here the\ndiligence of the devil, emulating the things of God, since he even\nadministers baptism to his own.\u201d[62]\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Tertull. de Baptisma, chapter v.\n\nHere, Tertullian expressly designates these rites of the Gentile\nidolatries by the name of baptism, and represents them as imitations of\nthe divinely appointed ordinance. Some he distinctly describes as\nsprinklings, and among them evidently refers to Ovid\u2019s representation of\nthe dishonest merchant, sprinkling himself to wash out his \u201cperjuries.\u201d\nHe does not allude to immersion, and in fact that form of rite was not\nfound among the Greek and Roman superstitions. The only difference which\nTertullian recognizes between the idolatrous rites and Christian baptism\nis indicated by the phrase (_viduis aquis_), \u201cunwedded,\u201d or \u201cwidowed,\nwaters,\u201d by which he designates the element used in the pagan rites. His\nmeaning, here, is to be found in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,\nwhich already prevailed in the church; according to which, it was\nbelieved that, in baptism, in response to the invocation of the\nofficiating minister, the Holy Spirit descended upon the water,\nimparting to it a divine potency to produce a new birth in the recipient\nof the rite. Thus, the waters of Christian baptism were married waters,\nas being capable of generating life; whilst the others were\nunmarried,\u2014unendowed with any \u201cspiritual potency.\u201d\n\nIt is further worthy of special notice, that Tertullian here refers,\namong other Gentile imitations of baptism, to that purgation for murder,\nby affusion of water, from which evidently Josephus derived his\npreposterous explanation of the sprinkling of the water of separation,\nfor defilement by the dead. The probability is great that the Greek\npurgation was derived from that appointed for the elders of Israel, in\nthe case of a concealed murder.\n\nJerome, living between A. D. 340 and 420, comments thus upon Ezekiel\nxxxvi, 25-27.\u2014\u201cI will pour out or sprinkle (effundam sive aspergam),\nupon you clean water and ye shall be cleansed from all your defilements.\nAnd I will give you a new heart, and I will put a right spirit within\nyou.... I will pour out the clean water of saving baptism.... It is to\nbe observed that a new heart and a new spirit may be given by the\npouring out or sprinkling of water.\u201d Again, he paraphrases;\u2014\u201cI will no\nmore pour out on them the waters of saving baptism, but the waters of\ndoctrine and of the word of God.\u201d\u2014Jerome v, 341.\n\nAmbrose, bishop of Milan from A. D. 374 to 391, thus expounds the 7th\nverse of Psa. li.\u2014\u201cHe asks to be _cleansed with hyssop_, according to\nthe law. He desires to be washed according to the gospel, and trusts\nthat if washed he will be whiter than snow. He who would be purified by\ntypical baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by a hyssop\nbush.\u201d[63]\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Ambrosii Opera, in Psa. li.\n\nAgain he says, \u201cHe (the priest), dipping the living sparrow, with cedar,\nscarlet and hyssop, into water in which had been mingled the blood of\nthe slain sparrow, sprinkled the leper seven times, and thus was he\nrightly purified.... By the cedar wood, the Father, by the hyssop the\nSon, and by the scarlet wool, having the brightness of fire, the Holy\nSpirit, is designated. With these three, he was sprinkled who would be\nrightly purified, because no one can be cleansed from the leprosy of\nsins, by the water of baptism, except through invocation of the Father\nand the Son and the Holy Spirit.... We are represented by the\nleper.\u201d[64]\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n Ibid., in Apocal. cap. 6.\n\nAgain, addressing the newly baptized, he says,\u2014\u201cYou took the white\ngarments, to indicate that you cast away the cloak of sin and put on the\nspotless robe of innocence; whereof the prophet said: \u2018Thou shalt\nsprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean, thou shalt wash me, and I\nshall be made whiter than snow.\u2019 For he that is baptized appears\ncleansed both according to the law and the gospel; according to the law,\nsince Moses, with a bunch of hyssop sprinkled the blood of a bird;\naccording to the gospel, because the garments of Christ were white as\nsnow, when, in the gospel, he showed the glory of his resurrection. He\nwhose sins are forgiven is made whiter than snow.\u201d[65]\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n Ibid. Lit. ad initiandos. c, 7.\n\nCyril lived in the next century. He was bishop of Alexandria, A. D.\n412-444. In his exposition of Isaiah iv, 4, he says, \u201cWe have been\nbaptized, not with bare water, nor with the ashes of a heifer,\u2014We are\nsprinkled [with these] to purify the flesh, alone, as says the blessed\nPaul,\u2014but with the Holy Spirit, and fire.\u201d\n\nThus, from the translation of the Old Testament into Greek down through\nthe time of Christ and the apostles, and to the middle of the fifth\ncentury, the Levitical sprinklings were known and designated as\nbaptisms. Further we need not trace them.\n\n\n\n\n PART VI.\n STATE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.\n\n\n SECTION XLV.\u2014_Points established by the foregoing Evidence._\n\nA review of the preceding pages will discover the following points to\nhave been established.\n\n1. Baptism was a rite familiar among the Jews at the time of Christ\u2019s\ncoming, and not a new institution then first introduced.\n\n2. Paul being witness, it was an ordinance imposed on Israel at Sinai,\nas part of the Levitical system.\n\n3. There is no trace, in the Levitical law, of an ordinance for the\nimmersion of the person, in any circumstances, or for any purpose\nwhatever.\n\n4. There is not, anywhere, in the Old Testament an allusion to immersion\nas a symbolic rite, nor a figure derived from it, although those\nScriptures are full of allusions and figures referring to the symbolic\nimport of the pouring and sprinkling of water.\n\n5. There was an ordinance for the immersion of certain things very\nslightly defiled; which at once illustrates the ritual value of\nimmersion as compared with sprinkling, and the plainness of the language\nwhere immersion was meant.\n\n6. The baptisms, therefore, to which Paul refers as having been \u201cimposed\non\u201d Israel, could not have been immersions, and the word, _baptizo_, did\nnot in his vocabulary mean, to immerse.\n\n7. The only institutions to which he can have referred are comprehended\nunder the two heads of, administered rites, and self-performed washings.\n\n8. The self-washings were not sacraments, or seals of the covenant, but\nmonitory symbols of duty.\n\n9. The gradation of these washings, the frequency and circumstances of\ntheir observance, and the limited facilities available, render it\nimpossible that they can have been immersions.\n\n10. Their symbolic significance, the words used to describe them, the\ncustoms as to ablutions, and the washings of the priests in the court of\nthe sanctuary, and of the high priest in the holy place, concur to\ndemonstrate that they were ablutions performed by affusion.\n\n11. The administered rites were sacramental seals of the covenant. They\nwere essentially one in meaning, office, and form; and were invariably\nperformed with a hyssop bush, by an official administrator, sprinkling\nthe recipient with living water, in which was the blood or ashes of\nsacrifice.\n\n12. In the Hellenistic Greek, the language of the Septuagint, the\nApocrypha, and the New Testament, these purifications by sprinkling were\ncalled _baptisms_, and they were known and designated by that name by\nthe primitive fathers of the Christian church.\n\n13. These sprinklings of the law were the \u201cdivers baptisms\u201d of Paul. So\nfar, therefore, from _baptizo_ meaning to dip, or, to immerse, and\nnothing else, it is an indisputable fact that for at least fifteen\nhundred years after the first institution of the rite, baptism was\nalways performed by sprinkling.\n\n14. The ordinance was first instituted to seal the covenant by which the\nchurch of God was founded in Israel; and that form of it in which the\nashes of the red heifer were used was divinely appointed as the ordinary\nrite for the reception of applicants to the privileges of that covenant\nand church.\n\n15. Its symbolism set forth all that is recognized in the Scriptures as\nmeant by Christian baptism. Especially and distinctively was it the\nsacrament of the purification, or remission of sins.\n\n16. The figure presented in the form of sprinkling or pouring is derived\nfrom the rain descending out of heaven, penetrating the earth and making\nit fruitful; and it signifies the Spirit of life from God imparted to\nthe dead, entering the heart, purging its corruption, and creating new\nlife. To the case of indwelling corruption, with reference to which this\nrite was appointed, no external washing, such as immersion is supposed\nto represent, can be of any avail.\n\n17. Affusion is the constant form of action in the ritual law, whether\nwith water, blood, or oil, to signify the efficient agency of the Lord\nJesus, in all the functions of administration in his mediatorial office.\n\n18. The recipients of the Levitical baptism, were, at its first\ninstitution, the whole congregation of Israel, old and young, thus\npurified from the defilements of Egypt, sealed unto the covenant of God,\nand installed as his church. Afterward, they were all, without\ndistinction of sex, age, or nation, who having been suspended for any\ncause from the communion of the church of Israel, sought in the\nappointed way restoration; or who were received into it, as infants or\nproselytes.\n\n19. While this rite was the door of admission to the privileges of the\ncovenant, at Sinai, and so long as the Levitical system survived, it is\nappropriated by the Spirit, as the chosen figure by which is set forth,\nin prophecy, the bestowal of the grace of Christ upon the Gentiles, in\nthe gospel day, and upon Israel, restored. \u201cSo shall he sprinkle many\nnations.\u201d \u201cThen will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be\nclean.\u201d\n\n20. The figures of speech corresponding to the forms of sprinkling and\npouring appear everywhere in the Old Testament. Pervading and\ndetermining the entire structure of the ritual law, they reappear\ncontinually, in the historical records, in the devotional and penitent\nutterances of the Psalmist, the discourses of the Preacher, and the\nexpostulations and warnings of the prophets, and in their glad\nanticipations of the grace of the coming Messiah. With one and the same\nspiritual meaning everywhere, these figures pervade and control the\nwhole texture of thought and mode of expression of the sacred writers.\n\n21. This rite of purification by sprinkling was not only thus familiar\nto Israel, but, under corrupted forms, it had been disseminated\nthroughout the civilized world; so that when the apostles went forth to\ncarry the gospel to the nations, the ideas of sin and guilt, defilement\nand cleansing, thus nourished, were a very important element in the\nprovidential preparation of the world to appreciate and accept the\nsalvation of Christ. While such was the case, the fact is equally\nsignificant that among the nations contiguous to Israel there is no\ntrace of ritual purification by immersion,\u2014a form of observance which,\nhad it existed in Israel, could not have failed of imitation by her\nidolatrous neighbors.\n\nThus assiduously and multifariously were the people of Israel taught,\nand trained\u2014by instructions, by warnings, by promises, by rites and\nceremonies, enjoined and observed at the sanctuary and at home, which\nlaid hold upon them in every relation of their being and every function\nof their lives\u2014to conceive of themselves in all their sinfulness and\nneed, and of the coming Messiah in his offices of grace, in the light of\nthis ordinance, and according to the similitude embodied in it. For\nfifteen centuries these influences were continually at work, until the\nvery bent and tendency of their thoughts and conceptions, in so far as\nthey yielded themselves to the divine agencies thus applied, were\nmoulded to the forms of those rites.\n\nIn view of the facts thus developed, two questions present themselves\nfor thoughtful consideration as we proceed with our inquiry. (1.) Is it\nto be imagined that John and Jesus, in coming to fulfill the prophecies\nof the Old Testament, which were embodied in sprinkled baptism, would\nignore that ordinance, and silently substitute in its place the rite of\nimmersion; thus bringing to naught and repudiating the products of the\ndivine discipline so assiduously pursued through all those centuries,\nand dissolving every tie of association between the gospel of Christ and\nthe hopes and expectations which the saints had been taught to cherish,\nby the unanimous testimony of the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, all\nspeaking in the language of the repudiated rite? (2.) Since the name of\n_baptism_, was, beyond question the designation used for the Levitical\nsprinklings, how else can we understand John, Christ, and the apostles,\nthan as meaning the same thing, in the similar use which they make of\nthe same word?\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE GREEK BATH.\u2014From Sir. Wm. Hamilton\u2019s\n vases, in Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Greek and Roman\n Antiquities; article \u201c_Balne\u00e6_.\u201d\n]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II.\n NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\n PART VII.\n INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\n SECTION XLVI.\u2014_State of the Question._\n\nBefore entering upon an examination of the New Testament, it will be\nwell to notice distinctly what, at this stage of our inquiry, is the\nprecise state of the question to which our attention is directed. In a\nword, two rites present themselves, each claiming to be the true and\nlegitimate ordinance which Christ commanded to be dispensed to all\nnations.\n\nOn the one hand is the ritual sprinkling of water. In this rite, we\nhave an ordinance instituted at Sinai by divine command, with specific\ndirections as to the mode of observance, and abundant exemplification\nin the history of Israel and the writings of the Old Testament,\u2014an\nordinance by which the tribes of Israel and the Gentile children of\nMidian were both alike received and sealed unto the covenant of\nGod,\u2014its rites replete with the richest gospel meaning, as expounded\nby poets and prophets, and constituting in connection with the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, a clear and symmetrical representation of the whole plan of\ngrace. In this ordinance, the sprinkling of water for the ritual\npurging of sin, is a lucid symbol of the very baptizing office which\nis now fulfilled from the throne of heaven by Him whom John\nfore-announced as the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. That the doctrine\nwhich the New Testament identifies with Christian baptism was\nsymbolized by the ordinance, in its Old Testament form, can not be\nsuccessfully questioned; nor that there was a beautiful symmetry,\ncongruity and significance in each several part and feature of the\nobservance. It thus stands forth, luminous with most precious gospel\ntruth. Appointed of God at Sinai, as the most fitting form under which\nto figure the first act of His grace, in the bestowal of salvation on\nsinners,\u2014honored as the rite by which the church was at the beginning\nconsecrated to her exalted office, as God\u2019s witness and herald to the\nnations,\u2014it comes to the New Testament church, hoary and venerable\nwith a history of fifteen centuries,\u2014embalmed and hallowed by\ncommemoration in the poetic strains of the psalmist and the brightest\nvisions of the prophets, and fragrant from association with the\nprofoundest and most precious experiences of God\u2019s people, in all\nthose centuries, and with every beam of hope for a better life beyond,\nwhich shone into their stricken hearts, in the times of bereavement\nand mourning. It comes, its image indelibly stamped on the face of\nGod\u2019s word, and its conceptions therein transmitted to blend with the\nclearer visions of hope revealed to the gospel church, by Him, in whom\nlife and immortality are brought to light.\n\nOn the other hand is that form of observance in which the person of the\nsubject is immersed in water, as a symbol of the burial of the Lord\nJesus. For this rite, no higher antiquity is claimed, by its advocates,\nthan that involved in its supposed institution by the Lord Jesus, after\nhis resurrection. It has no precedent in the Levitical ritual, nor place\namong the figures employed by the Old Testament writers. The prophets\ndid not foreshadow it in their imagery, nor the psalmist in his strains.\nAll other rites of divine authority, are distinctly described, both as\nto office and form. But, of the rite of immersion, there is neither\ndescription nor explanation anywhere in the Scriptures. Its evidence\nstands wholly in definitions, contrary to the unanimous testimony of\nlexicographers, unsustained by any broad inductions from the facts and\nanalogy of Scripture, and at variance with the conclusions which such\ninduction demands.\n\nAnd when we examine the relations and details of the rite, we find\nincongruity and contradiction conspicuously displayed. If the rite be\nregarded as a typical seal of the covenant of grace, as are all\nsacraments, it follows that the administrator represents the Lord Jesus,\nadministering the true baptism, the real seal of that covenant. But, if\nbaptism is by immersion, to represent the burial of the body of the Lord\nJesus, we are reduced to the alternative that the office of the\nadministrator means nothing, in which case we have a burial with no one\nto perform it;\u2014or, that he represents Joseph of Arimathea, and\nNicodemus; by whom the body of Jesus was laid in the sepulcher.\n\nAgain, in the Scriptures everywhere, and especially, and in the most\nexpress terms, by the Lord Jesus himself (John iv, 14; vii, 37-39),\nliving water is recognized as the divinely appointed symbol of the Holy\nSpirit, as the Spirit of quickening and life. How beautifully and richly\nappropriate to this purpose it is, we have seen. But, according to the\nimmersion theory, the dipping of the person in this element,\u2014that is,\nmersion in water of life, represents the consigning of the body of Jesus\nto the grave, the den of corruption and death!\n\nBesides, the supposed resemblance of this rite to the burial of Christ\u2019s\nbody is a transparent misconception. It results from the transfer to\nPalestine of ideas derived from the wholly different western method of\ninterment. In the sense required by immersion, Jesus never was \u201cburied.\u201d\nThe sepulcher of Joseph, in which his body was laid was not a grave, but\na spacious above-ground chamber. Such were its dimensions that, at one\ntime, on the morning of the resurrection, there were present in it \u201cMary\nMagdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and other women,\u201d at\nleast five or six persons, and with them the two angels before whom they\nfell prostrate. (Luke xxiv, 1-10.) To this day, the hillsides around\nJerusalem and throughout Palestine are pierced with innumerable such\nchambers, excavated horizontally in the rock, and frequently used as\ndwellings by the present inhabitants. Such was the sepulcher of\nJesus,\u2014an artificial chamber with a perpendicular door, so that Peter\nand John and the women could by stooping walk into it.\u2014John xx, 5-8. The\nentombing of Jesus was no more a burial, in the sense required by the\nimmersion theory, than was the laying of the body of Dorcas in an upper\nchamber. (Acts ix, 37.) The supposed similitude of immersion in water is\na figment of the imagination, in entire disregard of the real facts.\n\nBut, even should we allow the ordinance to be a true and fitting symbol\nof the burial of Christ, it remains void of all spiritual significance.\nStudy it as we may, it teaches nothing,\u2014it means nothing. In all other\nsacraments the plan of salvation, in one or other of its grand features,\nis lucidly represented. The Lord\u2019s supper is the acknowledged symbol of\nChrist\u2019s atonement and death, and of the manner in which he imparts to\nhis people the benefits of that death,\u2014while they by faith feed upon his\nbroken body. According to the immersion theory, baptism represents and\nshows forth the burial of the dead body of Jesus, contradistinguished\nfrom his death, as symbolized in the Lord\u2019s supper. But that burial is a\nthing wholly unimportant and insignificant, in itself, whether viewed as\nto the fact or the mode. No emphasis is ever in the Scriptures put upon\neither, nor spiritual meaning attributed to them. Thus, if we admit\nimmersion to a place among the ordinances, it must remain a mere form,\nshedding no ray of divine light,\u2014an opaque spot among the luminaries in\nthe instructive constellation of Scripture rites. The result moreover of\naccepting this ordinance is, to strip the New Testament church of all\nsacramental knowledge of the power and glory of Christ\u2019s triumphant\nsceptre. In Levitical baptism, the Old Testament church had a most\nbeautiful pledge of his triumph over death and a symbol of his grace\nshed down from the throne of his glory. But, upon the immersion theory,\nall this is utterly ignored in the New Testament ritual, and all\nattention directed to the humiliation, sufferings and death,\u2014one\nsacrament setting forth his death, and the other his burial; whilst both\nare left void of meaning; since the intent of the abasement can only be\nfound in his exaltation, and the baptizing office exercised from his\nthrone. We are to believe that at the very moment when his exaltation\nbecame a glorious reality, and his baptizing office an active function,\nand when these facts had become the very crown and sum of the gospel\nthereupon sent forth to the world, all trace of them was obliterated\nfrom the sacramental system, to the marring of its symmetry and the\nutter destruction of its completeness and adequacy as a symbolical\ngospel.\n\nMoreover, it is the office of the rite of baptism, to seal admission to\nthe benefits of the covenant, in the bosom of the visible church.\nAppropriate to this office, the Old Testament rite was a symbol of that\nrenewing and cleansing which the Lord Jesus by his Spirit gives, in the\nbestowal upon his people of the benefits of the better covenant, and the\nfellowship of the invisible church. The same import is attributed to\nbaptism throughout the New Testament. But in the rite of immersion, as\nsymbolizing the burial of the Lord Jesus, not only is this meaning\nexcluded, but the ordinance has no conceivable congruity to the office\nwhich it fills. Dr. Carson attempts to evade this difficulty by the\nassumption that there are two distinct emblems in baptism,\u2014one, of\npurification by washing; another of death, burial and resurrection, by\nimmersion.[66] Then, we are to understand that in baptism, the\nadministrator represents at once, the men by whom the body of Jesus was\nlaid in the sepulchre, and the Lord Jesus himself, dispensing the\nbaptism of his Spirit! The water symbolizes both the grave which is the\nabode of death and corruption, and the Holy Spirit of life! And the\nimmersion of the person of the baptized represents at one and the same\ntime, the placing of the body in the grave, and the bestowal of his\nSpirit by Jesus, for quickening and sanctifying his people! Manifestly,\nthe two sets of ideas thus brought together, as involved and represented\nin the one form, are wholly irreconcilable. They are not merely\nincongruous, but mutually destructive. To assert water, in one and the\nsame act, to signify the Spirit of life, and the corruption of the\ngrave; or an immersion to symbolize, at once, the burial of the dead\nbody, and the quickening of dead souls, is to deny it to have any\nmeaning at all. The rite may be labelled with these incongruous ideas.\nBut they can not be made to cohere in it. The theory ignores and\ncontradicts the true nature of the rites of God\u2019s appointment; which are\nnot mere mnemonical tokens, but representative figures, ordained as\ntestimonies, which convey intelligible expression of their meaning by\ntheir forms; and are therefore constructed upon fixed and invariable\nprinciples, and characterized by definiteness and unity of meaning.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Carson on Baptism, pp. 265-268.\n\nAre these difficulties evaded by falling back to the position of the\nfirst Baptist confession,\u2014that baptism \u201cbeing a sign, must answer the\nthing signified, which is, the interest the saints have in the death,\nburial and _resurrection_ of Christ; and that as certainly as the body\nis buried under the water and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies\nof the saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the\nresurrection?\u201d This is, to abandon the very citadel of the cause, which\nconsists in the position that the form and meaning of the ordinance are\nto be determined by a strict interpretation of the classic meaning of\nthe word _baptizo_. That word _never_ means \u201cburial and\nresurrection,\u201d\u2014the immersion and _raising up_ of the subject. It\n_sometimes_ means a submersion; that, and nothing more. This is now\ndistinctly admitted by the ablest representatives of the immersion\ntheory, as we shall see abundantly evinced before we close.\n\nSuch are some of the considerations that present themselves, as, at this\npoint in our inquiry, we view the two diverse rites which assume the\nname of Christian baptism. Their claims are now to be judged, by a\ncomparison of the New Testament evidence, with what has been already\nconcentrated from the law, the prophets, and the Psalms;\u2014writings all of\nthem equally authoritative and divine.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE GREEK BATH.\u2014The god, Eros, presides. From\n Sir. Wm. Hamilton\u2019s vases, in Smith\u2019s Dictionary\n of Greek and Roman Antiquities; article \u201c_Balne\u00e6_.\u201d\n]\n\n\n\n\n PART VIII.\n THE PURIFYINGS OF THE JEWS.\n\n\n SECTION XLVII.\u2014_Accounts of them in the Gospels._\n\nThe fact has been referred to already that at the great passover, in the\ndays of Hezekiah, to which the remnant of the ten tribes were invited by\nthe king, \u201ca multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh,\nIssachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the\npassover otherwise than it was written,\u201d not being \u201ccleansed according\nto the purification of the sanctuary;\u201d that, thereupon, a plague was\nsent among them; but at the intercession of the king, the Lord healed\nthe people. (2 Chron. xxx, 17-20.) In the law, it appears that, at the\nentreaty of certain persons, who, at the regular time of the passover,\nwere defiled by a dead body, provision was made for a second passover,\nto be kept a month later, by such as, by reason of defilement, or\nabsence at a great distance, could not keep it at the appointed time.\n(Num. ix, 6-11.) These facts illustrate the statement of John respecting\na certain occasion when the \u201cpassover was nigh at hand; and many went\nout of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify\nthemselves.\u201d\u2014John xi, 55. The self-washings could all be performed by\nthe people at home. But, in the later period of Jewish history, the\nashes were kept at Jerusalem, and the sprinkling of the unclean usually\nperformed there by the priests alone. Hence, the coming of these Jews to\nJerusalem for purifying before the feast. It is thus evident that at all\nthe annual feasts, the preparatory purifying of the people must have\nbeen a very conspicuous feature of the occasion, a fact of no little\nsignificance, as bearing upon the observances in the Eleusinian\nmysteries, already referred to.\n\nWe have shown the name of _baptism_ to have been used to designate both\nthe Levitical rite of sprinkling with the water of separation and the\nritual purifyings invented by the scribes. With the growth of\nritualistic zeal, the occasions for the latter observances were\nmultiplied. The earliest allusion to them, in the life of our Savior,\nappears in connection with his first miracle, wrought in Cana of Galilee\nat the marriage feast. \u201cThere were set there six water pots of stone,\nafter the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three\nfirkins apiece.\u201d\u2014John ii, 6. That this provision for the purposes of\nritual purifying upon such an occasion was absolutely necessary, in\nobedience to the traditions of the scribes, will presently appear.\n\nThe next occasion on which these rites come into notice, is recorded by\nLuke. In the course of our Lord\u2019s second tour through Galilee, after\nhaving preached the gospel to a vast concourse, \u201ca certain Pharisee\nbesought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And\nwhen the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first _baptized_\n(_ebaptisth\u0113_), before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye\nPharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your\ninward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he\nthat made that which is without make that which is within also? But\nrather give alms of such things as ye have; and behold all things are\nclean unto you.\u201d\u2014Luke xi, 37-41.\n\nThe next incident is mentioned very briefly by Matthew (xv, 1-9), and\nmore fully in Mark. The apprehensions of the rulers at Jerusalem seem to\nhave been aroused by reports of Christ\u2019s ministry, and the excitement\ncaused by it among the people of Galilee. And as they had formerly sent\nmessengers to challenge John, so, now, scribes and Pharisees from\nJerusalem were on the watch to find occasion against Jesus. And \u201cwhen\nthey saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say,\nwith unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the\nJews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition\nof the elders. And when they come from the market, except they _baptize_\n(_ean m\u0113 baptis\u014dntai_), they eat not, and many other things there be\nwhich they have received to hold, as the _baptisms_ (_baptismous_), of\ncups and pots, brazen vessels and tables\u201d (or \u201cbeds.\u201d So the margin and\nthe Greek.)\u2014Mark vii, 1-4.\n\nThese are the only places in which the ritual purifyings of the\nPharisees are so mentioned as to shed light upon the subject of our\ninquiry. In them, we trace three distinct observances. These are\nenumerated by Mark, who represents them as common to \u201cthe Pharisees and\nall the Jews.\u201d They are, (1) Washing the hands, before meals; (2)\nBaptism, after coming from the markets; (3) The baptisms of utensils and\nfurniture.\n\n\n SECTION XLVIII.\u2014_Washing the Hands before Meals._\n\nIt appears to have been a custom, enjoined by tradition and observed by\nall the Jews, always to wash the hands ritually before eating. The\norigin and meaning of the tradition may probably be inferred from a few\nScriptural facts. (1.) Flesh was used for sacrifice, before it was given\nto man for food. Compare Gen. i, 29; iv, 4; viii, 20; ix, 3. It was thus\ntransferred from the altar to the table. (2.) One essential idea in the\nLevitical system as to sacrifice, was communion of Israel with God at\nhis table. Of this, the passover was but one among many illustrations\nwhich the books of Moses contain. (Deut. xii, 17, 18, 27, etc.) (3.)\nHence, all eating of flesh was treated as sacrificial in its nature,\nand, therefore, the prohibition of blood\u2014a prohibition perpetuated in\nthe church by the apostles. (Gen. ix, 4; Lev. xvii, 3-14; Deut. xii,\n20-27; Acts xv, 20, 29.[67]) If, to these facts be added the rule which\nrequired the priests to wash themselves before entering upon their\nofficial duties, one of which was the eating of the sacrificial flesh in\nthe holy place, and the words of the Psalmist,\u2014\u201cI will wash mine hands\nin innocency, so will I compass thine altar, O Lord\u201d (Psa. xxvi, 6), we\nwill have the probable foundation of the ritualistic structure.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n This is not the place to enlarge upon the present obligation of this\n law. In the above places, the reader will find it, as at first given\n to Noah, as expounded and perpetuated under the Levitical\n dispensation, and as again re-enforced upon the Gentile churches by\n the apostles. When and why was it abrogated?\n\nAs to the mode of these washings, the rules given in the ritual law are\nvery significant. But two cases in which the washing of the hands was\nrequired are there found. One of these is the washing of the hands of\nthe elders in expiation of a concealed murder. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.) Here\nthe circumstances render it certain that the water was poured on the\nhands. The other is mentioned in Lev. xv, 11, where the English,\n\u201crinsed,\u201d represents the Hebrew, _sh\u0101taph_, to dash, or pour on with\nviolence. If the Jews imitated the Levical rites they did not immerse\ntheir hands. Mark throws but little light upon the mode of the Pharisaic\nwashing. In the expression, \u201cexcept they wash their hands _oft_,\u201d the\nlast word of the original (_pugm\u0113_,\u2014\u201coft\u201d), probably had a technical\nmeaning, by which the mode was designated. But if such was the case,\nthat meaning has been lost. By some writers, it is interpreted, \u201cto the\nelbows,\u201d \u201cto the wrist,\u201d \u201cwith closed fist,\u201d etc. But all this is mere\nconjecture, as is the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, that it denoted a\ncertain form of the affusion of water upon the hands.\n\nThe account of the marriage feast affords ground for surer deductions.\nThere were set six water pots of stone, holding two or three firkins\napiece. Whatever were the rites referred to by Mark, under the two\ndesignations of \u201cwashing the hands,\u201d and \u201cbaptism,\u201d it was necessary\nthat sufficient water should be provided for all occasions of both kinds\nwhich were likely to occur, in the large concourse of wedding guests, of\nwhom Christ and the apostles were but a small proportion. For, whilst\nthe guests, generally, were expected, of course, to make use of the\nordinary rite, by washing their hands, there might be numbers who had\nincurred such exposure as to require the appointed _baptism_. What,\nthen, are the indications as to the nature of the rites thus provided\nfor?\n\nThe capacity of the water-pots, according to the most probable estimate,\nwas not more than ten gallons each. The highest supposition sets them at\nabout eighteen. They were, therefore, altogether too small to have been\nused as bath-tubs, for the immersion of the guests. The possibility,\ntherefore, of such a necessity, did not enter into the calculations of\nthose who provided for the occasion. Were the waterpots, then, used for\nimmersing the hands? The customs of the east, then and to this day,\u2014the\nfact that Jesus and his disciples evidently appear as but a small\nproportion of the guests,\u2014and the quantity of wine miraculously made by\nJesus for their supply, unite to certify that the great body of the\ncommunity of Cana was present at the feast. The first suggestion,\ntherefore, that presents itself is, that the supposed process must soon\nhave rendered the water disgusting, from its use in the manner supposed,\nby a succession of persons. Another and conclusive fact is the use made\nby our Savior of these waterpots. The feast had been some time in\nprogress, so that the guests had \u201cwell drunk,\u201d before the exhausting of\nthe wine. All had been purified, and the pots, appropriated to that use,\nstood with the remaining water, as thus left. When, Jesus said to the\nservants,\u2014\u201cFill the waterpots with water,\u201d \u201cthey filled them to the\nbrim,\u201d and immediately carried the wine to the governor of the feast.\nThe servants were ignorant of the purpose of Jesus, and, as the\nnarrative shows, simply did as they were directed. There was no emptying\nof foul water. There was no cleansing of the waterpots. There is no\nconsciousness, manifested in the narrative, of occasion for it. Nor was\nthere time. It was in the midst of the feast; and the wine was already\nexhausted, although the ruler of the feast and the guests were unaware\nof it. (V. 9.) The account of the transaction was written by John, an\neye-witness, for the information of cotemporaries who were familiar with\nthe rites of purifying, whatever they were. And had they been performed\n_in_ the water, in any way, an explanation was necessary, or the\ninference became inevitable that the vessels were used just as they\nstood. In these circumstances, is it to be imagined that the waterpots\nalready contained the washings of the guests; or even that they were\nemptied of these and then appropriated as recepticles of the wine, which\nwas immediately served to the very persons who had just washed in them?\nClearly, the facts compel the conclusion that \u201cthe purifyings of the\nJews,\u201d here provided for were not done _in_ the waterpots, but with\nwater taken from them, and poured or sprinkled on the guests.\n\nThis conclusion is confirmed by the explicit testimony of the rabbins.\nRabbi Akiva was a doctor of the law of the most eminent reputation, his\ndisciples being numbered by thousands. He was president of the\nsanhedrim, less than one hundred years after the death of Christ. Being\nmade prisoner by the Romans, upon the suppression of the insurrection of\nBar Kokeba, of which he was an active promoter, he was thrown into\nprison awaiting execution. When food was brought to him, the jailer\nthinking the supply of water too liberal, poured the greater part on the\nground. The rabbi although famishing of thirst, directed what remained\nto be _poured upon his hands_, saying, \u201cIt is better to die with thirst\nthan to transgress the traditions of the elders.\u201d\n\n\n SECTION XLIX.\u2014_Baptism upon return from Market._\n\nAnother point in Mark\u2019s statement is, that, \u201cWhen they come from the\nmarket, except they _baptize_, they eat not.\u201d Here, it would seem that\nMark means something different and more important than the ordinary\nwashing of the hands, to which he has just before referred. It is an\nadditional statement, of other rites employed on special occasions. The\nword, _agora_, which is translated \u201cthe market,\u201d has a much more\nextensive signification than the English word. Its primary meaning is, a\nconcourse, an assembly, of any kind. And while it was used among others,\nto designate the assemblies for traffic, and hence the places of such\nassemblies, it is not, in the text, to be understood in that limited\nsense; but as comprehensive of all promiscuous assemblages of the\npeople, in which a person was liable unwittingly to come in contact with\nthe unclean. It was upon occasion of our Savior\u2019s coming from such an\nassembly, that the Pharisee of whom Luke informs us was surprised that\nhe had not first _baptized_ before dinner. He had been preaching in the\nmidst of a multitude \u201cgathered thick together\u201d (Luke xi, 29), when he\nreceived and accepted the invitation to dine. He had thus been exposed\nto a contact which the Pharisees would have carefully avoided, as liable\nto involve them, unaware, in the extremest defilement, and to render\nnecessary special rites of purifying. This was undoubtedly the cause of\nthe surprise of the Pharisee at the conduct of Jesus.\n\nAs to the mode of the baptism here referred to, the gospels are silent.\nIn favor of the supposition that it was immersion, there is nothing\nwhatever in the Scriptures. It rests wholly upon the assumption that\nthat is the meaning of _baptizo_. The circumstances all very strongly\nfavor the conclusion, that as the major defilements of the Mosaic law\nwere all purged by sprinkling, so this, the major defilement of\nPharisaic tradition was cleansed in a kindred way. Among the indications\nin favor of this conclusion are, the fact that the provision made for\npurifying at the marriage feast excludes the idea of immersion;\u2014the\nentire silence of the Scriptures as to any facilities for that\npurpose;\u2014the incongruity of the supposition to the circumstances of\nJesus, in the act of sitting down at the Pharisee\u2019s table;\u2014the absence\nfrom the narrative of any allusion to means provided by the Pharisee for\nthe performance, in that mode, of a rite by him so highly esteemed, and\nfor which special provision was necessary;\u2014and the improbability of such\na form gaining prevalence among \u201cthe Pharisees and all the Jews,\u201d\ninvolving, of necessity, both expense and labor, to an intolerable\nextent. If, on the contrary, as we may reasonably suppose, the house of\nthe Pharisee was provided with appliances, \u201cafter the manner of the\npurifying of the Jews,\u201d they would consist of water pots set at the\ndoor, as at the marriage feast, out of which the guests, as they\nentered, could take water for pouring on their hands, or baptizing their\npersons by sprinkling, without inconvenience or delay.\n\nWe have formerly seen that the self-washings of the Mosaic law,\u2014in which\nalone its advocates have ever pretended that immersion may be found in\nthe Old Testament,\u2014were of continual recurrence in every family. We find\nin the time of Christ the rites supplemented by those now in question,\nwhich were of even more frequent occasion. If they were performed by\nself-washing, by affusion, or by sprinkling, such provision of vessels\nas thus indicated was all-sufficient. But if they were immersions of the\nperson, the almost daily necessities of every family would have required\nnot only an extraordinary supply of water, but a capacious bath tub in\nevery house. Without such a vessel and supply, at home, immersion of the\nperson, with the frequency required, was not merely improbable; it was\nimpossible. But such arrangements would have involved an amount of\nexpense and of labor which no people could endure.\n\nIf we open the Scriptures to inquire what is their testimony on this\npoint, on which, if the system of immersion was in operation, some hints\ncould not fail to appear, we find that the one only statement or\nallusion is contained in the account of the six water pots at the\nmarriage feast. They were set \u201cafter the manner of the purifying of the\nJews.\u201d This expression, alike in itself, and in the attendant\ncircumstances, as already considered, is exclusive of the supposition\nthat any purifying rite was observed among the Jews, for which the water\npots were not a sufficient provision. In short, all the evidence concurs\nto determine that \u201cthe purifying of the Jews,\u201d however performed, was\nnot by immersion of the person.\n\n\n SECTION L.\u2014_A Various Reading._\n\nThere is a various reading, in the Greek manuscripts, which is full of\nmeaning with reference to our present inquiry. Whilst many manuscripts,\nincluding the Alexandrian, which is referred to the fifth century, read\n_baptis\u014dntai_,\u2014\u201cexcept they _baptize_ they eat not,\u201d (Mark vii, 4); the\ntwo oldest and of the highest authority, the codices Sinaiticus and\nVaticanus, both dating from the fourth century, and with them numbers of\na later date, read, _rantis\u014dntai_, \u201cexcept they _sprinkle_ they eat\nnot.\u201d The presumption is very strong in favor of _rantis\u014dntai_ being the\ntrue reading. Its bearing on the logical connection of Mark\u2019s statement\nis worthy of note. According to it, he describes three classes of rites.\nHe specifies, first, _self-washings_ of the hands, as always used before\ndinner; second, certain _sprinklings_, resorted to upon supposition of\nmore serious defilements; and third, _baptisms_ of pots and cups, etc.,\nthe modes of purifying, for which, prescribed in the law, were various.\nThe relation of these purifyings to those appointed by Moses is\napparent. They coincide with the self-washings, the sprinklings, and the\npurifying of things prescribed by him. The various readings here involve\nconsiderations of great importance. As before stated, _rantis\u014dntai_ is\nthe reading of the two oldest and most highly esteemed manuscripts,\ndating back to within about two hundred and fifty years of the death of\nthe apostle John. These manuscripts are recognized by critical scholars\nas being so far independent of each other that their various readings\nindicate the gradual divergence which would progress from copy to copy\nthrough several generations of manuscripts; so that the reading on which\nthey unite must have originated, if not with the evangelist, at least\nvery soon after the first publication of his gospel. On the other hand,\nthe reading, _baptis\u014dntai_, first found in the Alexandrian codex, of the\nfifth century, appears in the great majority of extant manuscripts. We\nmay confidently conclude that there must have been earlier copies of\nhigh authority in which this reading was found. It thus appears that at\na time but little if any removed from the age of the apostles, these two\nreadings existed side by side in the received copies of the gospel.\n\nThis fact is the more significant in view of the jealous care with which\nthe purity of the New Testament text was guarded. So long as the last of\nthe apostles survived, his inspired authority was an available resort on\nall questions of controversy, arising in the churches. (2 Cor. xi, 28; 3\nJohn 9, 10.) During this period, the importance of an absolutely pure\ntext of the writings of the apostles and evangelists was not fully\nappreciated. The work of transcription was left to the zeal of private\nindividuals, who were often wanting in the necessary qualifications;\nwhilst there was no system of responsible revision. It was probably\nduring this period, closing about fifty years after the death of the\napostle John, that the most important variations and errors crept in.\nAbout that time, the importance of a pure text, as an authoritative\nstandard of appeal on questions of controversy, began to be felt; and,\nthereafter, great vigilance was exercised by the officers of the church\nin securing correct copies. The transcriptions were made from the best\nand most accurate manuscripts. And when a copy was made, it appears to\nhave been subjected to a critical revision, after having been first\ncollated usually by the scribe himself, with the copy from which it was\ntaken, for the purpose of correcting any clerical errors, that might\nhave occurred in the transcription. The manuscript was then handed over\nto \u201cthe corrector,\u201d whose business it was to revise the text by a\ncomparison with other available manuscripts. In this office the services\nof the most learned and able men in the church were employed; and it was\nnot until sanctioned by such revision that a manuscript was accepted as\nan authentic copy. Beside the process here described, the ancient\nmanuscripts abound in changes made by subsequent critics. The codex\nSinaiticus exhibits alterations \u201cby at least ten different revisers,\nsome of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or\nlimited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being\ncotemporaneous with the first writer; far the greater part belonging to\nthe sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.\u201d[68]\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Scrivener\u2019s Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, Introduction, p. xx.\n\nIn view of the diligence of the criticism thus systematically exercised,\nthe fact is very remarkable that the two readings, _baptis\u014dntai_, and\n_rantis\u014dntai_ should have been transmitted side by side, and traceable\nback nearly to the apostolic age. And it is further remarkable, that no\none of the ten successive critics whose revisions are traceable on the\ncodex Sinaiticus has corrected the place in question so as to read\n_baptis\u014dntai_, although it is certain that reading did extensively\nprevail. Nor is the variation alluded to in the writings of the fathers.\nIt is immaterial to the present argument which is the true reading. If\nit was _rantis\u014dntai_, the language of Mark explains the meaning of Luke.\nWhat the Pharisee expected was that Jesus should have _baptized_ himself\nby _sprinkling_. And, whichever is the true reading, this fact is patent\nthat at an age so early as to be undistinguishable from that of the\napostles and evangelists, so intimate was the relation between\nsprinkling and baptism that the one word was inadvertently substituted\nfor the other, in transcription; and the alteration received by the\nablest men in the church, without question or protest, then or\nafterward, or the betrayal even of a consciousness of change; despite\nthe watchfulness of a criticism systematic in its exercise and jealous\nfor the purity of the text. If the primitive church understood baptism\nto mean immersion, if the rite was administered in that, as the only\nScriptural mode, the occurrence of the case here presented would have\nbeen plainly impossible. It could only happen where the two words were\nidentified as designating the same rite. How easily the words might be\nconfounded will appear by a comparison of them as written in the\nprimitive Greek, known as uncials, or capital letters:\u2014\n\n \u0392\u0391\u03a0\u03a4\u0399\u0396\u03a9\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u0399.\n\n \u03a1\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u0396\u03a9\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u0399\n\nWere the first and third letters dimly written, or blurred, the one word\nmight readily be taken for the other.\n\n\n SECTION LI.\u2014_Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture._\n\nAnother point in Mark\u2019s statement is the baptisms of cups and pots,\nbrasen vessels and tables. It is unnecessary to insist upon the argument\nwhich is deducible from the practical impossibility of the immersion of\nthese things; nor to notice the theories which have been devised to\novercome the difficulties which it interposes to the Baptist mode. The\nreader who has followed the course of this history will recognize, in\nthe Levitical ordinances respecting the purifyings of things, the source\nwhence was derived the hint of these supererogatory rites. And a\ncomparison of the various Mosaic regulations on the subject will satisfy\nthe candid reader that the list here given is not designed to be\nexhaustive, but an exemplification merely of the observances in\nquestion. This is further evident from the fact that the enumeration, as\nmade by the Lord Jesus (v. 8), was of pots and cups, only; which Mark in\nhis subsequent account amplifies by the other additional examples.\nRespecting them, the ritual of Moses provided modes of purifying varied\nboth with respect to the nature of the things to be cleansed, and the\ncharacter of the defilements; as we have formerly seen. We may well\nsuppose that the scribes did not fail to imitate every form of the legal\npurifyings, in their additions to the law of God. It is not only\npossible, but very probable that some of these inventions were in the\nform of immersion. For, as we have formerly seen, that was one of the\nforms appointed in the law, for the purifying of things. But the\nevangelist speaks, not of one, but of various rites; which he designates\nby the plural and generic name of (_baptismous_),\u2014baptisms. The word\nthus selected is the very same which is used by Paul as the\ncomprehensive designation of the purifying rites of the Mosaic law,\u2014the\n\u201cdivers baptisms,\u201d imposed at Sinai. The conclusion is therefore\nirresistible, that whilst Paul used the word in a generic sense, as\ncomprehending the various forms of legal purification, among which the\nimmersion of person is not to be found, Mark uses it in a like generic\nsense as comprehensive of the various forms for the purifying of things,\namong which immersion _may_ have been one, although, if such was the\nfact, the proof is yet to be produced.\n\nThe result of our examination is, that among the Pharisaic rites, no\ntrace of the immersion of the person is to be found.\n\n\n\n\n PART IX.\n JOHN\u2019s$1BAPTISM.\n\n\n SECTION LII.\u2014_The History of John\u2019s Mission._\n\nThe account of John\u2019s ministry in the evangelists, is invariably\nintroduced by an appeal to the prophecies which foretold his coming and\noffice. A remarkable passage from Malachi is alluded to by the angel\nGabriel, in announcing to Zacharias the birth of the forerunner (Luke i,\n17), and by Mark in his introduction to the gospel. (Mark i, 2). A\nprophecy of Isaiah is cited in all the gospels; as is also John\u2019s own\naccount of his commission and office. It will be convenient for the\npurposes of the present discussion to bring these passages together.\nSays the Lord by Malachi, \u201cBehold, I will send my messenger, and he\nshall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall\nsuddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the covenant whom ye\ndelight in; behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may\nabide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? For\nhe is like a refiner\u2019s fire and like fuller\u2019s soap; and he shall sit as\na refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi,\nand purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an\noffering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and\nJerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in\nformer years. And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a\nswift witness against the sorcerers.... Remember ye the law of Moses my\nservant which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the\nstatutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet,\nbefore the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he\nshall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of\nthe children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth\u201d (the\nland of Israel) \u201cwith a curse.\u201d\u2014Mal. iii, 1-5; iv, 4-6.\n\nThe citation from Isaiah (xl, 3-5), together with John\u2019s exposition of\nit, is thus given by Luke. \u201cJohn came into all the country about Jordan,\npreaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; as it is\nwritten in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The\nvoice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord;\nmake his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every\nmountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made\nstraight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall\nsee the salvation of God. Then said he to the multitude that came forth\nto be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to\nflee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of\nrepentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to\nour father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise\nup children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of\nthe trees; every tree, therefore, which bringeth not forth good fruit is\nhewn down, and cast into the fire.... I indeed baptize you with water;\nbut one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not\nworthy to unloose; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with\nfire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor,\nand will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn\nwith fire unquenchable.\u201d\u2014Luke iii, 3-17. In John\u2019s gospel, some\nadditional points are given. \u201cJohn seeth Jesus coming unto him, and\nsaith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.\nThis is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred\nbefore me; for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should\nbe made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.\nAnd John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven,\nlike a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not, but He that sent\nme to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt\nsee the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which\nbaptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that this is\nthe Son of God.\u201d\u2014John i, 29-34.\n\nThe title by which, in the prophecy of Malachi, the Lord Jesus is\ndesignated,\u2014\u201cthe _Messenger of the covenant_,\u201d carries us back to the\nscene at Sinai, when the covenant was made and sealed. In the close of\nthe prophecy, our attention is expressly directed to that occasion.\n\u201cRemember the law of Moses, which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all\nIsrael, with the statutes and judgments.\u201d The intimations thus given\nlead us up to the originating occasion of John\u2019s testimony.\n\nImmediately after the coming of Israel to Sinai, among the\ncommunications which expounded the covenant, preparatory to its sealing,\nthe Lord said to them, \u201cBehold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee\nin the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.\nBeware of him and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not\npardon your transgressions; for my name is in him.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiii, 20, 21.\nThis Angel is by the Lord elsewhere called \u201cMy Presence\u201d (Compare Ex.\nxiv, 19; xxxii, 34; xxxiii, 2, 14, 15), and by Isaiah, \u201cthe Angel of His\npresence.\u201d\u2014Isa. lxiii, 9. He is thus announced to Israel as sent to be\nGod\u2019s servant in the fulfilling of the Sinai covenant, and is hence by\nthe prophet called \u201cthe Messenger of the covenant.\u201d\n\nAnother line of facts leads in the same direction. When, at the mount,\nIsrael was overwhelmed with the terror of the great fire and of God\u2019s\naudible voice, and entreated Moses, \u201cSpeak thou with us, and we will\nhear; but let not God speak with us lest we die\u201d (Ex. xx, 19; Deut. v,\n22-27), their proposal thus to accept Moses as Mediator between them and\nGod was graciously approved. \u201cThey have well said, all that they have\nspoken.\u201d\u2014Deut. v, 28. Moses was accepted in that office, and Israel\ndismissed from the assembly at the mount. (Ib. 28-31.) But, afterward,\nMoses revealed to them how much more richly their abasement and prayer\nhad been answered than they had asked or imagined. \u201cThe Lord thy God\nwill raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy\nbrethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that\nthou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly,\nsaying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let\nme see this great fire any more that I die not. And the Lord said unto\nme, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them\nup a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my\nwords in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall\ncommand Him.\u201d\u2014Deut. xviii, 15-18. Compare John xiv, 31; xvii, 8, 14.\n\nWe are thus brought to the relation which Moses and the Sinai covenant,\nsustained to the Lord Jesus, and that better covenant of which he is the\nMediator. (Heb. viii, 6.) The covenant of Sinai as formally accepted by\nIsrael and ratified through the mediation of Moses, was of unspeakable\nmoment, as being the installation of the visible church. But it was, at\nthe same time, an outward type, a manifestation and announcement of the\ncovenant of grace made with the invisible church. Of the one, Moses was\nthe Mediator;\u2014of the other, the Lord Jesus. The one is founded upon the\npublic professions and promises of Moses and the assembly of Israel (Ex.\nxxxiv, 27);\u2014the other on the engagement of the Lord Jesus to fulfill all\nrighteousness. The former was graven on tables of stone; the latter is\nwritten in the fleshly tables of the hearts of Christ\u2019s people. (Jer.\nxxxi, 33; 2 Cor. iii, 3; Heb. viii, 10.) The former was sealed with the\nblood which was partly sprinkled on the Sinai altar, and partly mingled\nwith water and sprinkled on Israel; the latter, with the blood of\nsprinkling of Jesus Christ offered in the holy place in heaven, and the\nbaptism of the Spirit which, through the merits of that blood, he gives\nhis people.\n\nWe can now see the bearing of certain memorable words uttered by the\nLord Jesus. When Moses sealed the covenant, he sprinkled the book and\nthe people with the sacrificial blood and water, saying, \u201cBehold, the\nblood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all\nthese words.\u201d At the table, the night of the betrayal, the Lord Jesus\ntook the cup, and having given thanks, gave it to the disciples, saying,\n\u201cThis is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the\nremission of sins.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxvi, 28. He thus signified the typical nature\nof the transaction in the wilderness, as relating to him, and announced\nhimself about to fulfill all that it foreshadowed. Particularly did his\nlanguage, by appropriating that of the Sinai baptism, recognize both it\nand the supper as symbols and seals of the remission of sins, of which\nhis own blood bestows the reality.\n\nTo the same relation between the Sinai transactions and Christ\u2019s office\nand work, Peter bears witness. A few days after Pentecost, upon occasion\nof the healing of the impotent man, he reminded the wondering assembly\nof the promise made by Moses to the fathers.\u2014\u201cA prophet shall the Lord\nyour God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.... Yea and\nall the prophets, from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as\nhave spoken, have likewise foretold _of these days_.\u201d\u2014Acts iii, 22-24.\n\n\n SECTION LIII.\u2014_Israel at the Time of John\u2019s Coming._\n\nWhen John came, the Jews had been for four hundred years without a\nprophet, or any sensible token of God\u2019s presence among them. The\ncaptivity and return from Babylon and subsequent circumstances in their\nhistory had effectually and finally cured the inveterate tendency to\nidolatry, which had characterized them from the days of the Egyptian\nbondage. But this change did not bring with it an awakening of true\nspiritual devotion to the service of God. Instead thereof an intense\nzeal of self-righteousness was cherished, under the two forms of a\nfanatical pride in the blood of Abraham, and an ardent devotion to the\nexternal forms and rites of religion, to tithes and offerings, to\nfastings and purifyings,\u2014to \u201crighteousnesses of the flesh,\u201d\u2014whilst the\nspirituality and power of the divine law were obscured and set aside by\nthe glosses and interpretations of the elders. Such was the religion of\nthe scribes, who \u201csat in Moses\u2019 seat,\u201d as the instructors of the people.\nThe great mass of the nation, led by these blind guides, were with them\nhastening to destruction; while the few who still sought after the God\nof their fathers were as sheep without a shepherd. In the meantime,\nJerusalem and Judea had been the prey alternately of the Ptolemies of\nEgypt, the Seleucid\u00e6 of Syria, and factions among themselves. After the\nsuccessful revolt of the Maccabees, a brief time of peace and prosperity\nwas enjoyed under the sceptre of that family. But the rivalry and\nseditions of its members brought in the Romans, under whose patronage\nthe Herodian family, of Edomite origin, had come into power.\n\nDuring the progress of these events, the whole land had been polluted\nwith crimes and atrocities of every kind, and of the deepest dye. The\nhigh priesthood was habitually subject to barter and sale, one possessor\nof the office giving place to another in rapid succession, as the\nrespective aspirants were able to purchase the office from the kings of\nSyria, or of Judea, or to seize it by violence or the favor of the\nrabble. The temple itself had been desecrated by being formally set\napart to the worship of Jupiter Olympius. And as though that was not\nenough, it had been yet more horribly defiled by fratricidal blood; an\naspirant for the high priesthood having secured and held the office by\nthe murder of his own brother, in the very precincts of the temple. The\nentire social system was rotten, and the nation was fast ripening for\nthe developments about to be witnessed, in the denial and crucifixion of\nthe Son of God, the rejection of the gospel, and the crimes which\nprecipitated society into a chaos of anarchy and a reign of terror,\nending in the destruction of the temple, the desolation of Jerusalem,\nand the dispersion of the nation to this day.\n\nThus, when John began his ministry, the land of Israel, the city, the\ntemple, and the nation were lying under the burden of the unexpiated and\nunrepented crimes of many centuries. (Matt. xxiii, 29-36.) The covenant\nwas forfeited and trampled under foot, and the land and the people were,\nin every sense, moral and ritual, utterly unclean. At the beginning of\nthe declension, the prophet Haggai had been sent to the priests with a\nlesson out of the law.\u2014\u201cAsk now the priests concerning the law, saying,\nIf one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt\ndo touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be\nholy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one\nthat is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?\nAnd the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered\nHaggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me,\nsaith the Lord: and so is every work of their hands, and that which they\noffer there is unclean.\u201d\u2014Hag. ii, 11-14. After the cotemporaneous\nministries of Haggai and Zechariah, the Spirit of prophecy was withdrawn\nfor about one hundred years. Then suddenly, a trumpet note from Malachi\nbroke the silence, with a brief and startling call.\u2014\u201cIf ye will not\nhear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name,\nsaith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will\ncurse your blessings. Yea I have cursed them already.... From the days\nof your fathers, ye are gone away from mine ordinances and have not kept\nthem. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of\nhosts.\u2014Mal. ii, 2; iii, 7. But they did not return. Thereupon, God their\nKing withdrew from all communication with them as a people, for four\ncenturies following.\n\nSuch was the situation of that people at the coming of John. They had\nthe oracles of God, his ordinances, and his temple; of which Haggai had\nsaid,\u2014\u201cI will shake all nations; and the Desire of all nations shall\ncome, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of\nhosts.\u201d\u2014Hag. ii, 7. But all this was as a piece of holy flesh in the\nskirt of a garment. It did not purify the nation, while their\nuncleanness defiled these and all their hallowed things.\n\n\n SECTION LIV.\u2014_The Nature and End of John\u2019s Baptism._\n\nWhilst Israel was thus apostate and excommunicate from God, the\nMessenger of his covenant was about to appear, in that character the\naspect of which, as toward the rebellious and unbelieving, had been\nespecially emphasized in the prophecies above cited; and the exercise of\nwhich resulted in the desolation of the land, and the dispersion of the\nnation a byword and a hissing in all lands. \u201cBeware of him and obey his\nvoice. Provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for\nmy Name is in him.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiii, 21. \u201cWho may abide the day of his coming?\nAnd who shall stand when he appeareth?\u201d\u2014Mal. iii, 2. So, John announced\nhim.\u2014\u201cWhose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor,\nand gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with\nunquenchable fire.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 12. His coming was, to Israel, the great\ncrisis in their history. Therefore the mission of John. Said the angel\nto Zacharias, \u201cHe shall go before Him in the Spirit and power of Elias,\nto turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to\nthe wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the\nLord.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 17.\n\nWhen the ten tribes had forsaken the worship of God on mount Zion,\nabandoned his covenant, and devoted themselves to the worship of Baal\nand Ashtoreth, Elijah was sent to them as the vindicator of the forsaken\ncovenant, and messenger of grace, of warning and of judgment. His first\nwork was to demonstrate the sovereignty and Godhead of Jehovah, and the\nimbecility of their false gods, by the famine of three years and six\nmonths, and by the fire from heaven consuming both sacrifice and altar\non Carmel. He then executed judgment upon the prophets of Baal and\nAshtoreth, the seducers of Israel, eight hundred and fifty in number. On\nthis occasion, Israel professed to recognize and do homage to the God of\ntheir fathers. But Elijah saw too clearly, that it was a conviction\nwithout root in their hearts and affections. When therefore he received\nJezebel\u2019s message of vengeance, his faith failed, and he fled to the\nwilderness, where he was fed by an angel and led forty days and forty\nnights \u201cto Horeb the mount of God,\u201d the spot where the covenant was made\nand sealed with the twelve tribes. (1 Kings xix, 8, 9.) \u201cAnd he came\nthither unto a cave and lodged there; and behold the word of the Lord\ncame to him, and He said to him, What dost thou here, Elijah?\u201d The\ninterview held at that place exhibits the prophet as the ordained\nchampion and avenger of the covenant. To the foregoing question twice\nproposed, he twice responds,\u2014\u201cI have been very jealous for the Lord God\nof hosts: for the children of Israel have _forsaken thy covenant_,\nthrown down thine altars; and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I,\neven I, only, am left; and they seek my life to take it away.\u201d\u2014vs. 10,\n14. Thereupon, he was commissioned to anoint Hazael, king over Syria;\nand Jehu king of Israel, and Elisha to be prophet in his stead;\u2014\u201cAnd it\nshall come to pass that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu\nslay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.\nYet I have left seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not\nbowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.\u201d\u2014vs. 15-18.\n\nThe office thus fulfilled by Elijah, as a messenger of grace, calling\nIsrael back to the allegiance of the abandoned covenant; and of wrath,\nannouncing and inflicting its penalty upon the transgressors, is the key\nto the closing words of the book of Malachi.\u2014\u201cRemember ye the law of\nMoses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,\nwith the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the\nprophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord;\u201d\nthe day, to wit, of the coming of \u201cthe Messenger of the covenant;\u201d \u201cand\nhe shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of\nthe children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a\ncurse.\u201d\u2014Mal. iv, 4-6. The same characteristics of John\u2019s ministry were\nthe occasion of the statement of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, before\ncited, \u201cHe shall go before Him, in the Spirit and power of Elias.\u201d In\nthe points here noticed, we have the explanation of the scene of the\ntransfiguration, in which Moses, the mediator of the Sinai covenant,\nElijah its vindicator against apostate Israel,\u2014and Jesus, the mediator\nof the new covenant, talked together \u201cof his decease which he should\naccomplish at Jerusalem,\u201d on behalf of the true Israel, and in\nfulfillment of the terms of the new covenant, typified in that of Sinai.\n(Luke ix, 31.)\n\nThe same office, of warning and testimony on behalf of the forsaken\ncovenant, which Elijah exercised toward the ten tribes, John fulfilled\nto the Jews. To understand the full force and significance of his\nmission, the fact must be distinctly appreciated that Christ\u2019s\nhumiliation and sufferings, however momentous in themselves, and however\ntranscendently important to us, were a mere transient incident in the\nwork undertaken by him. His coming into the world was a coming to the\nthrone, to which the cross was a mere stepping stone,\u2014a means to his\nexaltation, and to the achievements of his sceptre, in purging the\nFather\u2019s floor. In those achievements, justice and judgment are as\nconspicuous as grace; and if the latter witnessed a first signal and\nglorious display in the scenes of Pentecost, the former was as signally\nillustrated in the destruction and desolation of the city and land that\nrejected their King. It was with a view to the crisis thus created in\nthe history of Israel by the coming of Christ, that John was sent as his\nforerunner and herald. John did not ignore that abasement of Christ\nwhich was the antecedent condition and means of his exaltation and\nglory. But his distinctive theme, the subject which filled his heart and\ninspired his tongue, was the throne, the kingdom, the power and justice.\nOf it he was the official herald, and from it his preaching and baptism\ntook their form and significance. His commission was threefold; (1) To\nannounce the kingdom of heaven at hand, and herald the coming of the\nKing, the Messenger of the covenant, the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost\nand with fire; (2) To identify and point him out in the person of Jesus;\n(3) To prepare the way before him. In fulfillment of the first and\nsecond of these functions, John preached the coming of \u201cOne Mightier\nthan I,\u201d who should baptize Israel with the Holy Ghost and with fire. He\npointed out and announced the Lord Jesus as that coming One,\u2014\u201cthe Lamb\nof God that taketh away the sin of the world,\u201d\u2014\u201cthe Son of God.\u201d And by\nconnecting this testimony with his proclamation and baptism of\nrepentance for the remission of sins, he anticipated the preaching of\nthe apostles, and summed and published the gospel of atonement and\nremission through the blood of Christ. By this preaching and by the seal\nof baptism to those who received his testimony he fulfilled the third\nfunction above mentioned, and \u201cmade ready a people prepared for the\nLord.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 17.\n\nThere were two termini to which John\u2019s baptism sustained peculiar and\nintimate relations, and from which his ministry derived all its\nsignificance. The first was that \u201cday of the assembly\u201d at Sinai, when\nIsrael entered into the covenant by which she took God as her King and\nreceived the baptismal seal sprinkled by the hand of Moses. It was the\noffice of John to announce the personal coming of the King of Israel; to\nwarn them of the penalty of the violated covenant; announce the\nremission of sins and restoration of the covenant, to those who should\nrepent and return to their allegiance; and to certify this by the\nrenewal of the broken seal.\n\nThe second terminus to which John\u2019s baptism looked was that day when the\ncovenant King of Israel should appear in person, assume his throne, and\nenter on the functions announced by John, under the figures of the\nbaptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of fire. Of the former, so\nconspicuous in the prophecies, the baptism of Israel by Moses, and that\nnow administered by John, were alike typical. The grace of the Holy\nSpirit, administered by the enthroned Baptizer, was the end and\nfulfillment of both.\n\n\n SECTION LV.\u2014_The Extent of John\u2019s Baptism._\n\nThe public ministry of John commenced about six months before the\nbaptism of Jesus, and was terminated by his imprisonment soon after that\nevent. (Mark i, 14; Luke iii, 20, 21.) At first, his preaching was\nperipatetic. \u201cHe came into all the country about Jordan,\npreaching.\u201d\u2014Luke iii, 3. But as his fame extended and the throng of his\nhearers increased, he took his station at Bethabara (or, Bethany, as the\ncritical editions read), on the eastern side of the Jordan, and\nafterward at \u201cEnon, near to Salim,\u201d where he seems to have been, when\narrested by Herod. During the brief period of his ministry, there \u201cwent\nout to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about\nJordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their\nsins.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 5, 6. The facts as to the extent of John\u2019s ministry\nand baptism, are stated in terms equally strong by Mark and Luke. (Mark\ni, 5; Luke iii, 21.) Of these statements, we are asked to believe that\nthey are extravagant hyperbole,\u2014that they only mean that there were some\npresent from every place in the regions specified. As \u201cif I should say\nthat in the political convention of 1840, all Tennessee was gathered at\nNashville to hear Henry Clay, I would not mean that every man, woman,\nand child in the State was there; but only that there were some from\nevery part. Just so, Matthew says Jerusalem came,\u2014that a great many\npeople from Jerusalem and Judea and the country round about Jordan came.\nThat is to say, the country as well as the city was fully represented in\nthe crowd. Besides, John did not baptize all who came. He positively\nrefused the Pharisees and Sadducees, who composed a great part of the\nJewish nation.\u201d[69] This explanation forgets that the language in\nquestion is not the exaggerated statement of excited and partisan\nnewsmongers; but sober history dictated by the Spirit of God, and\nreported to us by \u201ctwo or three witnesses,\u201d in concurrent language. As\nto the assertion concerning the Pharisees, every thoughtful reader of\nthe gospels knows that in comparison with the whole body of the people,\nthey were very few. In all their conspiracies against Jesus they were\nconstantly embarrassed by fear of \u201cthe people.\u201d\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n Theodosia Ernest, Vol. I, p. 79. Published by the Baptist Publication\n Society.\n\nOf the vastness of the multitude who were baptized by John we have not\nonly the express testimony of the evangelists, but certain incidents\nrelated by them remarkably confirm it. The first is, that Herod was\nrestrained, for some time, from the murder of John, by fear of the\npeople, \u201cbecause they counted him as a prophet.\u201d\u2014Matt. xiv, 5. Another\nis, the use made of the same popular sentiment, by the Lord Jesus. A few\ndays before his betrayal and death, upon occasion of his second purging\nof the temple, the rulers came to him demanding by what authority he did\nthese things. Jesus answered, \u201cI will also ask you one thing; and answer\nme: The baptism of John, Was it from heaven, or of men? And they\nreasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will\nsay, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the\npeople will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And\nthey answered, that they could not tell whence it was.\u201d\u2014Luke xx, 3-7;\nMatt. xxi, 24; Mark xi, 29. Such and so strong and universal was the\nconviction of the people, that John\u2019s commission was from God, that\nneither Herod nor the whole united body of the priests, scribes and\nelders,\u2014the great council of the nation,\u2014dared to antagonize it. This,\ntoo, was three years after the close of John\u2019s ministry.\n\nIt may be said that no intimation is here given that the people spoken\nof had been baptized of John. But, in the first place, the evangelists\nhad already expressly stated the universal fact, in their distinct\naccount of his ministry, and did not, therefore, need to repeat it; and,\nin the second, the issue involved in his ministry was too vital and\nsharply defined to allow any to profess, even, to recognize his divine\nauthority, and yet neglect his baptism. But there is yet further\ntestimony on the point.\n\nJesus had been preaching about two years, when John from his prison sent\ntwo of his disciples to ask,\u2014\u201cArt thou he that should come, or do we\nlook for another? On this occasion Jesus uttered a testimony concerning\nJohn, of which it is said that, \u201call the people that heard him, and the\npublicans, justified God, _being baptized with the baptism of John_. But\nthe Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God against\nthemselves; being not baptized of him.\u201d\u2014Luke vii, 29, 30. This occurred\nin Galilee, which district was not included in any of the statements of\nthe evangelists, respecting the attendance on John\u2019s ministry. He does\nnot seem ever to have preached in Galilee. And yet, from that\ncomparatively distant region, the people had so flocked to his baptism,\nthat two years afterward the evangelist could state that all the people\nhad been baptized of him, the lawyers and Pharisees excepted, and find\nin this the explanation of the universal acceptance of Christ\u2019s\ntestimony. The exception here greatly strengthens the former clause of\nthe statement, and establishes the fact of the universal reception of\nJohn\u2019s baptism by the common people.\n\nIn fact, this conclusion is involved in the very nature of the\ncircumstances of Israel. However viewed, the ministry of John created a\nmost momentous crisis in the history of God\u2019s dealings with that people.\nJohn came to them, the fore-announced,\u2014the last,\u2014the greatest, of all\nthe prophets. He came on the loftiest mission that had ever been\nentrusted to man,\u2014to act as the immediate personal messenger and herald\nof the coming King. He came to Israel, excommunicate from God, to call\nthem individually, and as a people, to repent and return to the fold of\nGod\u2019s longsuffering mercy; and to seal the offered grace, by baptizing\nthose who professed to obey his call. The alternative which his ministry\nset before them was plain and imperative. To absent themselves, or to\nattend on his preaching without receiving his baptism, would have been\nan open act of treason to the coming King, an express and aggravated\nrejection of his authority and of this extraordinary and final overture\nof grace to the nation. John\u2019s ministry thus compelled a decision by\nwhich a broad and public line was drawn among the people. On the one\nside, were those who professed to repent and return to the forsaken\ncovenant and God of their fathers, and to own the authority of the\npromised King of Israel; and whose profession was sealed by the\nreception of John\u2019s baptism;\u2014on the other, those who, in rejecting\nJohn\u2019s testimony and turning their backs upon his baptism, repudiated\nthe coming King and spurned his overture of mercy. Of the significance\nand importance of all this, the evangelists were fully aware. To suppose\nthem in such circumstances to have indulged in a loose and exaggerated\nstyle of statement, asserting that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the\nregion round about Jordan were baptized, when, in fact, not one in a\nhundred of the people received the rite, would be a contradiction of the\ndivine testimony, which nothing but ignorance and lack of consideration\ncan excuse or palliate. It is further to be considered that every class\nof the people, and both men and women resorted to John\u2019s baptism, the\nlawyers or scribes, that is, the Pharisees and Sadducees, only excepted.\n(Matt. xxi, 31, 32; Luke vii, 29; xx, 6.)\n\n5. His rejection of the Pharisees is adduced as proof that \u201cthough great\nmultitudes came to John and followed Christ, yet comparatively few\nbrought forth fruit to justify their baptism.\u201d[70] But how is it\nsupposed that John could know any thing, ordinarily, as to the fruits\nmanifested by those who sought his baptism? It is perfectly evident\nthat,\u2014as at Sinai, on the day of Pentecost, and on every other occasion\nthat is on record in the ministry of the apostles,\u2014so, in the case of\nJohn\u2019s hearers,\u2014a good profession was the sole ordinary condition of\nbaptism. Is it asked,\u2014How, then, came John to refuse the Pharisees? That\nhe did, in fact, refuse them, is an assumption, without proof or\nprobability. He warned them; and that is all we are told of the matter.\nAs to the occasion of such warning,\u2014the ruling sin of that sect was\nself-righteousness. The pride of it found expression in unmistakable\ntokens. Says Jesus, \u201cAll their works they do for to be seen of men. They\nmake broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their\ngarments.\u201d\u2014Matt, xxiii, 5. The phylacteries were parchments on which\nportions of the law were written. They were folded in the form of a\ncube, and bound to the forehead or the arm, with ribbands. The borders\nwere fringes and ribbands of blue, which God directed Israel to wear on\nthe skirts of their garments, as a memorial of their covenant relations\nto him. (Num. xv, 38, 39.) These the scribes and Pharisees made broad,\nso as to be seen of men. The first step therefore toward a true\nrepentance, on their part, would have been a putting off of these badges\nof self-righteousness. And their being worn by any of John\u2019s hearers was\nto him an instant and evident token of vain glory and self-righteousness\nunabased; whilst putting them off would have been a manifest fruit and\nevidence of repentance.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n Theodosia Earnest, vol. i, p. 80.\n\nThe facts, therefore, as set forth in the gospels, clearly indicate that\nthe ministry of John was attended by an apparent revival of religion,\nbut little short of that which occurred at Sinai, when the covenant was\nfirst made. And although, like the tribes in the wilderness, many of\nthose who received John\u2019s baptism failed to profit, for lack of true\nrepentance and faith,\u2014many brought forth fruit out of good and honest\nhearts. Of such, the college of the apostles was formed; and of such, no\ndoubt, largely consisted the firstfruits of the gospel, in Judea and\nGalilee,\u2014as we see repeated traces of it in the ministry of Paul, among\nthe far off Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 24, 25; xviii, 25; xix, 3.)\n\n\n SECTION LVI.\u2014_John did not Immerse._\n\nAs to the mode of John\u2019s baptism, there are several circumstances which\ninterpose insuperable objections to the supposition that it was by\nimmersion.\n\n1. That form would have been utterly incongruous to John\u2019s office as the\nherald of the covenant. No rational account can be given of the origin\nand meaning of such a rite, in that connection. The Levitical law was,\nin all its ordinances, a testimony to the covenant; and of it John was a\nminister. But in that law there was but one _administered_ baptism, and\nthat by sprinkling, whilst there were no immersions of persons,\nwhatever. It therefore furnishes no trace of the origin of the supposed\nform. On the other hand, it certainly did not originate with John.\nBaptism,\u2014the rite which he administered, was in his day, no novelty\namong the Jews. The only remaining supposition, if we assume John to\nhave immersed his disciples, is, that it may have been borrowed from the\ninventions of the scribes. But, in the first place, there is not a trace\nof evidence nor of probability that such a rite was _then_ included in\nthe ritual of the scribes;\u2014and in the second, it is preposterous to\nsuppose that, in such circumstances and on such a mission, John would\nhave turned his back on the ordinances of God\u2019s law, by which for\nfifteen centuries the covenant had been sealed, and chosen for the\ncharacteristic and seal of his ministry one of those inventions by means\nof which that law was made void and God\u2019s people led astray. (Mark vii,\n6, 8, 13.) This too, when he in the most open and decisive manner set\nhimself in opposition to the inventors of those rites, whom he denounced\nas a generation of vipers!\n\n2. The meaning of the rite, in supposed connection with John\u2019s ministry,\nis as inexplicable as its origin. Neither the law nor the Old Testament\nScriptures anywhere give a clue to it. John in his ministry is equally\nsilent. Or, rather, his statements are altogether incongruous to the\nsupposed form.\u2014\u201cHe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.\nWhose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and\ngather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with\nunquenchable fire.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 11, 12. Thus, John, announced the Lord\nJesus, not in his character of humiliation and death; but in his\nexaltation and royalty, as he appeared at Sinai, the covenant King of\nIsrael,\u2014as he is now, the enthroned Baptizer, dispensing his Spirit and\ngrace to his people, and pouring out the fire of his justice on his and\nhis Father\u2019s enemies. In such circumstances, and in connection with such\na preaching, what meaning could the disciples of John have discovered in\nthe rite of immersion? Respecting it, they ask no questions, and John\nmakes no explanation. If it be supposed to have meant the burial of\nChrist, this much at least is certain, that the resemblance was not so\nclose as to have been self-evident to the people. And even though\nunderstood by them in that sense, it would have been so far aside from\nthe immediate intent and end of John\u2019s ministry, and so defective in its\ntestimony, since it knows nothing of the resurrection, that it would\nhave been calculated to distract and perplex his hearers, rather than to\nserve the object of his preaching. But John was explicit as to the\nmeaning of his baptism. _Whatever its form, it meant\u2014not the burial of\nthe Lord Jesus, but the baptism of the Spirit by him dispensed. \u201cI\nbaptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.\u201d_\n\n3. The great discomfort, and the gross indecency which are inevitably\ninvolved in the supposition that John immersed his followers are\ndecisive against it. Neither had John a water-proof suit in which to\nofficiate, nor were his auditors supplied with \u201cimmersion robes,\u201d nor\nchange of garments, so needful, now, to obviate the discomfort and\ndanger of the dripping attire. But this, even, is a less consideration\nthan the indecent exposure which the supposed rite would have involved.\nThe garments of the Jews were of two patterns. That next the person was\nin the form of a sleeveless shirt, descending to the knees. A second\ngarment was of the same shape, but usually of more costly materials,\nwhich reached to the ankles. Over all were thrown one or two shawls or\nblankets, large enough to enwrap the entire person. Beside sandals,\nwhich were not ordinarily worn, except by those in easy\ncircumstances,\u2014these were the only articles of apparel. Those of the\nwomen were of nearly the same shape; the distinction of sex appearing\nmainly in the materials and ornaments. When at rest, the garments were\nleft free. But in preparing for labor or for travel, they were drawn up\nto the knees, and fastened with a girdle at the loins, thus leaving the\nlower limbs unencumbered. That, with such clothing indecent exposure\nmust have been a constant incident to the extemporaneous and hasty\nimmersions which the Baptist theory requires, is manifest; and the\nweight of the consideration needs no enforcing.\n\n4. The number resorting to John was such as to preclude the possibility\nof their having been immersed. When Israel came out of Egypt, they were\n\u201cabout six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, beside children; and\na mixed multitude went up also with them.\u201d\u2014Ex. xii, 37, 38. When about\nto enter the promised land, the census was six hundred and one thousand,\nseven hundred and thirty men, from twenty years old and upward, beside\nthe Levites, who numbered twenty-three thousand males from a month old.\n(Num. xxvi, 51, 62.) Upon this basis, the whole number of the people was\nbetween three and four millions. In the days of David, in the\nenumeration from which the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were omitted, the\nnumber of fighting men was one million five hundred and seventy\nthousand. If we make a proportional addition for the omitted tribes, it\ngives a total of one million, eight hundred and fifty-five thousand\nseven hundred and fifty-four. These would represent a population of\nseven or eight millions. From two independent statements occurring in\nJosephus, it appears that the population, just before the destruction of\nthe nation, was at least as much as four million souls.[71] If we\nsuppose John to have stood in the water three hours a day, during the\nsix months of his ministry, and to have administered the rite at the\nrate of one per minute, during the entire time, the total results of\nsuch miraculous labors and endurance, would have been about thirty-two\nthousand seven hundred and sixty persons baptized, that is, one in every\none hundred and twenty-two of the people. Without the intervention of\nmiracle\u2014and John did no miracle\u2014even this was utterly impossible. And\nyet, how entirely it falls short of the statements of the evangelists,\nupon any candid interpretation of them, is evident.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Jewish war. II. xiv, 3; and VI. x, 3.\n\nThat the theory of immersion is encumbered with difficulties of the most\nserious nature must be evident to every candid reader.\n\n\n SECTION LVII.\u2014_John Baptized by Sprinkling with unmingled Water._\n\nWe are now to consider an important feature in the history of this rite,\nwhich has not yet been brought into distinct notice. It has appeared how\nthoroughly the sprinkled baptisms of the Levitical system are identified\nin their meaning and office with the prophecies concerning the\nsprinkling of Israel and the nations, and the outpouring of the Spirit,\nin the days of the Messiah. The point of present interest concerning\nthose prophecies is, that in all the expressions referred to, the figure\nis that of water alone,\u2014the sacrificial elements never being alluded to\nin that connection. A coincident fact appears, with relation to John\u2019s\nministry. In his own announcement he uses language which seems to be\nemphatic and exclusive,\u2014\u201cI indeed baptize you _with water_.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii,\n11; Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; John i, 26. So, Jesus says,\u2014\u201cJohn truly\nbaptized _with water_.\u201d\u2014Acts i, 5. And Peter refers to it in the same\nterms. (Ib. xi, 16.) This form of expression constantly used, and the\nantithesis always stated, between his baptism and that of the Holy\nSpirit, to be administered by the Lord Jesus, render it certain that\nJohn baptized with water alone, without any sacrificial elements. A\ncareful examination of the prophecies above referred to and a\nconsideration of the subject matter of John\u2019s preaching, may furnish the\nexplanation of these facts. The Mosaic ritual was constructed with a\nview to a very full and systematic exposition of the gospel, in the\nsymmetry of its parts and proportions. In the baptisms of that ritual,\ntherefore, provision was made for showing forth, not only the power and\ngrace of the Lord Jesus in the bestowal of the Spirit, but, also, the\nvirtue of his blood, which was the procuring cause of the Spirit\u2019s\ngrace. But that blood is the token of humiliation and sufferings. On the\ncontrary, the theme of the prophecies here referred to is, the\nexaltation and glory of Christ\u2019s throne, and the conquests of his saving\nscepter, after the days of humiliation and sorrow shall have been\nforever ended. This was the distinctive meaning of the water of the\nSinai baptisms, and by the figure of the sprinkling or pouring of bare\nwater, the prophets represent the same thing.\n\nSo, when John came in the spirit and power of Elias, he did not, indeed,\nignore the office of Christ as the atoning Lamb of God. But his\ndistinctive commission, and the controlling function of his ministry was\nto herald the coming of their covenant King, in his exaltation and power\nto an apostate and rebellious nation\u2014to warn them of the office which he\nwould fill, and the judgment which he would execute, who should baptize\nthem, not with the Holy Ghost only, but with fire also. As appropriate,\ntherefore, to this, his office and message, he dispensed a baptism of\nwater alone, which spake of authority, power, and royal grace, and\nomitted that element which signified humiliation and death.\n\nWhilst the rite was thus modified\u2014its nature and significance remained\nthe same. As already indicated, the quantity of ashes used in dispensing\nthe Levitical baptism was so small as to be wholly inappreciable to the\nsenses. The instruction therein conveyed was dependent upon the\nassociation of ideas, and not upon the quantity of the elements used.\nThe bestowal of the Spirit by the Lord Jesus, of necessity, presupposes\nthe sacrifice of himself as the condition and price of his exaltation\nand power, by which the Spirit is sent and salvation bestowed. What the\nLevitical blood and ashes of sprinkling expressed the baptism of John\nimplied. The two rites thus conveyed the same instruction, and filled\nthe same office. They were essentially one and the same baptism. The\nlatter form anticipated the immediate sending forth of the gospel to the\nGentiles, divested of the sacrificial system and the burdens of the\nritual law. That they were the same in mode will not be questioned by\nany who have candidly traced the foregoing line of investigation. With\nan enumeration of some of the points therein involved, we will close\nthis branch of our subject.\n\n1. Hitherto the Baptist argument has been entrenched in the definition\nof _baptizo_. After the same example we now plant ourselves on the\nascertained meaning and use of the word, as illustrated in the foregoing\npages. We have found it to be the accepted designation for the\nadministered rites of Levitical purifying, which, in all their\ncircumstantial variations, were performed always by sprinkling. The rite\ndispensed by John was an administered baptism. It was, therefore,\nadministered after the example of the Levitical system, by sprinkling.\n\n2. John was the herald and champion of the covenant, and the messenger\nof the Lord Jesus as its surety and king. His commission, as announced\nby Malachi, was, in God\u2019s name, to admonish Israel to \u201cRemember the law\nof Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all\nIsrael, with the statutes and judgments;\u201d\u2014Mal. iv, 4.\u2014\u201cThe law of\nMoses,\u201d\u2014that covenant law by the acceptance of which Israel became the\npeople of God. His ministry derived all its significance from the terms\nof that covenant, and from the office of its Surety, in purging his\nfloor with the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of fire. This was the\nwhole theme of his ministry, as it was the whole substance of the\nprophetic terms of his commission. To seal such a testimony, no rite\ncould have been so appropriate as the perpetuated and familiar form of\nthe Sinai baptism, the original seal of the same covenant, by which its\nscope and intent were so luminously set forth.\n\n3. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, in\nthe name of Him whom God was about to exalt \u201cto be a Prince and a\nSavior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.\u201d\u2014Acts\nv, 31. In the Levitical baptism the administrator represented the Lord\nJesus in this very function of his grace, and the sprinkled water\nrepresented the Holy Spirit shed by him upon his people, by whom that\nrepentance is wrought, and remission conveyed. It was the \u201cpurification\nfor sin,\u201d the symbol of remission. It was thus a visible representation\nto his hearers of the very things which John was commissioned to utter\nin their ears.\n\n4. At the time of John\u2019s coming, all the thoughts and conceptions of\nIsrael on the subjects involved in his ministry, except as perverted by\nthe traditions of the scribes, had been molded by the Mosaic ritual\nrespecting the purifying of the unclean, and by the testimonies of the\nprophets, uttered in the language of that ritual. John was sent, not to\nignore or obliterate the impress thus made by the instructions and\ndiscipline of fifteen centuries, but to confirm and build upon it, to\nreiterate and seal the same testimonies. To this end, no other rite was\nappropriate or congruous, but the old familiar baptism by sprinkling,\nthe interpretation of which was so abundant in the prophets, and the\nmeaning of which was known to all Israel.\n\n5. The baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is never known nor alluded\nto in the Scriptures under any other form than that of affusion. It is\nthe antitype of the ritual sprinklings of the Old Testament, the\nfulfillment of all the prophecies of the sprinkling of Israel and the\nnations, the outpouring of the Spirit upon them; and its fulfillment is\nin the New Testament invariably spoken of in the same style. To\nsymbolize this, John\u2019s baptism must have been by affusion.\n\n6. In the use of this rite, all the difficulties which embarrass the\nhypothesis of immersion disappear. As, at Sinai, all Israel were\nbaptized at once, so, under John\u2019s preaching the number to be baptized\nwould involve no embarrassment, exposure, or exhaustion. As many as were\nassembled at one time could be baptized in one group, with the hyssop\nbush. Thus, no excessive fatigue was involved; no time was consumed in\nmere manual labor; no danger to the health, nor liability to indecent\nexposure was incurred. The meaning of the rite was familiar to all, and\nin its use congruity and symmetry were maintained in every part and\nrelation of John\u2019s ministry.\n\nThe view thus presented is not inconsistent with the supposition that\nmany of John\u2019s disciples may have received the rite while standing in\nthe waters of the Jordan. The law requiring the use of running water,\nthe propriety of the one river of Palestine as a type of the river of\nthe heavenly Canaan, and the necessities of the multitudes who waited on\nhis ministry, united in bringing him to the river. And the rite would be\nperformed by the baptist dipping a hyssop-bush into the stream, and\ntherewith sprinkling those who presented themselves around him. That, in\nthese circumstances many of the people would enter the water is beyond\nquestion. The suggestion is to be considered in the light of eastern\nhabits and modes of dress. The people were clothed in loose garments,\nwith no covering to the feet except sandals worn by a few. Coming, the\nmost of them, from a distance on the rocky roads of that country,\u2014the\nfeet sore and lacerated, and the climate hot,\u2014no impulse would have been\nmore natural or more congruous to custom, than to step into the water,\nfor the sake of its refreshing coolness. A curious illustration of this\noccurs in the Ph\u00e6drus of Plato. He describes Socrates walking in the\nenvirons of Athens accompanied by Ph\u00e6drus:\u2014\n\nSOCRATES. \u201cHere; let us turn aside to the Illyssus, and, where you\nprefer, we can recline in quiet.\u201d\n\nPH\u00c6DRUS. \u201cFor the occasion, as it seems, I happen to be barefoot, while\nyou are always so. Thus it will be quite convenient for us, wetting our\nfeet in the shallow stream, to walk not without enjoyment, especially at\nthis season of the year and of the day.\u201d[72]\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Platonis Ph\u00e6d., v.\n\nIt is altogether supposable that Philip and the eunuch stepped thus into\nthe water, as the most convenient way of access to it; and it is equally\npossible that such may have been the case with many of John\u2019s disciples,\nand that Jesus himself may have been thus baptized. Nor is this a mere\nfanciful conjecture. Among the remains of Christian art which have been\ntransmitted to us from the third and fourth centuries of our era, there\nare several representations of the baptism of our Savior, some of them\nin bronze bas-relief, and some in Mosaic. In them all, John pours water\non the head of Jesus. In several, Jesus stands in the Jordan, and John\nfrom the bank administers the rite. In others, both are on dry ground.\nIn no instance does John appear in the water. At the date of these\nrepresentations, immersion is supposed to have been almost universally\nprevalent in the church. They, therefore, the more forcibly demonstrate\nthe strength and prevalence of the tradition which still survived,\nrepresenting John to have baptized in the Jordan, by affusion. In them\nthe idea of immersion is doubly excluded,\u2014by the direct representation\nof the water poured upon the head of Jesus; and by the fact that the\ninvariable position of John, out of the water, renders immersion\nphysically impossible, as administered by him.\n\n\n\n\n PART X.\n CHRIST\u2019s$1BAPTISMS AND ANOINTING.\n\n\n SECTION LVIII.\u2014_The Meaning of his Baptism by John._\n\n\u201cThen cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of\nhim. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee;\nand comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to\nbe so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he\nsuffered him.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 13-15.\n\nSeveral theories have been advanced, and much discussion had as to the\nnature and intent of the baptism of Jesus by John. Archbishop\nThomson,[73] supposes it to have been, (1.) That the sacrament by which\nall were hereafter to be admitted into His kingdom might not want his\nexample to justify its use. (2.) That John might have an assurance that\nhis course as the herald of Christ was now completed by his appearance.\n(3.) That some token might be given that he was indeed the anointed of\nGod. Dr. Dale thinks that it was a public and official announcement of\nhis entrance upon the work of fulfilling all righteousness. He\nstrenuously denies that Jesus was baptized with the baptism of John. \u201cIt\nis one thing to be baptized by John and quite another to receive the\n\u2018baptism of John.\u2019 The \u2018baptism of John\u2019 was for sinners, demanding\n\u2018repentance,\u2019 \u2018fruits meet for repentance,\u2019 and promising \u2018the remission\nof sins.\u2019 But the Lord Jesus Christ was not a sinner, could not repent\nof sin, could not bring forth fruit meet for repentance on account of\nsin, could not receive the remission of sin. Therefore, the reception of\nthe \u2018baptism of John\u2019 by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd.\u201d But\nthis baptism was his inauguration into the office of fulfilling all\nrighteousness. \u201cNo one could share in such an inauguration with a\nfitness comparable with that of the great Forerunner. And to this\nfitness of relationship, reference is had in the words\u2014\u2018Thus it becometh\nus.\u2019 \u2018Thus,\u2019 by baptism, \u2018us,\u2019 administered by thee, my Forerunner, to\nme the Coming One proclaimed by thee; \u2018now,\u2019 entering upon my covenant\nwork, which I now declare and am ready to begin,\u2014\u2018to fulfill all\nrighteousness.\u2019 Can there be, in view of the persons, the time, and the\ncircumstances, any other satisfactory interpretation of these great\nwords?\u201d[74]\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n In Smith\u2019s Bib. Dict. article, \u201cJesus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n Dale\u2019s Christic Baptism, pp. 27, 29.\n\nAccording to another theory, it is held that as the consecration of\nAaron was by baptism, anointing, and sacrifice, so all these were\nrealized in the priestly consecration of Jesus. First, He was baptized\nby John. Then, the heavens were opened unto Him, and the Spirit of God\ndescended upon Him, and He was thus \u201canointed with the Holy Ghost and\nwith power.\u201d The sacrifice was not till the end of His earthly ministry,\nwhen he offered up Himself.\n\nThis latter is perhaps the most commonly received theory on the subject.\nAnd yet, a more perplexing and unsatisfactory exposition could hardly be\ndevised. According to it Christ\u2019s consecration to the priesthood was a\nconfused imitation of that of Aaron, was partly ritual without meaning,\nand partly real, and took place, part of it in the beginning of his\npublic ministry, and part at its close, so that until his very death his\npriesthood was inchoate and incomplete. Upon this explanation, the\nbaptism of Jesus was a mere unmeaning form, in supposed imitation of\nsomething in the consecration of Aaron. But Aaron and his consecration\nand priesthood were, in every part and aspect of them, figures of the\ntrue,\u2014of the realities which are in Christ. Aaron\u2019s anointing is\nadmitted to have been a symbol of the real anointing of the Holy Spirit,\nshed upon Jesus. The sacrifices offered at the consecration of Aaron,\nalthough by this theory misconceived, are so far correctly spoken of as\nthat their fulfillment was had in Christ\u2019s one offering of himself. What\nthen could be meant by Aaron\u2019s so called baptism, if its antitype is to\nbe found in the ritual baptism of the Lord Jesus? One rite representing\nand setting forth another, which is nothing but a defective imitation of\nthe first!\n\nIn fact, the washing of Aaron by Moses was not a sacramental baptism at\nall\u2014a rite, that is, by which blessings of grace are represented and\nsealed to the recipient. It was as we have already explained a\nsymbolical act setting forth the endowment of the Lord Jesus by the\nFather with a sinless humanity.\n\nIt is not, however, to this washing of Aaron, that reference is usually\nmade by the exponents of this theory. It is said that the priests\nentered upon their official duties at thirty years of age, and were then\nset apart by baptism, and that hence Jesus, when \u201che began to be about\nthirty years of age,\u201d came to be baptized, and enter upon his official\nwork; and reference is made to Num. iv, 3; viii, 7. But the places thus\nreferred to are directions respecting the Levites, the priest\u2019s\nservants, and not concerning the priests at all. Moreover, twenty-five\nyears was the ordinary age of entrance upon the Levitical service. (Num.\nviii, 24.) The age of thirty seems to have been prescribed with\nreference to the special labor and responsibility incident to the\ncarrying of the tabernacle and its furniture from place to place, during\nthe sojourn in the wilderness. (See the whole of Num. iv.) Upon such\nslender foundations are theories built. The law set no limitation to the\nages of the priests. The rabbins say that they could not enter on the\noffice until twenty years old. But Aristobulus the son of Alexander was\nhigh priest when less than seventeen years old.[75] On the other hand,\nwhile the definition as to the Levites was, \u201cfrom thirty years old and\nupward even until fifty years old,\u201d\u2014Eli was high priest when he died at\nninety-eight. (1 Sam. iv, 15.)\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n Josephus\u2019 Antiquities, XV, iii, 3.\n\nChrist\u2019s baptism was not his inauguration to the priesthood. His\npriesthood was neither Aaronic nor earthly. For \u201cif he were on earth, He\nshould not be a priest; seeing that there are priests that offer gifts\n_according to the law_; who serve unto the _example_ and _shadow_ of\nheavenly things.\u201d\u2014Heb. viii, 4, 5. If any part of the ceremonial of\nAaron\u2019s investiture was a rule of conformity to Jesus, the whole of it\nwas equally so. But he was made a priest, \u201c_not_ after the law of a\ncarnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he\ntestifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of\nMelchisedec.\u201d\u2014Heb. vii, 16, 17. Christ\u2019s consecration to the priesthood\nand exercise of its functions belong to that \u201ctrue tabernacle which the\nLord pitched and not man.\u201d\u2014Heb. viii, 2. He was not installed by human\nhands. \u201cFor the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity. But\nthe word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is\nconsecrated forevermore.\u201d\u2014Heb. vii, 28.\n\nDr. Dale understands the Lord Jesus in the above place to mean,\u2014Thus it\nbecomes us, by a united and public act, to announce \u201cmy entering upon my\ncovenant work which I now declare, and am ready to begin, \u2018to fulfill\nall righteousness.\u2019\u201d But, in the first place, that was not the time of\nJesus\u2019 entering on the work of fulfilling righteousness. Had it been so,\nit was too late. He was \u201cmade of a woman, made under the law.\u201d\u2014Gal. iv,\n4, 5. From the hour of his birth, he was fulfilling righteousness,\u2014in\nthe obedience of his childhood, as truly as in the sufferings of the\ncross. The work on which he entered, after his baptism and anointing by\nthe Spirit, was his prophetic office, in which he announced and offered\nhimself to Israel as her promised King and Savior. So he himself\ntestified in the synagogue in Nazareth. (Luke iv, 18-20.) But this\noffice will not fit into the above exposition. Moreover, it would seem\nthat if any words can express the idea of a thing done as a duty of\nrighteousness those of Jesus do so. Dr. Dale says,\u2014\u201cIt can not be\nclaimed that the Lord Jesus was under obligation to undergo this baptism\nas a part of \u2018all righteousness;\u2019 (1) Because there is no righteousness\nin it; (2) Because what there is in it is just what he did not come to\ndo. He did not come to repent for sinners, nor to exercise faith for\nsinners.\u201d The latter argument has the fatal fault that it proves too\nmuch. Upon the same ground the Lord Jesus should not have been\ncircumcised or purified with his mother. He should not have kept the\npassover, nor any of the Levitical feasts and ordinances. All these\nimplied and required in others a state of heart and mind and exercises\nof repentance and faith which were foreign to the holy nature of the\nLord Jesus.\n\nBut is it so that there was no righteousness to be accomplished by Jesus\nin complying with John\u2019s baptism? The answer depends wholly upon the\nresponse to be made to the question which Jesus proposed to the\nPharisees,\u2014\u201cThe baptism of John, was it from heaven; or, of men?\u201d If\nfrom heaven, it came with the sanction of the first clause of the Sinai\ncovenant,\u2014\u201cIf ye will obey;\u201d and was entitled to obedience from every\nsoul. John\u2019s baptism,\u2014Is it necessary to say it?\u2014washed away no sin.\nLike all ritual baptisms, of the Old Testament and the New, alike, it\naffected the ritual and outward status, alone, of the party, as toward\nthe church, and the ordinances. Moreover, his ministry was not addressed\nto the ungodly only. But, if there were any of the people still looking\nand praying for the Consolation of Israel, they, as much as others, were\ncalled upon, as being defiled by the contact of the unclean nation, to\nreceive this baptismal seal of the covenant renewed, and their\nacceptance in it with God. Pre-eminently was it true of the Lord Jesus,\nthat he was defiled by contact with the sinful nation. To ritual\nuncleanness, he was as liable as any man, and became thereby subject to\nthe same obligation of ritual purifying, by which others were bound.\nJesus, therefore, as a true Israelite, came to John\u2019s baptism, as being\nan ordinance of divine authority; and in his answer to John indicates\nthe fact that his omission of the duty thus resting on him as \u201cmade\nunder the law,\u201d would have derogated from his perfect righteousness.\n\nNor is this all. John was the herald of Jesus in his distinctive\ncharacter as \u201cthe Angel of the covenant,\u201d\u2014the Mediator of that \u201cbetter\ncovenant\u201d which was enclosed in the outward form of that of Sinai. (2\nCor. iii, 3-6.) In that better covenant, and Christ as its Surety, all\nthe transactions relating to the Sinai covenant had their significance\nand end; as they were also the end of John\u2019s ministry. The repentance\nwhich he preached was a call to apostate Israel to return from\ntransgression to the obedience required by the covenant, and his baptism\nwas a seal to its promises, upon that indispensable condition of\nobedience. In coming to John\u2019s baptism, therefore, Jesus formally and\npublicly came under the bond of the covenant for obedience, and thus\npresented himself to Israel as her Surety therein. The baptism which he\nreceived from John sealed to him its promises on condition of his\nobedience, and the descending Spirit and the voice from heaven announced\nthe Father\u2019s approval and acceptance of him as Surety for his people,\nthe true Israel of God. It was with a view to this office of Christ as\nthe Messenger and Surety of the covenant, and to his own relation as the\nherald of Christ in that capacity, that John says, \u201cThat he should be\nmade manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water;\u201d\u2014John\ni, 31\u2014that he should be made manifest to Israel, as her covenant Surety\nand King; as the Lamb of God and King of Israel.\n\nThe distinction drawn between \u201cthe baptism of John\u201d and \u201cbaptism _by_\nJohn,\u201d overlooks the profounder aspects of the subject here indicated.\nIt is true that John\u2019s baptism addressed to sinners a call to\nrepentance, and announced remission, on that condition. But this special\nform of its message, is no more than the call to _obedience_, in terms\nadapted to the particular case of transgressors. And the significance\nand propriety of the baptism depended upon its own essential meaning as\nheretofore unfolded. In the Levitical institutions, the ordinary form of\nthe rite had its primary relation, as we have seen, to a ritual\nuncleanness by contact with the dead, which symbolized the judicial\ndefilement of the Lord Jesus by contact, through birth of a woman, with\nour dead nature, and his consequent death under the curse. The baptism\nsymbolized the resurrection of Christ, and of his people with him, in\nthe renewing of their souls, and the final quickening and rising of\ntheir bodies. Both of these are identified by Paul with the resurrection\nof Christ. (Eph. ii, 5; and i, 19-ii, 10; Rom. vi, 2-5; viii, 11, etc.)\nIt is by virtue of union with him, by the baptism of his Spirit,\nbestowed upon and dwelling in us, that we are enabled to \u201cknow the power\nof his resurrection\u201d (Phil. iii, 10), by our own death to sin and life\nto holiness. This was the signification of John\u2019s baptism. To the Lord\nJesus it was a symbol and pledge of his own triumph over the exhausted\npower of the curse, in his resurrection; and of the deliverance of his\npeople, in him, from the bondage of sin and death, by his Spirit\nbestowed and dwelling in them. Through this they receive repentance and\nremission of sins. The same meaning precisely was signified and sealed\nto the people by their believing reception of the same rite.\n\nThus, on the one hand, Jesus, as being the Son of man, one of the family\nof Israel, was as much bound to come to the baptism which, by the\nauthority of God, John dispensed, as he was to obey or observe any part\nof the law, ritual or moral; as much as was any true son of Israel. On\nthe other hand, by coming and receiving that baptism, he announced\nhimself, the Surety of the covenant which it sealed, and was so\ncertified and accepted by John, by the descending Spirit and by the\nFather\u2019s voice.\n\n\n SECTION LIX.\u2014_The Anointing of the Lord Jesus._\n\nThe Scriptures inform us of three distinct bestowals of the Spirit, upon\nthe Lord Jesus, by the Father. The first, was that whereby he was\nbegotten through the Holy Ghost, and his humanity so invested with the\nSpirits influences, as to be born and live in perfect holiness, so that\nhe was designated by the angel, \u201cthat holy thing.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 35. The\nsecond was the anointing bestowed at the time of his baptism by John.\nAnd the third was that endowment of the Spirit, which was conferred on\nhim, at his ascension to the throne. The intimate relation of his\nanointing to his baptism by John, and the close analogy which is\ntraceable between baptism and anointing, bring the latter within the\npurview of the present inquiry.\n\nImmediately after his baptism, as he was praying, \u201cthe heaven was\nopened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon\nhim, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son:\nin thee I am well pleased.\u201d\u2014Luke iii, 21, 22. The Baptist adds some\nfacts:\u2014\u201cI saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it\nabode upon him. And I knew him not. But he that sent me to baptize with\nwater, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit\ndescending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the\nHoly Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.\u201d\u2014John\ni, 32-34. This anointing of the Lord Jesus with the Holy Spirit\nfulfilled a three-fold purpose.\n\n1. It was a manifestation to Israel of the long-expected Messiah,\u2014a\nconfirmation from heaven of John\u2019s testimonies respecting him, and a\ndesignation of him, the coming One, as being Jesus of Nazareth. From the\nwhole account given in the first chapter of John, it seems evident that\nthe Baptist and his disciples had distinctly in mind the language of the\nsecond Psalm, which determined the form of their conclusions, deduced\nfrom the scene at the baptizing. \u201cWhy do the heathen rage ... against\nthe Lord, and against his Anointed?... Yet have I set my King upon my\nholy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto\nme, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.\u201d The glorious\npersonage here announced is, thus designated by three titles,\u2014as the\nLord\u2019s Anointed, his King, and his Son. It was as herald of this King\nthat John came preaching, the kingdom of heaven. And when, with his own\neyes he saw the anointing Spirit descend upon Jesus, he identified the\nAnointed with the Son. He saw and bare record \u201cthat this is the Son of\nGod.\u201d So, John\u2019s disciple Andrew says to his brother Peter, \u201cWe have\nfound the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,\u201d\u2014the\nAnointed. Not only so, but, at the same time and by the same token, John\nrecognized in Jesus \u201cthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the\nworld!\u201d Thus fully, by this anointing, was Jesus certified to Israel;\nand therein the chief intent of John\u2019s ministry was accomplished.\n\n2. The anointing was an attestation and seal to him of the Father\u2019s\nfavor, in view of the spotless righteousness of his character as already\nproved in the life which he had lived, as a private person, the\ncarpenter of Nazareth. Of his earlier youth, it is said that he\n\u201cincreased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.\u201d\u2014Luke\nii, 52. And now, in the fulness of his manhood, in connection with his\nanointing, a voice from heaven testifies, \u201cThis is my beloved Son, in\nwhom I am well pleased.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 17. To this, the Psalmist refers his\nanointing. \u201cThy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy\nkingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest\nwickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of\ngladness above thy fellows.\u201d\u2014Psa. xlv, 6, 7. \u201cThe joy of the Lord is\nyour strength\u201d (Neh. viii, 10), said Nehemiah to Israel; and in the joy\nof his Father\u2019s favor, testified in the anointing, Jesus fulfilled his\nministry to the close.\n\n3. It was his endowment for the prophetic office, as he himself\ntestified in the synagogue of Nazareth. \u201cHe found the place where it was\nwritten, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me\nto preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the\nbrokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering\nof sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.... And\nhe began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your\nears.\u201d\u2014Luke iv, 18-21. From the same source he derived the miraculous\npowers, which attested his word. (Matt. xii, 28.) \u201cGod anointed Jesus of\nNazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.\u201d\u2014Acts x, 38. Of the\nrelation of his anointing to the fulfillment of his priestly office, in\nview of which John called him \u201cthe Lamb of God,\u201d Paul says that he\n\u201cthrough the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.\u201d\u2014Heb.\nix, 14. His anointing was not his consecration to the priesthood, but\nhis endowment with grace, by which he was qualified to perform that\npriesthood, to prepare and offer an unspotted, sufficient and acceptable\nsacrifice on the altar of justice. And, having completed that work, by\nthe same Spirit was he raised from the dead. (1 Pet. iii, 18; Rom. viii,\n11.)\n\nSuch and so signal was the meaning and intent of that fact from which\nJesus derived the name of, the Christ. Its close relation in many\nrespects to the doctrine of baptism, is apparent. As to the question of\nmode, a few points may here be noted.\n\n1. In it the Holy Spirit was given to the Lord Jesus, as an indwelling\nfountain of all gifts for his ministry.\n\n2. It came by a descent from the opened heavens.\n\n3. It was in the form of a dove,\u2014beautiful symbol of the kindness of\nGod, and the \u201cmeekness and gentleness,\u201d the \u201cgrace and truth\u201d of the\nLord Jesus!\n\n4. It abode on him.\n\n5. As the result, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke iv, 1),\nbrought under his active control and guidance, and endowed with his\nextraordinary gifts, for the fulfillment of his ministry.\n\n6. The symbol which by divine appointment represented it was the pouring\nof oil upon the head and person. (Lev. viii, 12, 30; 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi,\n1, 13; 1 Kings i, 34, 39; xix, 16; 2 Kings ix, 6.)\n\n\n SECTION LX.\u2014\u201c_The Baptism that I am Baptized with._\u201d\n\nIt was his resurrection from the dead. We have seen that the Mosaic\nbaptism was a symbol and seal of the imparting of life to the dead. We\nhave seen it so referred to by Paul in his argument in proof of the\nresurrection. The fact has been pointed out that the Lord Jesus in\nreceiving the baptism of John, not only fulfilled the law of\nrighteousness as a faithful Israelite, but received, therein, a symbol\nand seal of his own resurrection and triumph over death and the curse,\nunder which he was already held. Twice, in the course of his ministry as\nreported by the evangelists, did Jesus refer to his resurrection under\nthis figure of baptism. Matthew thus records one of these occasions,\n\u201cThen came to him the mother of Zebedee\u2019s children with her sons,\nworshipping him.... And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto\nhim, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand,\nand the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said,\nYe know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall\ndrink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?\nThey say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink\nindeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized\nwith; but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give\n(_all\u2019 hois \u0113toimastai_), _save to those for whom it is prepared_ of my\nFather.\u201d\u2014Matt. xx, 20-23. Luke records a similar expression. \u201cI am come\nto send fire on the earth; and what will I if it be already kindled? But\nI have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be\naccomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell\nyou, nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five\nin one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The\nfather shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father;\nthe mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother;\nthe mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law\nagainst her mother in law.\u201d\u2014Luke xii, 49-53. Of these expressions,\nexpositors have proposed two interpretations. According to one, the cup\nand the baptism are equivalent figures meaning the sufferings and death\nof the Lord Jesus. Hence, Baptist expositors would explain it as an\nimmersion in sorrow; but they do not show by what example or argument\nthe word \u201c_baptism_\u201d can be made, thus, of itself, to signify _such_ an\nimmersion. A conclusive objection lies against this interpretation. In\nboth the gospels the distinction between the cup and the baptism is\ncarefully preserved, in Christ\u2019s original question, and in his\nrejoinder. \u201cAre ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and\nto be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?\u201d \u201cYe shall\nindeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am\nbaptized with.\u201d It can not be admitted that a second clause, so\nparticular and detailed in statement, and so carefully repeated in the\nrejoinder, is a mere blank, adding nothing to the meaning already\nexpressed. But it is agreed that the figure of the cup indicates all\nthat suffering by which the Lord Jesus made atonement for our sins.\n\nThe other interpretation proposed is but a modified form of that here\ngiven. It discriminates between the cup and the baptism, by interpreting\nthe latter of Christ\u2019s sufferings viewed as \u201cconsecrating\nsufferings\u2014sufferings by which he was to be separated unto God\u2019s service\nas a royal priest.\u201d \u201cThat the reader may understand how Christ could use\nsuch language in the sense which we give it, let him consider such\npassages of Scripture as these: \u2018Unto him that loved us and washed us\nfrom our sins in his own blood, and hath made us _kings_ and _priests_\nunto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever,\nAmen.\u2019\u2014Rev. i, 5, 6. \u2018And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you,\nthat ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man\nshall sit on _the throne_ of his glory, ye also shall sit upon _twelve\nthrones_, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\u2019\u201d\u2014Matt. xix, 28.[76]\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n Armstrong on the Sacraments, pp. 48, 49.\n\nThe Scriptures cited by this respected author do certainly prove that\nthe royalty and priesthood of the saints in heaven are the purchase of\nChrist\u2019s blood and the gifts of his love. But they do not even hint at\nthe idea, much less prove it, in support of which they seem to be cited;\nto wit, that the sufferings and death of Christ were his consecration to\nthe priesthood. On the contrary, they are in harmony with all the\nScriptures, which testify that those sufferings were an offering for our\nsins, made by a priest already consecrated. \u201cFor every high priest is\n_ordained to offer_ gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity\nthat this man have somewhat also to offer.\u201d\u2014Heb. viii, 3. Here, it\nappears that, inasmuch as he was a priest, he must have an offering; the\nvery reverse of the theory that his offering was in order to his\nconsecration to the priesthood. This man who by the word of the oath,\nwas consecrated a priest forevermore, needed not, like those priests to\nenter often into the holy place with blood. \u201cFor then must he often have\nsuffered since the foundation of the world,\u201d the original date of his\npriesthood. \u201cBut now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to\nput away sin by the sacrifice of himself.\u201d\u2014Heb. ix, 26. Of Christ\u2019s\nsufferings, in their _atoning_ character, the Scriptures are full and\nexplicit. And, of them, the cup is the undoubted symbol. But of\n\u201cconsecrating sufferings,\u201d and especially, of such contradistinguished\nfrom the others, as here supposed, we fail to find a trace. Is it\nasserted that although they are the same sufferings, yet are they viewed\nin a different light? Still the distinction is without warrant in the\nScriptures. But, even conceding that point, can it be imagined that the\nLord Jesus, in the circumstances of the case as relating to James and\nJohn, would pause upon and emphasize that distinction, by separate\ndefinitions, requiring distinct consideration and answer, by them, when\nat last the sufferings in question were one and the same? Nothing but an\nabsolute necessity could justify such an interpretation.\n\nIn order to a right solution of the question here considered, let us\nascertain what were the facts and conditions necessarily present in the\nmind of the Lord Jesus, in making his answer to James and John.\n\n1. Their application immediately followed, and was no doubt suggested by\na statement made by our Lord, in reply to a question from Peter. Upon\noccasion of the sorrowful turning away of the young ruler, Peter said to\nJesus, \u201cBehold we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we\nhave therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye\nwhich have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall\nsit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel.\u201d\u2014Matt. xix, 27, 28. Here are\nseveral indications of the time of enthronement. (1.) It is the time\n\u201cwhen the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory.\u201d This phrase,\n\u201cthe throne of his glory,\u201d is not used in the Scriptures to designate\nthe invisible throne of majesty and power in the heavens, now occupied\nby the Son of man; but that revelation to men of his glory, of which he\nsaid to his disciples, \u201cthe Son of man shall come in the glory of his\nFather, with his angels.\u201d\u2014Matt. xvi, 27. To this time he expressly\nrefers that throne. \u201cWhen the Son of man shall come in his glory and all\nthe holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his\nglory.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxv, 31. So Paul declares that the Lord Jesus \u201cshall judge\nthe quick and the dead at his _appearing_ and his _kingdom_;\u201d and in\nview of his own finished course, exults in the fact that, \u201cHenceforth\nthere is laid up for me a _crown_ of righteousness, which the Lord the\nrighteous Judge shall give me _at that day_; and not to me only, but\nunto all them also that love _his appearing_.\u201d\u20142 Tim. iv, 1, 8. (2.) It\nis the time of the judgment. The apostles shall sit with him, judging\nthe tribes of Israel. (3.) It is the period of \u201cthe regeneration.\u201d Some\nexpositors, indeed, refer this word to the preceding clause, which they\nread, \u201cYe which, in the regeneration, have followed me.\u201d According to\nthis reading, the regeneration means, the introduction of the gospel, as\nbeing the beginning of a new life to the world. But others understand,\nby it, the resurrection of the saints which precedes the final judgment\nof the world. According to this, which I take to be the true\ninterpretation, the resurrection is called the regeneration, because, in\nit, the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, first experienced, in the\nrenewing of the souls of believers, and in making their bodies his\ntemples, will then take full possession of the whole man, quickening and\ntransforming our vile bodies into the likeness of Christ\u2019s glorious\nbody, and reuniting soul and body in glory. In like manner, and at the\nsame time, the work of \u201crestitution of all things, which God hath spoken\nby the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began\u201d (Acts iii,\n21), will be accomplished. Beginning, as it does in the spiritual world,\nin the preaching and triumphs of the gospel, it will be consummate in\nthe regeneration of the physical system, in the new creation, the new\nheavens and the new earth. That the thrones promised to the apostles\ncould only be possessed after the resurrection, is evident from the fact\nthat, physical death being an element of the curse, the blessedness of\nthe saints may, indeed, be unspeakable, even in a disembodied state; but\nthere can be no properly royal triumph, so long as the bodies are in the\nbonds of corruption and the grave.\n\n2. While the time of the kingdom of the saints is thus clearly defined,\nthere are also certain conditions precedent, revealed with equal\nclearness and emphasis. \u201cYe which have followed me,\u201d says Jesus.\nElsewhere he explains more fully. \u201cHe that taketh not his cross, and\nfolloweth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall\nlose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.\u201d\u2014Matt.\nx, 38, 39. The following must be a bearing of the cross, with the life\nin the hand. A pertinent illustration appears in the life of the apostle\nPaul. He thus states the motives and policy which governed his\ncourse.\u2014\u201cI have suffered the loss of all things, ... that I may win\nChrist, and be found in him; ... that I may know him and the power of\nhis resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made\nconformable unto his death, if by any means I might attain unto the\nresurrection of the dead.\u201d\u2014Phil. iii, 8-11. Paul\u2019s meaning in the phrase\nto \u201cknow the power of his resurrection,\u201d elsewhere appears. He prays for\nhis readers, that they \u201cmay know,\u201d\u2014that is, may realize by a blessed\nexperience,\u2014\u201cwhat is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who\nbelieve, according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought\nin Christ, when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right\nhand in the heavenly places.... And you hath he quickened who were dead\nin trespasses and sins, ... together with Christ, ... and hath raised us\nup together.\u201d\u2014Eph. i, 16-20; ii, 1, 5, 6. In another place, Paul, in\nview of his finished course and assured reward raises the triumphant\nshout,\u2014\u201cI have fought a good fight! I have finished my course! I have\nkept the faith! Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of\nrighteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge, shall give me at that\nday;\u201d\u2014the day, to wit, of \u201chis appearing and kingdom.\u201d\u20142 Tim. iv, 1, 7,\n8.\n\nIt thus appears that the time of the kingdom is the resurrection;\u2014and\nthat the condition of its possession is not physical sufferings and\ndeath, which are common to all men; but a conformity to Christ\u2019s\nsufferings and death, by being, in him, crucified and dead to the world.\nWith this condition is inseparably identified the possession of a part\nin the resurrection and life of Christ. \u201cIf we be dead with Christ, we\nbelieve that we shall also live with him.\u201d\u2014Rom. vi, 8. \u201cI am crucified\nwith Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in\nme.\u201d\u2014Gal. ii, 20. We can be dead with Christ, dead to sin and the world,\nonly by being alive to God.\n\nNot only is the resurrection of the saints the time of their kingdom,\nbut worthiness of part in the resurrection is stated with emphasis, as\nthe final and conclusive condition precedent to the throne. \u201cThey,\u201d says\nJesus, \u201cwhich shall be accounted _worthy_ to obtain that world and the\nresurrection of the dead.\u201d\u2014Luke xx, 35. \u201cIf, by any means,\u201d says Paul,\n\u201cI might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.\u201d Herein is the\npropriety of the form of the question put by Jesus to the two\nbrethren:\u2014\u201cCan ye ... be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized\nwith?\u201d That is, \u201cAre ye ready to endure and to do all that will be\nrequired of those who would be counted worthy of that world, and of the\nresurrection of the dead?\u201d\n\n3. The same word (_palingenesia_) _regeneration_, which Jesus employs,\nis used by Paul, who describes God\u2019s mercy as saving us, \u201cby the washing\nof regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us\nabundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior.\u201d\u2014Titus iii, 5, 6. It is the\nvery grace, therefore, of which, under the Old Testament as well as the\nNew, baptism with water was the appointed symbol and seal. And\nparticularly was it true of the sprinkling of the water of separation,\nthat it symbolized the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the third day,\nand of his people on the seventh, the day of the Lord. Add to these\nconsiderations the fact that from the time of his tour in the region of\nC\u00e6sarea Philippi, where he was transfigured, Jesus had been earnestly\nendeavoring to impress on the reluctant minds of the apostles the fact\nthat \u201che must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders\nand chief priests, and scribes, and be killed and be _raised again the\nthird day_.\u201d\u2014Matt. xvi, 21. We have already seen that Jesus and the\napostles distinctly recognized and referred to the third day\u2019s baptism\nwith the sprinkled water of separation as being a prophecy the\nfulfillment of which required his rising from the dead on the third day.\n\u201cThese are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you,\nthat all things must be fulfilled which were written in _the law of\nMoses_, and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me.... Thus it\nis written and thus it _behooved_ Christ to suffer, and to _rise from\nthe dead the third day_.\u201d\u2014Luke xxiv, 44-46. In the law of Moses,\nconcerning the water of separation, and there only is the third day thus\ndefined.[77]\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n See above, p. 100.\n\nThe points suggested in these considerations are intimately and\ninseparably related to the matter involved in the petition of James and\nJohn. They are constantly so treated by the Lord Jesus himself, in his\npersonal teachings, and by his Spirit in the writers of the New\nTestament. And yet, we are to suppose that, in his response to the\nbrethren, Jesus absolutely ignored all this, which he had, just before,\nemphasized in his reply to Peter; and that he directed their attention\nsolely to the sufferings which he was to endure, and in which they were\nto share! The alternative is, that on the contrary he referred to\nbaptism, in the meaning in which unquestionably it was used throughout\nthe Old Testament, as a type and figure of the resurrection, and thus,\nby that single word, suggested all that was involved in the vastly\nimportant considerations above mentioned, as connected with the\nsubject.\u2014\u201cYe know not what ye ask. Ye neither appreciate the true nature\nof the honors which ye seek, nor the time and circumstances of their\nenjoyment, nor consider the conditions precedent. Are ye able to drink\nof the cup that I shall drink of,\u2014the cup of the crucifixion of the\nflesh and the world; and to be baptized with the baptism that I am\nbaptized with, doing and enduring all that is involved in attaining to\nthe resurrection of the dead? For it is not till the resurrection that\nthe thrones which you seek can be possessed; and only by those who are\nfound worthy of that world and of the resurrection.\u201d\n\nThat such was the meaning of our Savior would seem to be certain. This\nis confirmed by the words already cited from Luke xii, 49-53. \u201cI have a\nbaptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be\naccomplished.\u201d The matter present to the mind of Jesus, as the occasion\nof this utterance, was that discrimination which he was to exercise and\nseparation which he was to make, in purging his floor and dividing\nbetween the wheat and the chaff, bringing division into families and\ndissolving the closest and tenderest ties. It is of this that he says,\n\u201cI am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I if it be already\nkindled?\u201d That is, Why should I wish to restrain it? \u201cBut I have a\nbaptism; ... and how am I straitened!\u201d He thus indicates a straitening\nof the full exercise of that function which he has just described. The\ncause of it is an unaccomplished baptism. What then were the facts out\nof which this language is to be explained? (1.) Christ was under\njudicial condemnation for us from his birth, under the curse and\nsentence of death. (2.) While in that condition, a servant to the law\nand the curse, he could not fully exercise the prerogatives proper to\nhis royalty. (3.) Especially must his office as personally the Baptizer\nwith the Holy Ghost and with fire,\u2014as the dispenser of grace to his\npeople and wrath to his enemies,\u2014be in abeyance, till his resurrection\nand assumption of the throne. Thus, he was from the beginning straitened\nand looking forward to his resurrection as the time and means of his\nenlargement. And, hence his saying,\u2014\u201cI have a baptism.\u201d That baptism was\nthe bestowal upon him, by the Father, of the Spirit of life, raising him\nfrom the dead to the throne, whence he now dispenses grace and judgment\nto the world.\n\n\n\n\n PART XI.\n CHRIST THE GREAT BAPTIZER.\n\n\n SECTION LXI.\u2014_The Kingdom of the Son of Man._\n\nThe phrases, \u201cthe kingdom,\u201d \u201cthe kingdom of heaven,\u201d etc., have primary\nreference to that throne and kingdom to which the Lord Jesus was\nexalted, when he rose from the dead, and was set at the Father\u2019s right\nhand. It is that militant kingdom of the Son of man, the establishment\nof which Daniel saw in vision; the law of which is, \u201cconquering and to\nconquer\u201d (Rev. vi, 2); and the history of which is that \u201che must reign,\ntill he hath put all enemies under his feet.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 25. The phrase\nis sometimes used to express the efficiency of Christ\u2019s saving sceptre\nin the hearts of believers, as when Jesus says,\u2014\u201cThe kingdom of God is\nwithin you.\u201d\u2014Luke xvii, 21. It is applied to the visible church, as\nbeing that society which by public covenant and profession owns Christ\nas her King and his Word as her supreme law. So, it is used to designate\nthe millennial dispensation, when \u201cthe Lord shall be King over all the\nearth,\u201d when \u201cthere shall be one Lord, and his name one.\u201d\u2014Zech. xiv, 9.\nIts duration is by Paul said to be, until \u201che shall have put down all\nrule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put\nall enemies under his feet.\u201d \u201cThen cometh the end, when he shall have\ndelivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 24-28. Of\nthis end and change of administration Jesus says, \u201cThen shall the\nrighteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.\u201d\u2014Matt.\nxiii, 43. Of it, he teaches us to pray,\u2014\u201cThy kingdom come.\u201d\n\nThus, in all the variety of connection in which it occurs, the phrase in\nquestion derives its propriety and significance from that dominion with\nwhich man was endowed in his creation, that royalty which is enjoyed in\nthe throne and sceptre of the Son of man,\u2014its authority that of God the\nFather,\u2014its extent the whole universe of God,\u2014its object the\nmanifestation of the glory of the divine perfections, and the rectifying\nof the disorders introduced by Satan,\u2014and its end, that work\naccomplished and the sceptre resigned to the Father, \u201cthat God may be\nall in all.\u201d\n\nHis coronation and kingdom were the consummation of triumph for the Seed\nof the woman; toward which, from the beginning, the Spirit of prophecy\never pointed and hastened with ardent desire. Its realization begun with\nthe ascension and the day of Pentecost,\u2014its full meaning of grace, of\nwrath and of glory, will only then be fully realized in fruition, in\nthat day when the mighty angel shall, with uplifted hand, proclaim the\nend of the mystery with the end of time. Of its significance, I will now\nattempt an indication.\n\nSin is, in its very existence, an insult to the holiness and sovereignty\nof God. Its unclean and evil aspect is a disgust and abomination in his\nsight, and a pollution and deformity on the fair face of his creation.\nIn its first beginning by Satan, it was an immediate assault upon the\nvery throne in heaven. Its introduction into the world was a Satanic\ndevice to mock God\u2019s proclaimed purpose of favor to man, and to insult\nHis love by rendering its object unworthy of His regard, and loathsome\nto His holiness. At the creation of man, God had said, \u201cLet us make man\nin our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the\nfish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and\nover all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the\nearth.\u201d\u2014Gen. i, 26. In the eighth Psalm, this decree is anew rehearsed.\n(Psa. viii, 4-8.) Again, in the epistle to the Hebrews, Paul transcribes\nit from the Psalmist, and expounds it. \u201cFor unto the angels hath he not\nput in subjection the world to come whereof we speak. But one,\u201d that is,\nthe Psalmist, \u201cin a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that\nthou art mindful of him, or the Son of man that thou visitest him? Thou\nmadest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory\nand honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put\nall things in subjection under his feet.\u201d\u2014Heb. ii, 5-8. From this\nlanguage of the Psalmist, Paul proceeds to argue the extent of the\ndominion thus given to man. He insists, (1) that the decree is\nunlimited. \u201cIn that he put _all_ in subjection under him, he left\nnothing that is not put under him;\u201d (2) that man does not now have such\ndominion. \u201c_Now_, we see _not yet_ all things put under him;\u201d (3) that\nthe decree is already fulfilled in the throne which Christ now fills.\n\u201cBut we see Jesus crowned with glory and honor;\u201d (4) that to that same\nglory the Father is now \u201cbringing many sons,\u201d the brethren of Christ and\nco-heirs with him of the kingdom. Vs. 10.\n\nIn another place, Paul completes the view, in this direction. \u201cFor he\nmust reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy\nthat shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his\nfeet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest\nthat He is excepted which did put all things under him.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv,\n25-27. It is a legal and common sense rule of interpretation, as to\ndeeds of grant or conveyance, that an exception on one point proves the\nintention of the grant to be otherwise unlimited. So it is here. The\napostle, in excepting God the Father from the grant of dominion to the\nSon of man, leaves all else in the universe under his subjection. It\nthus appears that, in the decree of man\u2019s creation, a dominion was\nassigned him which in the purpose of God comprehended all the power\nwhich Jesus, the Son of man, now exercises, over the whole creation of\nGod.\n\nHow far this extent of the purpose of God was understood by Satan, we\nare not informed. But it is evident from the whole tenor of the\nScriptures that the fulfillment of this decree was the subject on which\nthe serpent joined issue with God, in the seduction of our first\nparents, and his policy toward our race. The issue thus on trial since\nthe foundation of the world is this: Shall God fulfill his announced\npurpose, by exalting man to the promised throne? Shall he, thereby,\nvindicate his own wisdom, sovereignty, truth, and grace, and reveal and\nglorify all his perfections? Or, shall Satan triumph over God and man,\nthwarting God\u2019s decree, through man\u2019s ruin and bondage? Shall he succeed\nin the impious attempt to array the very attributes of God against each\nother, so that his justice and holiness shall forbid the performance of\nthe purpose which his sovereign love determined and his wisdom and truth\nproclaimed? This has been the problem of the ages: This, the question\nwhich has roused intensest interest in all heaven\u2019s hosts, \u201cWhich things\nthe angels desire to look into.\u201d\u20141 Pet. i, 12. This is the key to the\nfact, that, amid the scenes of human sin and ruin which fill the pages\nof God\u2019s word, the doctrine of the kingdom gradually dominates amid the\ngloom, looming up into proportions of grandeur which overshadow earth\nand heaven. \u201cI beheld,\u201d says Daniel, \u201ctill the thrones were cast down,\nand the Ancient of days did sit; whose garment was white as snow, and\nthe hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery\nflame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came\nforth from before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten\nthousand times ten thousand stood before Him.... I saw in the night\nvisions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of\nheaven and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before\nhim. And there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all\npeople, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an\neverlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that\nwhich shall not be destroyed.\u201d\u2014Dan. vii, 9-14.\n\nAt length, the fullness of time drew nigh when the mystery of the ages\nshould be disclosed, and the promised kingdom given to the Son of man.\nJohn came, the herald of its advent, crying, \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is\nat hand.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 2. Soon, Jesus himself went forth uttering the same\nannouncement, \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d\u2014Ib. iv,\n17, 23. And lest his voice should fail to reach every ear, he shortly\nsent the twelve, and then the seventy, to fill the land with the cry.\n\u201cAs ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d\u2014Ib. x, 7;\nLuke x, 9.\n\nBut before the kingdom could be established, before the Son of man might\nassume the crown, there was a work for him to do. That crown might not\nbe a gift of God\u2019s arbitrary grace\u2014a mere assertion of purpose\nunchanged. It must be a reward of manifest and glorious merit. Nay, not\neven so is it to be a gratuitous endowment; but as a trophy won by\nbattle and conquest is it to be received and worn. The Seed of the\nwoman\u2014the Son of man\u2014must give proof, in presence of all intelligences,\nboth holy and apostate, of his worthiness of that favor which God, from\nthe beginning, so openly bestowed. He must display the mystery of a man\nwalking in the flesh among men, in the glory of a spotless and\nuntarnished righteousness, amid the reign of abounding sin. He must be\nseen\u2014this glorious man\u2014taking upon his mighty shoulders the vast incubus\nof the curse, with which Satan\u2019s malicious fraud had burdened the world,\nand bearing it away to a land not inhabited. He must meet the great\nenemy himself, whose impious challenge has raised the issue of the\nfitness of God\u2019s choice, and man\u2019s competence to reign\u2014the enemy who, in\ninsolent contempt of God\u2019s purpose, has chosen this earth as the seat of\nhis own empire, and here usurped dominion over man. He must subdue\nSatan, break his scepter and lead him captive in the train of his\ntriumph, before he may claim and assume the kingdom and the glory.\n\nSatan saw, with dread the coming of the champion, and proposed a\ncompromise.\u2014\u201cBehold the kingdoms of the world and their glory! Do homage\nto me, and all shall be thine!\u201d\u2014Matt. iv, 8, 9. It needs not to trace\nthe manner of the triumphs of the carpenter\u2019s son, ending in the\nresurrection from the guarded sepulcher, and ascension to the throne in\nheaven. As the time of the kingdom came to be immediately at hand, he\nentered Jerusalem, amid the exultant Hosannas of his followers,\nproclaiming him the King of Israel. He was betrayed and brought to the\ncouncil. And when the high-priest adjured him whether he was the Son of\nGod, his answer, whilst attesting that blessed fact, held up to equal\nprominence his royalty as the Son of man.\u2014\u201cThou hast said; nevertheless,\nI say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the _Son_ of _Man_, sitting on\nthe right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxvi,\n63, 64. And so, they crucified him, with the accusation written in\nletters of Hebrew and Greek and Latin,\u2014\u201cTHE KING OF THE JEWS.\u201d\n\nHe had already foretold his apostles that they should live to see his\nkingdom established with power. On the morning of his resurrection, he\nsaid to Mary, \u201cTouch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But\ngo to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your\nFather, and to my God and your God.\u201d\u2014John xx, 17. The word, \u201cI ascend\u201d\n(properly, \u201cI am ascending\u201d), indicates his immediate ascension and\nreception of the throne, on the very day of the resurrection. And it is\nworthy of notice that John who relates this does not mention that\nsubsequent public ascension which was made in the presence of the\napostles, as Christ\u2019s official witnesses. He had already recorded the\nessential fact. Between these two events, the first and the final\nascension, on the occasion of one of his appearances to his disciples,\nhe expressly told them that he was now already in possession of the\nthrone. He \u201ccame and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me\nin heaven and in earth.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxviii, 17, 18. On the day of Pentecost,\nPeter testified of the supreme authority now vested in Him. \u201cLet all the\nhouse of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom\nye crucified, both lord and Christ.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 36. Paul more fully states\nthe extent of his dominion. God \u201craised him from the dead and set him at\nhis own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality,\nand power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not\nonly in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all\nthings under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to\nthe church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in\nall.\u201d\u2014Eph. i, 20-23.\n\n\n SECTION LXII.\u2014_Christ is enthroned as the Baptizer._\n\nThe announcement of the coming of the Lord Jesus as King was made to the\nJews, in a very striking and impressive manner. Clothed in sackcloth of\nhair and subsisting on locusts and wild honey, John came in the\nwilderness of Judea, crying to an apostate people,\u2014\u201cRepent ye; for the\nkingdom of heaven is at hand.... He that cometh after me is mightier\nthan I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with\nthe Holy Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will\nthoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner, but he\nwill burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 2-12. The\nbaptizing office of Christ, as thus set forth, was the objective point\ntoward which the Old Testament baptisms directed the faith and hopes of\nIsrael; and the theme, as we have seen, of some of the most exultant\nstrains of prophecy. And to it, the baptism of the Christian church ever\nlooks up and testifies.\n\nThe intent of Christ\u2019s enthronement is here stated to be that he may\n\u201cthoroughly purge his floor.\u201d So Jesus himself explains the parable of\nthe tares. \u201cThe Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and shall gather\nout of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity;\nand shall cast them into a furnace of fire.\u201d\u2014Matt. xiii, 41, 42. The\ndimensions of his kingdom, to be thus purged, we have seen to be\ncoextensive with the universe of God; over which Paul declares that \u201che\nmust reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 25.\nThe same apostle further states that \u201cit pleased the Father that in Him\nshould all fullness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of\nhis cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, whether\nthey be things in earth, or things in heaven.\u201d\u2014Col. i, 19, 20.\n\nIn the execution of a work so vast and so momentous, the baptist states\ntwo means to be employed,\u2014the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and the baptism\nof fire. By the one, Jesus gathers his wheat into the garner; by the\nother, he will burn up the chaff. We will first consider the baptism of\nthe Holy Ghost.\n\nIn the blessed Triune Godhead there is one nature, one mind, and\npurpose, and will; so that all concur, equally, and freely in the\neternal origination of the divine plan, and in every step of its\nadministrative fulfillment. Yet is there an essential and native order\nof precedence and operation clearly traceable in the Scriptures. In this\norder, the Father is the first, of whom the Son is begotten, and from\nwhom the Spirit proceeds. So, in the executive administration of the\nsacred scheme, there is an order of precedence in the manifestation of\nthe Godhead, revealed with equal clearness. In it, the Son was sent by\nthe Father to humble himself under the law, in the form of a servant;\nand he so performed the Father\u2019s will as to be designated by him \u201cmy\nrighteous servant.\u201d\u2014Isa. liii, 11. In it, the Father put the anointing\nSpirit upon the incarnate Son. (Isa. xlii, 1; Matt. xii, 18.) And, by\nthe Spirit thus given, was he directed in his entire ministry, until he,\n\u201cthrough the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,\u201d a\nsacrifice for sin. (Heb. ix, 14.)\n\nBut, upon the enthronement of the Lord Jesus as God\u2019s great Baptizer,\nthere was a change in this order of administration. With the sceptre and\nkingdom of the Father, the dispensing of the Spirit was given to the Son\nof man. In this endowment, two great ends were accomplished. (1.) As the\nthird Person of the Godhead is essentially the _spiritus_, or breath, of\nthe Father (2 Sam. xxii, 16; Job iv, 9; xxxii, 8; xxxiii, 4; Matt. x,\n20), \u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father\u201d (John xv, 26), so now, being\ngiven to the Lord Jesus, and mediatorially subject to and sent forth by\nhim, as his Spirit, our Savior is thus constituted a likeness and\nrevelation of the Father, in that respect also; as he is, in being robed\nwith the Father\u2019s glory, sitting on his throne, and swaying his sceptre.\nThis was signified by the Lord Jesus, when he came to the disciples\nafter his resurrection, and breathed on them, saying, \u201cReceive ye the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\u2014John xx, 22. Thus, \u201cin him dwelleth all the fullness of the\nGodhead bodily.\u201d\u2014Col. ii, 9. (2.) This investiture with the Spirit, was\nan essential qualification, without which it was impossible that the\nLord Jesus should have fulfilled the work assigned him, of purging the\nFather\u2019s floor and gathering the wheat into his garner. Among the\nPersons of the Godhead, it is the office of the Spirit to be the author\nand source of life, by whom only, therefore, dead souls are quickened\nand dead bodies raised to life. Hence, Jesus, in announcing his\nprerogative respecting these things, attributes it to the gift of the\nSpirit of life conferred on him by the Father. \u201cThe Son can do nothing\nof himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He\ndoeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.... For as the Father raiseth\nup the dead and quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom he\nwill. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment\nunto the Son; that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the\nFather.... Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and now\nis, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that\nhear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he\ngiven to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority\nto execute judgment also, _because_ he is the _Son of man_.\u201d\u2014John v,\n19-27.\n\nIn his last discourse with his disciples, the night of the betrayal,\nJesus was very explicit on this subject. Fully to appreciate his\nstatements on that occasion, it is necessary to keep in view the general\nfeatures of the divine economy which were about to culminate in Christ\u2019s\nexaltation. Inasmuch as Satan, in his insolent scorn of the human race,\nsought, through its weakness and ruin to cast contempt upon God, and to\ninvolve his government in chaos, God in the mystery of his glorious\nlove, saw fit, in honor of the human race, to place his government upon\nthe shoulders of the child of that very woman whose weakness Satan\nbetrayed, and to appoint him to redeem her and her seed from the\nusurper\u2019s power, and avenge her wrong upon the betrayer\u2019s head; and\nordained him, _because_ he is the Son of man, to rectify all the evil\nthat Satan has done,\u2014to baptize this earth and yonder heavens from the\ndefilement and dishonor that he has wrought, through sin, and to\n\u201creconcile all things to the Father, whether they be things in earth or\nthings in heaven.\u201d It is manifest that in the fulfillment of such a\nplan, the Son of man must take actual possession of the scepter, before\nfull entrance can be made upon its manifested execution. It is further\nto be remembered that the entire discourse in question was addressed to\nthe apostles, with distinct reference to their commission and\nqualification to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. The statements and\npromises therein contained do not, therefore, have immediate respect to\nthe ordinary graces of the Spirit, in the hearers of the word, but to\nhis comforting, enlightening and directing influences in the\napostle-witnesses.\n\n\u201cI will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter that he\nmay abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.... These things\nhave I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter\nwhich is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall\nteach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance\nwhatsoever I have said unto you.... When the Comforter is come, whom I\nwill send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which\nproceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.... It is expedient\nfor you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not\ncome unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you. And when he is\ncome, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of\njudgment. Of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness,\nbecause I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because\nthe prince of this world is judged. I have many things to say unto you,\nbut ye can not bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is\ncome, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of\nhimself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will\nshow you things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of\nmine and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are\nmine; therefore said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it\nunto you.\u201d\u2014John xiv, 16, 17, 25, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7-15.\n\nIn these passages, there is a very remarkable order of progress in the\nstatements concerning the mission of the Spirit. \u201cI will pray the\nFather, and _he_ shall give you another Comforter.\u201d \u201cThe Holy Ghost,\nwhom _the Father_ will send _in my name_.\u201d \u201cThe Comforter whom _I_ will\nsend unto you _from the Father_.\u201d \u201cIf I go not away, the Comforter will\nnot come unto you: but if I depart _I will send_ him unto you.\u201d As the\nSpirit essentially proceeds from the Father, so, primarily, in the\nmanifestation of the Godhead, he is sent forth by the Father, and in all\nhis work of grace to man, is sent through the mediation of the Son.\nHence the form of the first statement:\u2014\u201cI will pray the Father, and he\nshall give.\u201d In the next passage, he indicates that whilst, in the\nconcurrence of the Godhead, the Father is the primary source of the\nSpirit, the mission spoken of, is in the name, and for the purposes of\nthe Son, namely,\u2014to remind the apostles of his words, and interpret them\nto their understandings and hearts. \u201cWhom the Father will send in my\nname,\u201d\u2014that is, to do my commission,\u2014to utter my words. In the next\nclause he assumes to himself and asserts the prerogative conferred on\nhim, and says,\u2014\u201cWhen the Comforter is come, whom _I will send_ unto you\nfrom the Father.\u201d And since the mission thus promised was to be a\ntestimony on his own behalf, he goes on to mark that the testimony of\nthe Spirit is that of the Father, also, since essentially and eternally,\nhe proceedeth from and is the Spirit of the Father. \u201cEven the Spirit of\ntruth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me; and ye\nalso shall bear witness because ye have been with me from the\nbeginning.\u201d Compare John v, 36; Heb. ii, 4.\n\nNext, since the triumphs of the gospel were reserved to honor the\nscepter of the Son of man, Jesus declares that he must ascend to heaven\nand assume that scepter, before the apostles could receive the gifts\nwhich would qualify them for spreading those triumphs.\u2014\u201cIf I go not away\nthe Comforter will not come unto you, but, if I depart, I will send him\nunto you.\u201d He declares the Spirit\u2019s offices, toward the world and toward\nthem, whom he \u201cthe Spirit of truth\u201d should \u201cguide into all truth;\u201d and\nemphasizes the fact that in fulfilling these offices, he will act\nstrictly as an interpreter. Christ is the Word of God; and the Spirit\nsent by him, \u201cshall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,\nthat shall he speak.\u201d\u2014\u201cHe shall glorify me; for he shall take of mine\nand shall shew it unto you.\u201d And lest the unlimited purport of this\ndeclaration should not be fully appreciated, he adds, \u201cAll things that\nthe Father hath are mine; therefore said I that he shall take of mine\nand shall show it unto you.\u201d As essentially the Father\u2019s, but given to\nthe Son;\u2014such is the aspect in which the Spirit shall reveal them to the\nglory of the Son.\n\nSuch were the testimonies with reference to which Jesus, after his\nresurrection, commanded his apostles to \u201cwait for the promise of the\nFather, which ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water;\nbut ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.\u201d\u2014Acts\ni, 4, 5. Of it, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, \u201cBeing by the right\nhand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of\nthe Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.\u201d\u2014Acts\nii, 33. What the promise was, Peter, here distinctly indicates. It was\nfulfilled in giving the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus, that he might of\nhis royal prerogative shed down that Spirit upon his people.\n\nThe relation thus existing between the enthroned Mediator and the Holy\nSpirit, was very remarkably intimated by Jesus the night after the\nresurrection. He came to the assembled disciples with the\nsalutation,\u2014\u201cPeace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send\nI you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto\nthem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014John xx, 21, 22. Thus by anticipation,\nhe interpreted the gift of Pentecost, as an imparting to them of the\nHoly Spirit, which was now given to and dwelt in him, as his Spirit, the\nbreath of his life.\n\nDr. Dale, in his invaluable treatises has overlooked the distinction\nhere pointed out, between the endowment of the Spirit which Jesus\nenjoyed in the performance of his earthly ministry, and that which\nbelongs to him as Baptizer on the throne. Discussing John i, 33,\u2014which\nhe translates,\u2014\u201cThis is he that baptizeth _by_ the Holy Ghost,\u201d he says,\n\u201cHe upon whom the Holy Ghost descended and on whom he remained, \u2018without\nmeasure\u2019 was thus qualified for his amazing work, and qualified to be\n[_\u2018o baptiz\u014dn en Pneumati Agi\u014d_] the Baptizer who was himself _in_ the\nHoly Ghost, and being _in_ the Holy Ghost was thereby invested with\npower to baptize _by_ the Holy Ghost.\u2014The Lord Jesus Christ\u2014_\u2018o baptiz\u014dn\nen Pneumati Agi\u014d_,\u2014is \u2018the Divine baptizer, _being in_ the Holy\nGhost.\u2019... The passage is to be understood as announcing the peculiar\ncharacter of the Lord Jesus Christ as baptizer. This is done by\nexhibiting him in a two-fold aspect: 1. As being personally _en Pneumati\nAgi\u014d_. 2. As a consequence of being _en Pneumati Agi\u014d_, being invested\nwith the power of baptizing by the Holy Ghost.\u201d[78]\u2014In another place he\nsays,\u2014\u201cThe original author of this baptism is the Lord Jesus Christ; the\nexecutive Agent is the Holy Ghost; the giver of the Holy Ghost is the\nFather.... Does not the Dative and _en_ announce the Agent in whom the\npower to baptize resides?\u201d[79]\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n \u201cChristic Baptism,\u201d pp. 53, 56, 57.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n Ibid, p. 76.\n\n1. The anointing of the Lord Jesus at his baptism did not qualify him as\nBaptizer. Else, neither He nor the apostles need have _waited_ \u201cfor the\npromise of the Father,\u201d which was fulfilled at the ascension, and\ndemonstrated on Pentecost. (See Acts i, 4; ii, 33.)\n\n2. As the water is the immediate efficient cause of the cleansing, in\nwashing, so the Spirit is the immediate efficient cause of the grace\nwrought in the spiritual baptism. But to describe him as the executive\nAgent of that baptism, is the same error which should represent the\nwater in that capacity, in ritual baptism.\n\n3. Jesus was \u201cin the Spirit,\u201d that is under the pervasive influence and\ncontrol of the Spirit, during his entire earthly life. But it was\nprecisely herein that he filled the character of being God\u2019s \u201crighteous\nservant.\u201d\u2014Isa. liii, 11. It was characteristic of his humiliation, to be\nthus subordinate. But upon his exaltation, the order was reversed. It is\nno longer Christ in the Spirit, fulfilling the service and work\nappointed him. But it is the Spirit in Christ, subject to his control,\nspeaking his words and doing according to the will of Jesus, the Lord.\nAnd Jesus does not baptize _by_ the Holy Ghost doing it for Him, but\n\u201c_with_ the Holy Ghost,\u201d as his Spirit and instrument; as he so clearly\nintimated, when he breathed upon his disciples and said, \u201cReceive ye the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\n\n\n SECTION LXIII.\u2014_Note, on the Procession of the Holy Spirit._\n\nIn the year 325, the council of Nice condemned the heresies of Arius\nconcerning the Son, and formulated the orthodox doctrine on the subject\nin what is known as the Nicene creed. In 381, the council of\nConstantinople, being assembled on account of the errors of Macedonius,\nconcerning the Spirit, inserted into the Nicene creed a statement of\ndoctrine concerning the Third Person, in which occurred the phrase,\n\u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father.\u201d About the year, 434, the council of\nEphesus, being the third general council, as the before mentioned were\nthe first and second, determined that no further addition should be made\nto this creed. Disregarding this decree, and without the sanction of any\ngeneral council, the western or Latin church, about the end of the sixth\ncentury, silently interpolated the formula of Constantinople, so as to\nmake it read,\u2014\u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father _and the Son_.\u201d The\nresulting controversies became one cause of the division between the\nLatin and Greek churches. At the reformation, the Protestant churches\ngenerally, without discussion, accepted the Romish doctrine on the\nsubject, and incorporated it into their doctrinal formularies.\n\nIn the foregoing discussion this theory is ignored, in favor of the\nprimitive doctrine; for the following reasons:\n\n1. The point in question is the essential and eternal procession of the\nSpirit. If there is one Scripture, referred to by any writer, or\ncontained in the sacred volume, which even seems to describe _such_\nprocession from the Son, it has not been my privilege to meet with it,\nin the course of a careful and long continued inquiry. The texts usually\ncited are, all of them, statements explicitly referring to the voluntary\nand temporal mission of the Spirit, coming into the world; and _not_ to\nhis essential procession, which is involuntary and eternal. They are\nJohn xv, 26; xvi, 7: Gal. iv, 6. \u201cWhen the Comforter is come whom I will\nsend unto you from the Father.\u201d\u2014\u201cIf I go not away, the Comforter will\nnot come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. \u201cBecause\nye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,\ncrying, Abba, Father.\u201d Will any one pretend that these passages refer to\nthe eternal procession?\n\n2. The language in which Jesus speaks of this procession as being from\nthe Father seems designed to be adequate and exhaustive. \u201cWhen the\nComforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the\nSpirit of truth _which proceedeth from the Father_, he shall testify of\nme.\u201d\u2014John xv, 26. That the Father, specifically, is the one essential\nand peculiar source of the Spirit, is here doubly asserted, by the\nphrase, \u201cwhom I will send unto you _from the Father_;\u201d and by the\nfurther expository statement, \u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father.\u201d Should\nJames and John unite in writing a book, any one who in speaking of James\nshould say that he wrote it, would be justly chargeable with\ncarelessness of statement. But if the book itself and its authorship and\norigin are the subject of discussion, it could not be said, with any\nregard to truth and accuracy that \u201cThis book was written by James.\u201d And,\nif the subject of the book were the life of John, and the statement were\nmade that \u201cThis book was written by James, and gives the story of John\u2019s\nlife,\u201d the omission, which previously might perhaps be accounted an\ninadvertence, assumes a character of falsehood and deceit. This, it\nseems to me, is a just parallel to the case which is made by the\ninsertion of the _filioque_ clause, making the procession to be from the\nFather _and the Son_. In the place in question, Jesus is speaking\nexpressly of the Spirit, whom he describes with reference to his\nqualification to be a witness, on behalf of the Son. Had the whole\nthought of the passage been concerning the Father, and in describing him\nJesus had said, \u201cFrom him proceedeth the Spirit,\u201d the declaration would\nseem scarcely reconcilable with a coincident procession from the Son.\nBut when the Spirit, himself, and his qualification to be a witness on\nbehalf of the Son, is the distinct subject of discourse,\u2014the statement\nthat \u201cHe proceedeth from the Father, and will testify of me,\u201d utterly\nexcludes a like procession from the Son. This conclusion is strengthened\nby the remarkable language on the same subject, uttered by the Lord\nJesus upon another occasion. \u201cIf I bear witness of myself, my witness is\nnot true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that\nthe witness which he witnesseth of me is true.... The works which the\nFather hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of\nme that the Father hath sent me.\u201d\u2014John v, 31-36. Peter declares that\n\u201cGod anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who\nwent about doing good.\u201d\u2014Acts x, 38. Jesus here expressly certifies that\nthe testimony thus by the Spirit given to his ministry was distinctively\nthe Father\u2019s testimony and not that of the Son,\u2014a statement wholly\nirreconcilable with the supposition that the Spirit of witness who was\nthe efficient author of those miracles proceeded alike from the Son and\nthe Father.\n\n3. The phrase,\u2014\u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father,\u201d\u2014is explanatory of the\nlanguage immediately preceding. \u201cWhen the Comforter is come whom I will\nsend unto you _from the Father_.\u201d But why \u201cfrom the Father,\u201d since it is\nChrist that sends Him? Why not \u201cfrom the Father and the Son?\u201d Jesus\ngives the reason,\u2014\u201cWhich _proceedeth_ from the Father.\u201d Either this\nindicates something peculiar and exclusive, or words are without\nmeaning.\n\n4. There is undoubtedly a voluntary and temporal bestowal of the Spirit\nby the Father upon the incarnate Son, a bestowal in virtue of which, he,\nas the Spirit of the Son, is by the Mediator breathed or shed upon his\npeople. But if the doctrine in question is true, the Spirit, proceeding\nfrom the Father and the Son, sustains essentially and eternally the very\nsame identical relation to each, and it would be just as impossible that\nhe should be given by the Father to the Son, as on the contrary, by the\nSon to the Father. The fact that he is given to the Son shows\nconclusively that his relation to the Father is not only primary, but\npeculiar, a fact which is the express contradictory of the theory in\nquestion. In fact, by that theory the voluntary, temporal, and\nmediatorial mission of the Spirit, by the Son as incarnate, is\nnecessarily and inextricably confounded with the eternal procession,\nwhich is essential and involuntary, the Scripture testimony on the\nsubject is distorted and set at naught, and the whole subject involved\nin perplexity and confusion. These considerations, and especially the\nfact that there is not even a plausible pretense of Scriptural authority\nfor the doctrine, lead me to its rejection.\n\n\n SECTION LXIV.\u2014_The Baptism of Fire._\n\nChrist\u2019s baptizing office is not all of grace. \u201cHe shall baptize you,\u201d\nsays John, \u201cwith the Holy Ghost and _with fire_.\u201d John thus, in harmony\nwith the Old Testament writers, from Moses to Malachi, sets forth two\ndistinct functions to be exercised by the coming One; the one, of grace,\nthe baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the other, of justice and wrath, the\nbaptism of fire. As this interpretation of John\u2019s language is denied,\nand the two baptisms interpreted as signifying essentially one and the\nsame thing, it is necessary to consider with some care the evidence on\nthe subject.\n\n1. John, as the context shows, is addressing himself in terms of earnest\nadmonition to the Pharisees and Sadducees, and to the Jews, as infected\nwith their leaven. (Compare Matt. iii, 7, and Luke iii, 7.) He warns\nthem of the discrimination which the Lord Jesus was about to use, in the\npurging of his floor. He begins with the expostulation, \u201cO generation of\nvipers, who hath warned you to flee from _the wrath to come_?\u201d He\nproceeds to indicate that the time then current was one of threatening\nportent. \u201cAnd now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.\u201d The\nsafety of the righteous he leaves to silent implication; but emphasizes\nthe doom of the wicked,\u2014\u201cEvery tree which bringeth not forth good fruit\nis hewn down and cast into the fire.\u201d He then modifies the figure, with\nreference to his own baptizing office. \u201cI indeed baptize you with\nwater.... But he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire;\u201d\nand lest there should be any doubt, as to his meaning, he completes the\nsentence with an expository detail,\u2014\u201cwhose fan is in his hand, and he\nwill thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;\nbut he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.\u201d It is certainly\nvery improbable that in a Scripture so closely knit together and\nconsecutive, so pervaded with one spirit and intent, the baptist should\nhave used the word, fire, at the beginning and end, as a vivid figure of\nthe judicial wrath of Christ, and in the middle, change it, without\nnotice or explanation, into a figure of his grace; and this, too, when\nthe first and third clauses present every appearance of being parallel\nto, and expository of the second. The supposition that the baptism of\nfire, means an exercise of grace is, in fact, irreconcilable with the\npurpose of John\u2019s whole announcement, and renders the passage\ncontradictory to the context, and false to John\u2019s mission and Christ\u2019s\noffice and work. This is the only clause in the connection in which John\nstates in direct terms, to the Pharisees and Sadducees whom he is\naddressing, the office of Christ, as toward them distinctively. And if,\nwhile proclaiming in general terms, His judicial and executive\nfunctions, consuming the evil trees and burning up the chaff, he is to\nbe understood as saying,\u2014\u201cHe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and\nwith his gracious influences,\u201d the only justifiable conclusion would be\nthat those self-righteous sectaries were the favorites of heaven, and\nhad no reason to fear that day that should burn as an oven.\n\n2. It is a mistake to suppose the figure of fire to be, in the\nScriptures, arbitrary and variable in its signification. On the\ncontrary, while constantly resorted to, as a figure of speech, and as a\nsymbol, both real and ritual, it stands out with a meaning, fixed and\ninvariable,\u2014a meaning which springs out of its essential nature and its\nfamiliar phenomena and effects, and is incorporated in the language and\ninstitutions of the Word, by express divine sanctions. The two most\nconspicuous phenomena of fire are its consuming power, and the torture\nwhich its contact inflicts upon sentient beings. Hence, with constant\nreference to the final fiery day, it is everywhere employed as the\nappointed symbol of the divine wrath, arrayed against sin. In this\ncharacter, it appears in such real symbols as the flaming sword of the\ncherubim, at Eden\u2019s gate,\u2014the fire of God which was rained down upon the\ncities of the plain, thus \u201cset forth for an example, suffering the\nvengeance of eternal fire\u201d (Jude 7), and the fire in which God descended\non Mount Sinai. In the same sense was the ritual use of fire which\ncontinually burned on the altars of the Old Testament, from the\nbeginning of man\u2019s history, to the desolation of Jerusalem. Thus, as\nconspicuous as were the temple, and the altar, and incorporated in the\nvery heart of the ritual system, was this symbol of God\u2019s avenging\nwrath, the fierceness of fire. As a figure of speech, it is constantly\nused to express the inflicted wrath of God. And, in fact, it is never\nemployed in any sense incongruous to this. It is true, that processes\nwhich are dependent on the use of fire are sometimes employed as symbols\nof the manner in which the divine grace is exercised. Says Malachi,\u2014\u201cHe\nis like a refiner\u2019s fire, and like fuller\u2019s soap; and he shall sit as a\nrefiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi,\nand purge them as gold and silver.\u201d\u2014Mal. iii, 2, 3. But, even here, the\nfire is not the Spirit, but the inflictions which the Savior employs and\nwhich by the Spirit he sanctifies to his people. Of this we have the\ndivine certificate. \u201cI have refined thee; but not with silver; I have\nchosen thee in the furnace of affliction.\u201d\u2014Isa. xlviii, 10. But, while\nthe figure is thus used, and while it is further true, that phenomena of\nfire, such as light, and heat, are used as figures of particular graces,\nit may with confidence be asserted that fire, itself, is never employed\nto represent the Spirit or his fruits.\n\n3. It is impossible, here to examine all of the multitude of passages in\nwhich the figure occurs. It will be sufficient to notice those which are\nmost commonly appealed to in proof of such use as is here denied. On the\nwords of John, Dr. Addison Alexander thus remarks:\u2014\u201c_With fire_,\u2014not the\nfire of divine wrath, as in verse 10; but the powerful and purifying\ninfluences of the Spirit; so described elsewhere. (See Isa. iv, 4; lxiv,\n2; Jer. v, 14; Mal. iii, 2; Acts ii, 3.)[80] Other writers add Isa. vi,\n6; Zech. xiii, 9; 1 Cor. iii, 13, 15. These are the most pertinent\npassages referred to, in support of the exegesis given by Dr. Alexander.\nHow entirely perfunctory and really inapposite these references are,\nappears in the fact that of the places cited by Dr. Alexander two occur\nin the prophecy of Isaiah, and one in the Acts of the Apostles, on which\nbooks the church is enriched with commentaries from the pen of that\ndistinguished divine; and that in those commentaries he, in every\ninstance, ignores and excludes the interpretation implied in his\nabove-cited references. Thus; Isa. iv, 4,\u2014\u201cthe spirit of judgment and\nthe spirit of burning,\u201d he explains as \u201cthe judgment and burning of the\nHoly Spirit, with a twofold allusion to the purifying and destroying\nenergy of fire; or rather, to its purifying by destroying; purging the\nwhole by the destruction of a part, and thereby manifesting the divine\n_justice_[81] as an active principle.\u201d In Isa. lxiv, 2, the figure of\nthe ebullition of water, represents the agitation of the ungodly nations\nin the presence of God\u2019s justice, delivering and avenging Israel; and so\nit is expounded by Alexander. \u201cO that thou wouldst rend the heavens,\nthat thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy\npresence; as when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters\nto boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations\nmay tremble at thy presence.\u201d In Isa. vi, 6, the cherub takes a coal of\nfire from off the altar, and applies it to the lips of the prophet,\nsaying, \u201cLo! this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken\naway, and thy sin purged.\u201d It would seem evident, that, by the coal from\noff the altar, is meant the atoning merits of the Lord Jesus, of whose\nsufferings the fire of the altar was the appointed symbol. Or, if the\nlanguage be interpreted of the golden altar of incense, the fire of\nwhich was kindled from the altar of burnt offering, the meaning is the\nsweet savor of Christ\u2019s intercession grounded on the merit of his\nsufferings. By no legitimate exegesis can it be made to mean, the Spirit\nof God. Jer. v, 14 needs only to be recited. \u201cBehold I will make my\nwords in thy mouth, fire, and this people, wood; and it shall devour\nthem.\u201d The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the captivity\nof the land, in fulfillment of Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy, sufficiently expound\nthis language. Remarks already made are sufficient as to the next\ncitation:\u2014Zech. xiii, 9. \u201cI will bring the third part through the fire\nand will refine them, as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is\ntried.\u201d With this, the interpretation of Mal. iii, 2, is identical. The\nreference to Acts ii, 3, looks to the \u201ccloven tongues like as of fire,\u201d\nof the day of Pentecost. But, we shall presently see that not burning\nbut brightness,\u2014illumination as of a lamp was the phenomenon of that\nday. Says the Psalmist, \u201cThe entrance of thy word giveth light.\u201d The day\nof Pentecost was, to the nations, the entrance of God\u2019s word,\u2014the\nbeginning of the gospel; and its appropriate symbols were tongues of\nlight and voices of praise in many languages. As little pertinent is the\nnext passage: 1 Cor. iii, 13-15.\u2014\u201cEvery man\u2019s work shall be made\nmanifest, for the day shall declare it; because it [the day], shall be\nrevealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man\u2019s work, of what sort\nit is.... If any man\u2019s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but\nhe himself shall be saved; yet so as by (_dia, through_) fire;\u201d\u2014that\nis,\u2014\u201cso as passing through the fire, with a bare escape.\u201d That fire here\nmeans the judicial and punitive agencies of the last great day, in the\ndiscovery and punishment of sin, is clear.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n Alexander on Matthew.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n The italics are his own.\n\nSuch are the most pertinent Scriptures to which I find reference made,\nto prove that, by fire, John meant, the Holy Spirit, or his gracious\ninfluences. That they wholly fail to establish the point, is evident;\nand a further independent examination induces the conviction that no\nothers more pertinent are to be found.\n\n4. A comparison of the four evangelists on the language of the baptist\nstrongly confirms the interpretation here maintained. Mark and John, in\ngiving account of the baptist\u2019s preaching, direct attention more\nparticularly to the gospel aspect of his mission; as he was the herald\nof the atoning Lamb of God. Neither of them, therefore, mentions his\nimpressive warnings to the Pharisees and Sadducees, respecting the trees\ncast into the fire and the threshing floor purged by burning. And, while\nthey both record the testimony of John concerning Jesus, as he that\nshould baptize with the Holy Ghost, they are both silent as to the\nbaptism of fire. (Mark i, 8; John i, 33.) But Matthew and Luke enter\nmore into the sterner aspects of John\u2019s office, as coming in the spirit\nand power of Elias, to announce judgment as well as mercy. They both,\ntherefore, report his words of warning to a generation of vipers, words\nwhich the others omit. They both tell of the axe laid to the roots of\nthe trees, and the threshing floor purged with fire; and both of them\ninterpose between these passages the announcement of the two baptisms,\n\u201cwith the Holy Ghost, and _with fire_.\u201d The omissions of Mark and John,\nand the harmony of Matthew and Luke show that the baptism of fire\nbelonged to the judicial and avenging aspect of Christ\u2019s mission, as\nemphasized by the latter evangelists, but only lightly touched by the\nothers.\n\n5. The inseparable relation of these two functions of Christ\u2019s office as\nthe enthroned Son of man is certified in all the Scriptures. It is\nprominent in those which had immediate relation to the coming of John,\nand the purposes of his ministry. We have seen this, as to the first\nannouncement made of the Angel of the covenant, to Israel at Sinai. On\nthe one hand, he was described as the Guide and Deliverer, who should\nbring them into the promised land. On the other, they were warned to\n\u201cBeware of him.... Provoke him not; for he will not pardon.\u201d\u2014Ex. xxiii,\n20, 21. In the second Psalm, the terrors of the Son are almost\nexclusively signalized, in warning to the rebellious nations. \u201cThou\nshalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like\na potter\u2019s vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, O\nye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with\ntrembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way\nwhen his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put\ntheir trust in him.\u201d Especially does Malachi emphasize Christ\u2019s two\ncontrasted functions. A careful examination of the third and fourth\nchapters of that prophecy, particularly the latter, will satisfy the\nintelligent reader that not only do they contain John\u2019s commission, as\nthe forerunner of Christ, but give the keynote and substance of his\npreaching. He is there announced as the Lord\u2019s herald, to go before the\nface of the Messenger of the covenant, who is described as coming to\nexecute two opposite but inseparable functions. On the one hand, he is\nto be the refiner and purifier of the sons of Levi; on the other, a\nswift witness and avenger against the wicked. (Mal. iii, 2-5.)\nParticularly did John have in his mind the fourth chapter, the first\nverses of which are thus given in the admirable translation of Dr. T. V.\nMoore. \u201cFor behold! the day comes! burning like a furnace! and all the\nproud, and all the doers of evil are chaff! and the day that comes burns\nthem, saith Jehovah of hosts, who will not leave them root nor branch.\nAnd then shall rise on you the sun of righteousness, and healing in his\nwings; and ye shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall. And ye\nshall trample down the ungodly; for they shall be ashes under the soles\nof your feet, in the day which I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.\u201d[82] The\n\u201cstubble\u201d of Malachi and the \u201cchaff\u201d of John refer to the same thing.\nThe threshing floor was a spot in the field which was beaten hard and\nsmooth. The grain was threshed by the treading of cattle, or by dragging\nover it \u201ca sharp threshing instrument with teeth.\u201d The process of\nwinnowing with the fan separated the grain into one heap, and the broken\nstraw or \u201cstubble\u201d and \u201cchaff\u201d into another. To clear the floor, the\nlatter were burned. From this custom was derived the vividness and\nbeauty of the prophet\u2019s imagery. He represents the wicked as thus\nseparated and consumed, and the righteous, like calves let forth from\nthe stalls in the brightness of the morning, skipping over the fields\nwhere the threshing floor lay, and thus treading among and trampling\nunder foot the ashes of the wicked. Compare Rev. vi, 10; xi, 18; xv, 3,\n4. It was with a view to the portentous character of the day thus\ndescribed, that Malachi announces the commission of John to preach\nrepentance to Israel. \u201cBehold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before\nthe coming of that great and dreadful day of the Lord.\u201d From the\nprophecy, which sets forth in such vivid colors, the tremendous issues\ndepending on his ministry, John derived the imagery of his own warning,\nwhich is, in fact, a running paraphrase of Malachi.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n The Prophets of the Restoration, by Rev. T. V. Moore, D. D.\n\n\u201cBehold,\u201d says Malachi, \u201cthe day cometh.\u201d \u201cIt is now immediately at\nhand,\u201d says John. \u201cIt shall burn as an oven,\u201d says the prophet, \u201cand all\nthe proud and all that do wickedly ... the day that cometh shall burn\nthem up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root\nnor branch.\u201d John responds: \u201cThe axe is laid at the root of the trees.\nTherefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down\nand cast into the fire.\u201d Says Malachi, \u201cAll the proud and all that do\nwickedly shall be chaff, and the day that cometh shall burn them up.\u201d\nJohn repeats and develops the figure. \u201cWhose fan is in his hand, and he\nwill thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;\nbut will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.\u201d\n\nThus thoroughly are the thought and language of John imbued with the\nconceptions and imagery of the prophet, concerning \u201cthat great and\ndreadful day of the Lord,\u201d the description of which derives all its\nvividness and terror from the manifest and accepted meaning of fire, as\nan intense figure of God\u2019s consuming wrath. In the presence of these\nfacts, the supposition is at once incredible and revolting that, into\nthe very midst of the prophet\u2019s tremendous portraiture of that fiery\nday, with the awe and dread of which he had so successfully striven to\nfill the imaginations and the hearts of his hearers,\u2014John should have\ninjected, abruptly, and without the shadow of explanation or reason, a\nphrase, in which the same figure is employed in a sense wholly foreign\nto that in which it is used by Malachi,\u2014foreign to its ordinary meaning\nin the Scriptures, and to the whole spirit and tenor of the connection\nalike of the prophet, and of the baptist.\n\nThe words of John are, in themselves incapable of being forced into\ncoincidence of meaning. \u201cHe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and\nwith fire.\u201d Here are two distinct affirmations connected by the\ncopulative, \u201cand.\u201d The latter, uttered through the inspiration of the\nHoly Spirit, purports, upon the face of it, to be additional to the\nformer. And the more critically it is examined, the more thoroughly it\nwill be found to vindicate that character. It can not be a mere\nrepetition. It can not be explained as interpreting the first clause.\nWhat then does it mean, but to announce a baptism of fire, in addition\nto the baptism of the Holy Ghost?\u2014a baptism of justice and wrath, as\nwell as one of renewing and grace?\n\nAppeal is sometimes made to phraseology employed by the Lord Jesus, in\nhis interview with Nicodemus, as being similar in construction.\u2014\u201cExcept\na man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the\nkingdom of God.\u201d\u2014John iii, 5. But the resemblance disappears, upon a\nmoment\u2019s examination. With Nicodemus, our Savior first employs the\nritual figure of water, which was or should have been familiar to the\nJewish ruler. But then, to avoid the possibility of mistake on a point\nso vital, he explains himself literally by naming the Holy Spirit, of\nwhom water was the symbol. But, in the words of the baptist, the Spirit\nis first named, in literal terms, which neither needed explanation, nor\ncould be made clearer by it. But the second clause is a supposed\nexplanation of that which needs none; an explanation less intelligible\nthan the words to be explained,\u2014an illustration by a figure, used in a\nsense directly the reverse of its familiar meaning in the Scriptures,\nthe meaning in which it is used in the same immediate connection, both\nbefore and after the clause in question,\u2014an illustration, therefore, at\nonce obscure and embarrassing, shedding no ray of light upon the\nsubject, but involving it in darkness, and turning to weakness, not to\nsay, platitude, the stern energy of the baptist\u2019s warning cry. \u201cHe shall\nbaptize you with the Holy Ghost, _and_ with his gracious influences.\u201d\n\nWhilst the interpretation in question is without precedent or authority\nin the Scriptures, the arguments in its behalf are of no appreciable\nforce. First, it is said to be \u201charsh\u201d to understand the baptism of fire\nto mean Christ\u2019s judicial administration as toward the wicked. As I must\nconfess myself unable to understand the meaning and force of this\nargument, if argument it be, I leave it without note or comment. Another\nplea assumes the form of assertion that \u201cthe idea of baptism does not\nadmit of any reference to punishment.\u201d[83]\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Ebrard, in Olshausen, on the place.\n\nIt may be allowed that _baptizo_ would not admit of such interpretation,\nif found alone and disconnected from any modifying or explanatory word\nor expression. But, that, in such connection and with such modifying\nwords and statements as occur in the text of John, it can not be so\ninterpreted, is by no means self-evident, and is supported by no\nsufficient or probable argument. The fact has already been indicated\nthat the Hellenistic use of the word was predicated upon its employment\namong the Greeks to express a condition changed by a pervasive and\ncontrolling influence. It remains to be proved that the Jews had\nentirely forgotten this, which was to them the radical meaning of the\nword; so that, in their vocabulary, it could never have been used in\nthat sense. In fact, however, a remarkable proof remains to us that the\nreverse of this is the truth. Says Isaiah, the prophet,\u2014\u201cMy heart\npanted; fearfulness affrighted me: the night of my pleasure hath he\nturned into fear unto me.\u2014Isa. xxi, 4. Alexander, with the later\nGermans, understands this as a personification of Belshazzar, the king\nof Babylon, on that night when the handwriting on the wall proclaimed\nhis judgment and doom. This, however, is unessential to the present\npurpose. Whether the prophet spoke of himself or of some other man, the\nfact of present interest is, that in the Septuagint Greek, the phrase,\n\u201cFearfulness affrighted me,\u201d is rendered, \u201cMy iniquity baptizes me.\u201d By\nthis language, the Jewish translators express the agonies of remorse\nseizing and controlling the speaker, and turning the pleasure of the\nnight into fear. Thus he was _baptized_, by sudden terrors by which he\nwas controlled and brought into a new state of anguish and despair. So\nwill the judgment of the final day seize upon the wicked and control and\nbring them into a like new condition by the baptism of fire.\n\nMoreover, the connection in which John uses the expression in question,\nis such as to constitute abundant ground for the vindication of his\nlanguage, even though baptism were restricted to the sense of\npurification. The purpose of Christ\u2019s mission, as set forth by John,\nwas, to \u201cthoroughly purge his floor;\u201d by \u201chis floor,\u201d meaning, primarily\nthe people and land of Israel; but, in its ultimate intent, the world\nand the universe. In order to accomplish this object, not only must the\nwheat be garnered, but the chaff must be burned. And, as washing with\nwater is none the less a purifying, because it does not cleanse or\ntransform the filthiness, itself, but only removes it,\u2014so, none the less\nis the baptism of fire a baptism, because it does not cleanse, but\npunishes the wicked. In so doing, it will purge the race, and cleanse\nthe world, which it inhabits. That the baptism with the Holy Ghost is a\nreal baptism, and that to it in the strictest and most peculiar sense\nthe word belongs, can not be denied. But in that baptism we see the\nseparating of the righteous and the wicked. It is as much the exclusion\nof the latter as it is the reception of the former. If the one is taken,\nit means, separation; it means that the other is left. Neither in\nconception nor in realization, is it possible to separate these two\nthings, nor to eliminate the rejection and punishment of the wicked from\nthat function by which the righteous are called and saved. By both\nalike, and by the one as much as the other, is the commission of the\ngreat Baptizer fulfilled and his floor purged.\n\nNot without a significant bearing upon the present question is the\nlanguage in which the Lord Jesus himself speaks of the discrimination\nwhich he is to exercise and the judgments which he is to inflict in the\nexercise of his royal authority. \u201cI am come _to send fire_ on the earth;\nand what will I if it be already kindled?... Suppose ye that I am come\nto give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division.\u201d\u2014Luke xii,\n49, 51. That fire, here, is no symbol of grace, is manifest; as it is,\nalso, that the theme of Malachi and John is the subject of these words\nof Jesus. Nor is the fact to be forgotten that, in the Levitical system,\nfire was distinctly recognized, along with water, as a purifying\nelement. See Num. xxxi, 10; and compare Isa. xlviii, 10, and Mal. iii,\n2, 3.\n\nFrom all this it is evident that the baptism of fire is the exercise by\nthe Lord Jesus of his judicial function, in the separation and\npunishment of the wicked.\n\nWhilst it may be admitted that no absolute conclusion concerning ritual\nbaptism, is to be deduced from the facts set forth in the Scriptures, as\nto the manner of this baptism, yet are they not unworthy of\nconsideration as one element in the mass of evidence. (1.) The diluvial\npurgation of the world, in the days of Noah, was by means of rain. \u201cThe\nfountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven\nwere opened; and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty\nnights.\u201d\u2014Gen. vii, 11, 12. (2.) Sodom and Gomorrah suffered a\ndestruction, typical in its intent, and \u201care set forth for an example\nsuffering the vengeance of eternal fire.\u201d\u2014Jude 7, and 2 Pet. ii, 6. Its\nmanner is thus recorded. \u201cThen the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon\nGomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.\u201d\u2014Gen. xix, 24.\n(3.) The final destruction of the wicked is predicted under the same\nform. \u201cUpon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a\nhorrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.\u201d\u2014Psa. xi, 6.\n(4.) More than thirty times the figure of outpouring is used in the\nScriptures to indicate the infliction of God\u2019s wrath. It is a pouring\nout, of wrath, of indignation, of vengeance, of anger and fury. Thus, in\nthe Revelation, the seven last plagues are inflicted by the outpouring\nof cups or bowls (_phialas_) of wrath from heaven upon the earth. (Rev.\nxvi.) (5.) The final destruction of Gog and Magog, is described as being\nby fire which \u201ccame down from God out of heaven and devoured them.\u201d\u2014Rev.\nxx, 9.\n\nThe analogy of all these facts and expressions with those concerning the\nbaptism of the Spirit, as designed to indicate the exaltation of the Son\nof Man, and point to his throne as the source of the indignation poured\nout, is apparent. On the other hand, the fact is to be observed, that\nthe eternal state of those wicked is represented under the figure of\ndwelling in the lake of fire,\u2014a figure which corresponds with the\nprimary classic meaning of _baptizo_, in that there is no resurrection.\n\n\n SECTION LXV.\u2014_The Baptism of Pentecost._\n\nBefore his crucifixion, Jesus had assured his disciples that they should\nsee the kingdom of God come with power. After his resurrection, in\nvisits manifestly preternatural, \u201che was seen of them forty days,\nspeaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; and being\nassembled together with them, he commanded them that they should not\ndepart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which\nsaith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but\nye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.\u201d\u2014Acts i,\n3, 4. He moreover told them, \u201cYe shall receive power, after that the\nHoly Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in\nJerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost\nparts of the earth.\u201d\u2014Ib. 8. For ten days after his public ascension they\nawaited the promised baptism. \u201cAnd when the day of Pentecost was fully\ncome, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there\ncame a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all\nthe house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven\ntongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were\nall filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,\nas the Spirit gave them utterance.\u201d\u2014Acts i, 1-4. They were inspired with\ndivine courage, zeal, and power, and in presence of those who had cried,\n\u201cAway with him!\u201d and of the rulers, who had condemned him to the cross,\nproclaimed the kingdom and glory of the man of Nazareth. And, on that\nday, three thousand, a few days afterward, five thousand, and daily\nmultitudes of believers added to the church, were the trophies of the\npower of Christ\u2019s baptizing scepter,\u2014the firstfruits and pledge of the\nbaptism of his Spirit which still continues to pour from on high its\nfloods of salvation upon the world.\n\nSuch was our Savior\u2019s entrance on his office, as the royal\nBaptizer,\u2014such the first administration of his baptism of grace. There\nare four things concerning it which demand attention. These are,\u2014the\nmanner in which the baptism was dispensed,\u2014the new spirit then given to\nthe church,\u2014the accompanying signs,\u2014and, the baptism of repentance,\nwhich then and thenceforth accompanied the preaching of the gospel.\n\n\n SECTION LXVI.\u2014_The Manner of the Pentecost Baptism._\n\nIn all the expressions and statements concerning the baptism of\nPentecost, there is a prominence given to the manner of it which can not\nbe casual, nor devoid of special significance. The attendant phenomena\nare described as \u201ca sound _from heaven_, as of a rushing mighty wind,\u201d\nwhich \u201cfilled all the place where they were sitting.\u201d \u201cCloven tongues,\nlike as of fire, sat upon each of them.\u201d \u201cAnd they were all _filled_\nwith the Holy Ghost.\u201d The facts are by Peter described as a fulfillment\nof the prophecy,\u2014\u201cI will _pour out_ of my Spirit _upon_ all flesh.\u201d\u2014vs.\n17. He further tells the assembly, that Jesus \u201c_shed forth_ this which\nye now see and hear.\u201d\u2014vs. 33. Of the similar scene in the house of\nCornelius, it is stated that \u201cthe Holy Ghost _fell on_ all them which\nheard the word,\u201d and that \u201c_on_ the Gentiles was _poured out_ the gift\nof the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Acts x, 44, 45. Peter also, in giving account of\nthis scene to the church at Jerusalem, stated, with reference to these\nfacts, that as he began to speak, \u201cthe Holy Ghost _fell on them_, _as on\nus_ at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he\nsaid, ... Ye shall be _baptized_ with the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Acts xi, 15, 16.\n\nAfter the same conception is the language of Paul.\u2014\u201cAccording to his\nmercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the\nHoly Ghost, which he _shed on us_ abundantly through Jesus Christ our\nSavior.\u2014Tit. iii, 5, 6. \u201cHope maketh not ashamed, because the love of\nGod (_ekkechutai en_) _is poured_ out on our hearts (_dia_) _through_\nthe Holy Ghost given us.\u201d\u2014Rom. v, 5. In these places, the words, \u201cshed,\u201d\nand, \u201cpoured,\u201d which are interchangeably used in the translation,\nrepresent one in the original.\n\nThe first point, here, is the manner in which the phenomena of the\noccasion were introduced. \u201cSuddenly there came a sound from heaven as of\na rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were\nsitting.\u201d That this was designed to be a significant sign, would seem\ncertain in the presence of all the other significant features of the\noccasion. And its meaning is not obscure. From the Greek verb, _pneo_,\nto blow, are derived two nouns, _pneuma_ and _pno\u0113_. These words are\nnearly identical in meaning, except that _pneuma_ is by the sacred\nwriters appropriated to designate the Holy Spirit. It, and the Hebrew\n_ruagh_, which is appropriated in a like manner, both mean, primarily,\nthe air, the wind; and hence, the breath, the soul of man, a spirit, the\nSpirit of God. In all these significations, they are found, the one in\nthe Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the other in the Greek\nof the Septuagint version. We have seen how largely the figure of water\nis used as a symbol of the Spirit. Its chief propriety as thus employed\nappears in its effects upon the earth and the creatures, penetrating and\nfertilizing the soil, washing away defilement, and refreshing the\nthirsty; while as rain from heaven, it traces the descent of the Spirit\nfrom the throne of God. In wind, or air in motion, or the breath, we\nhave another symbol, familiar in the Scriptures, and equally interesting\nand significant. Its peculiar fitness consists in its relation to its\nsource, as representing the Third Person as the _Spiritus_ or breath,\n\u201cwhich proceedeth from the Father;\u201d and in its nature, as essential to\nsustain life in the animate creation. Says the Psalmist, \u201cBy the Word of\nthe Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath\n(_t\u014d pneumati_, by the Spirit) of his mouth.\u201d\u2014Ps. xxxiii, 6. The word,\n_pno\u0113_, is that which designates the \u201crushing, mighty _wind_\u201d of\nPentecost. It is used in the Septuagint in the sense of wind, stormy or\nviolent wind, the breath, the soul, the spirit. Its relation to _pneuma_\nmay be seen in such places as follow.\u2014\u201cHe that giveth _breath_ (_pno\u0113_)\nto the people upon it and _spirit_ (_pneuma_) to them that walk\ntherein.\u201d\u2014Isa. xlii, 5. \u201cThe _spirit_ (_pneuma_) should fail before me,\nand the souls (_pno\u0113n_) which I have made.\u201d\u2014Ibid. lvii, 16. \u201cAt the\n_blast_ (_pno\u0113s_) of the _breath_ (_pneumatos_) of His nostrils.\u201d\u20142 Sam.\nxxii, 16. \u201cAll the time my _breath_ (_pno\u0113s_) is in me, and the _Spirit_\n(_pneuma_) of God is in my nostrils.\u201d\u2014Job xxvii, 3. \u201cThe _Spirit_\n(_pneuma_) of God hath made me, and the _breath_ (_pno\u0113_) of the\nAlmighty hath given me life.\u201d\u2014Job. xxxiii, 4. In the New Testament, we\nhave the words of Jesus to Nicodemus,\u2014\u201cThe _wind bloweth_ (_pneuma pnei,\nthe Spirit breatheth_), where it listeth.\u201d\u2014John iii, 8. And in this same\nbook of the Acts, is the testimony of Paul to the Athenians that\u2014\u201cHe\ngiveth to all, life and _breath_ (_pno\u0113n_), and all things.\u201d\u2014Acts xvii,\n25. Significant to the same purpose is the word, _theo-pneustos_ (_God\nbreathed_), which describes the Scriptures as the dictate of the Spirit\nin the prophets. (2 Tim. iii, 16.) Turning now to another word,\u2014says Dr.\nAlexander, \u201cThe word (_pheromen\u0113_) translated rushing, is a passive\nparticiple, meaning _borne_, or _carried_, and is properly descriptive\nof involuntary motion, caused by a superior power; an idea not suggested\nby the active participles, _rushing_, _driving_, or the like; which seem\nto make the wind itself the operative agent.\u201d[84] Compare 1 Peter i,\n13,\u2014\u201cThe grace that is to _be brought_ (_pheromen\u0113n_) unto you;\u201d and 2\nPeter i, 21.\u2014\u201cHoly men spake as they (_pheromenoi_) _were moved_ by the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d With these notes, let us compare that action of Jesus, in\nwhich he _breathed_ on his disciples, and said to them, \u201cReceive ye the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\u2014John xx, 22. This we must understand as designed by him for\nan interpretation of Pentecost. It can mean nothing else. For not till\nthen was the Spirit to be given.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n Alexander on the Acts, _in loco_.\n\nThe same figure is fully developed in the prophecy of Ezekiel (xxxvii,\n1-14), of the valley of dry bones. \u201cThere were very many in the open\nvalley; and lo, they were very dry.\u201d At the divine command, Ezekiel\nprophesied to them,\u2014\u201cO ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus\nsaith the Lord God unto these bones, Behold, I will cause breath to\nenter into you, and ye shall live.... And as I prophesied, there was a\nnoise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his\nbone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them,\nand the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then\nsaid he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind.... Come from the four winds, O\nbreath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I\nprophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them and they\nstood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.\u201d The vision is\ninterpreted to the prophet. \u201cThese bones are the whole house of\nIsrael.... Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open\nyour graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you\ninto the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I\nhave opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your\ngraves, and shall put my Spirit in you and ye shall live.\u201d Ezek. xxxvii,\n1-14. Throughout this passage, the words, \u201cwind,\u201d \u201cbreath\u201d and \u201cSpirit,\u201d\nare in the original the same (Hebrew, _ru\u0101gh_, Greek, _pneuma_), and the\nword, \u201cbreathe,\u201d\u2014\u201cCome from the four winds, O breath, and _breathe_ upon\nthese slain,\u201d\u2014is the same that describes the action of the Lord Jesus,\njust referred to. If now, in the light of these illustrations, we return\nto the account of the Pentecostal scene, we read that \u201csuddenly there\ncame a sound from heaven as of an outbreathed, mighty breath, and it\nfilled all the house where they were sitting.... And they were all\nfilled with the Holy Spirit.\u201d Thus was signified the Spirit of Christ,\nas the breath of His life, by Him breathed into His disciples. So\ndistinctly and profoundly was this idea impressed on the mind of the\nprimitive church, that it became the occasion of one of the unwarranted\nforms which were at an early age added to the Scriptural rite of\nbaptism. After the interrogation and immediately before the baptism,\nthere was an exorcism, with an insufflation or breathing in the face of\nthe person baptized; which Augustine calls a most ancient tradition of\nthe church.[85] It was meant to signify the expelling of the evil\nspirit, and the breathing in of the good Spirit of God.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Augustinus de Nupt. et Concup. II, 29.\n\nIn the outbreathing of Pentecost we have the only phenomenon of the day,\nthat was expressive of the actual performance of the baptism by the Lord\nJesus. It was the specific symbol of the manner of it. Comparing it with\nthe various other statements above quoted, it appears that of that\nbaptism, the element was the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus; the\nadministrator was Jesus seated on the throne of glory; the manner of it\nwas an outbreathing from him; its coming was by descent,\u2014a shedding down\nfrom the height of his throne to his disciples in Jerusalem; in its\nreception, it was a falling upon them; and the result was that they were\nall filled with the Holy Spirit, as the breath of their lives. For, in\nthe symbol as described, they were surrounded as it were with an\natmosphere of the Spirit. \u201cIt filled all the house where they were\nsitting;\u201d so that they could breathe no other breath.\n\nIn this account, the chief interest centers on the source of the\noutpouring. And, in fact, the very purpose of the forms of expression\nused and of the sensible phenomena which they describe was to direct the\nattention of all, upward to that source. To the same effect, was the\nwhole argument of Peter\u2019s discourse to the multitude. Each position in\nit, has this as the end.\u2014\u201cYe men of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth ye know,\nfor him ye crucified. Him God raised from the dead and exalted to his\nown right hand, and gave the Spirit in all fullness to him. That Spirit\nhath he shed down upon us, as ye now see and hear, and thus is shown his\nexaltation and power. Therefore let all the house of Israel know,\nassuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye crucified both\nLord and Christ,\u2014both sovereign over all and that Anointed One who was\npromised to David, and heralded by all the prophets, as he that should\nsit on David\u2019s conquering throne.\u201d\n\nWe have seen how Paul labors to exalt our imaginations to some\nproportionate conceptions of the unapproachable height of the throne of\nChrist\u2019s glory. And now, in our times, from the day of Pentecost unto\nthe end, it is signalized in the exercise by him of that highest\nprerogative of God, the sending forth of the infinite Spirit. It is shed\ndown by him from yonder height to this low earth,\u2014down to us worms in\nthe abyss where we lay, strown in the upas valley of death, to breathe\nlife into the dead and give salvation to the lost. And to signalize that\nheight of his exaltation, the depth of his condescension, and the\nmeasureless immensity of his matchless love, the Baptism of Pentecost\nwas given, its miracles were wrought, and its myriad trophies of\nsalvation gathered. All these point upward and cry,\u2014\u201cBehold! on high!\nFar above all powers and dominions, Jesus fills the throne! Thence he\nbreathes forth the Spirit of God! Thence he sheds down salvation!\u201d\n\n\n SECTION LXVII.\u2014_The New Spirit Imparted on Pentecost._\n\nThe previous announcements which heralded the baptism of Pentecost, and\nall the attendant facts and statements unite to indicate that in the\nvery nature of the gift then conferred there was something essentially\nnew and different from any previous endowments bestowed on the\nchurch,\u2014something by which peculiar honor was reflected on the baptizing\noffice of the Lord Jesus, upon this its first assumption and exercise.\nIt is a question to be considered,\u2014What were the new characteristics of\ngrace now first imparted to the church?\n\nThe Holy Spirit was no novelty, now first bestowed. At the coming of\nChrist, the Jews were familiar with the doctrine of the personality and\noffices of the Third Person of the Godhead. Of this the evidence is\nconclusive,\u2014in the story of John\u2019s birth,\u2014in the theme and style of\nJohn\u2019s preaching,\u2014in the facts stated as to the birth, anointing, and\nministry of Christ,\u2014in His manner of reference to the subject in his\nteaching,\u2014and especially in his warning as to the sin against the Holy\nGhost, which is only explicable upon the supposition that the doctrine\nof the Spirit was familiar to the Jews. The knowledge thus evinced had\nits source in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. So full are they on\nthe subject that there is scarcely an aspect in which it appears in the\nNew Testament which has not its counterpart in the Old. In them his\nagency is distinctly and fully recognized, both in the inspiration of\nthe prophets, and in the gifts and graces which have been common to\nGod\u2019s people in all ages. See for example, Psa. li, 11-13; cxliii, 10;\nIsa. lxiii, 10, etc. The graces which Paul testifies to be the fruits of\nthe Spirit (Gal. v, 22; Eph. v, 9), and which are in the above cited\nplaces, by the Old Testament writers referred to the same source, were\nabundantly displayed in the saints of the former dispensation, insomuch\nthat Paul holds them up as ensamples to us. (Heb. xi and xii, 1.) The\nPsalms, which gave expression and nourishment to their graces, are never\nexhausted by the profoundest attainments of Christian experience. And\nwith all the lamentable facts of unfaithfulness and apostasy which\ndarken the pages of Israel\u2019s history, there were periods of fidelity, in\nwhich the church shone in the beauty of holiness, fair and comely in the\neyes of God. In fact, with all the disposition which we sometimes\nrealize to dwell on the unbelief and apostasies of the twelve tribes,\nand lamentable as they were, it is certain that the New Testament church\nis in no condition to boast herself against Israel. If we survey the\nnominally Christian church, in its various sections\u2014the communions of\nRome and of the east, and of the various Protestant churches in Europe\nand America\u2014a just judgment will pronounce them, on the whole, scarcely\nless unfaithful and surely more inexcusable than was Israel. Assuredly,\nthere is no such difference in our favor as to indicate the absence of\nthe Spirit from the latter, and his peculiar presence with the former.\n\nIn what then did the peculiarity of the day of Pentecost consist? To\nthis question, Peter in his discourse on the occasion, gave an explicit\nanswer. \u201cThis is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel:\u2014And it shall\ncome to pass, in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit\nupon all flesh.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 16, 17. In this citation of prophecy, and in\nthe discourse which followed, Peter defined the peculiarities of the\noccasion as consisting in three things: First, that the outpouring of\nthat day was made by the Lord Jesus in person. Second, that the\nmiraculous phenomena attending it were designed to attest the fact that\nHe, being risen from the dead and exalted to God\u2019s right hand, was\nendowed with supreme and universal authority. Third, that the gifts of\nsalvation by him dispensed were adapted and designed not for Israel only\nbut for \u201call flesh,\u201d\u2014for the world. Thus was implied a change in the\nwhole aspect of grace, in the hearts of God\u2019s people.\n\nWe have formerly seen that God\u2019s entrance into covenant with Israel, at\nSinai, implied a temporary withdrawal of his overtures from the\nnations,\u2014\u201csuffering them to walk in their own ways,\u201d (Acts xiv, 16), but\nwith a distinct assertion of a reserved right, inserted in the covenant\nitself,\u2014\u201cFor, all the earth is mine.\u201d So long as God \u201cwinked at\u201d the\nwickedness of the Gentiles, the church had neither commission nor call\nto labor for their salvation, nor impulse of grace to look for it. The\ndoors of salvation and of the church were held open to all, and the word\nand ordinances maintained in Zion were an invitation to the world to\nenter freely. But, beyond that Israel was not called to go. On the\ncontrary, she was discouraged from all active or intimate contact or\nintercourse with the apostate nations. Her primary and paramount office\nand obligation it was to keep her own self pure, and to preserve and\ntransmit the oracles and ordinances of God faithfully, until the time of\nthe Messiah. In the meantime, since the operations and graces of the\nSpirit can not but be in harmony with the will and purpose of God, his\ninfluences in the hearts of Israel, corresponded with the purpose thus\nindicated concerning the nations. For, grace is nothing but harmony of\naffections and will with the character and will of God. Grace, in\nIsrael, was therefore without disseminating zeal or power, as toward the\nGentiles. It contained no impulse to seek their salvation. But, knowing\nthem as apostate and enemies to God and to his people, and as the\nobjects of his indignation and wrath, it concurred in that indignation,\nand at times gave expression to it, in forms which offend a shallow and\nunsanctified criticism. Yet are they no more incongruous to the active\nenjoyment and exercise of the profoundest and most abundant measure of\nthe Spirit\u2019s graces, than is the absence in heaven\u2019s blest inhabitants\nof zeal for the welfare of Satan, and their adoring approval of God\u2019s\njustice in his doom. All this was rather confirmed than modified by the\nfact that the Spirit of prophecy constantly indicated that a day was\ncoming when all the ends of the earth should see and share in the\nsalvation of God. The more distinctly it was revealed as the purpose of\nGod for the future, the more clearly was it seen to be not of the\npresent.\n\nBut, now, the time had come. The Son of man, the Prince Messiah, to whom\nwas reserved the ingathering of the Gentiles (Gen. xlix, 10), had\nassumed the scepter and received the Spirit of life for the nations. The\nsanctifying grace of that Spirit must be essentially the same in all\nages and times. But there was now a change in its aspect to the\nGentiles, coincident with the change of the divine attitude toward them.\nInstead of the old passive sentiment concerning the world\u2019s\nruin,\u2014instead of the former ardor of indignation against its\nungodliness,\u2014the apostles and the church were now inspired with a divine\npity and beneficent love,\u2014with an active and aggressive zeal for the\nconversion of men. While the enclosed water of the laver at the\ntabernacle was the symbol of the Spirit\u2019s influences, under the former\ndispensation, the increasing river of Ezekiel\u2019s vision is their\nrepresentative in the New Testament times. Flowing forth out of Zion,\nwith a widening and deepening current, it pours its living waters into\nthe dead sea of our apostate humanity, to the healing of the waters.\nThis difference in the nature of the Spirit\u2019s influences, now, and of\nold, is beautifully exhibited in two figures employed by our Savior, the\ndistinctive features of which should not be overlooked because of the\npoints of analogy. Speaking to the woman of Samaria of the personal\nblessings which the Spirit bestows, he tells her,\u2014\u201cWhosoever drinketh of\nthe water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I\nshall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into\neverlasting life.\u201d\u2014John iv, 14. A well, within; living, active, but\nconfined. But, at Jerusalem, at the festival of the pouring of water,\nwhich anticipated the giving of salvation to the Gentiles,\u2014\u201cIn the last\nday, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any\nman thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as\nthe Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living\nwater.\u201d\u2014John vii, 37, 38. \u201c_Out_ of his belly shall _flow_.\u201d Here is\ngrace, not enclosed and restricted in its sphere, but outflowing and\naggressive, disseminating itself without stint or limit. Hence the\nexplanation which the evangelist adds:\u2014\u201cThis spake he of the Spirit\nwhich they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was\nnot yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.\u201d\u2014Ib. vs. 39.\nHence, also, the selection made by Peter, in explanation of the\nPentecostal scene. Among the prophecies, there are many in which the\noutpouring of the Spirit is spoken of. But of them all the apostle\nselected that which, in the briefest and completest manner, indicates\nthe breaking down of the wall of partition. \u201cI will pour out of my\nSpirit _upon all flesh_.\u201d This he afterward explains. \u201cFor the promise\nis unto you, and to your children, and to _all that are afar off_, even\nas many as the Lord our God shall call.\u201d\u2014vs. 39.\n\nBut there was another point, equally important, in the endowments\nbestowed on that memorable day. Heretofore, not only had commission to\nthe Gentiles been withheld from the church, but gratuitous labors by her\nin that behalf would have been necessarily futile, for lack of power\naccompanying the word. But, said Jesus to the apostles, \u201cYe shall\nreceive _power_, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye\nshall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in\nSamaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\u201d\u2014Acts i, 8. What was\nthe nature of the power thus given, Paul tells the church of Corinth.\n\u201cGod who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in\nour hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in\nthe face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels,\nthat the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd my\nspeech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man\u2019s wisdom,\nbut in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should\nnot stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.\u201d\u20142 Cor. iv, 6,\n7; 1 Cor. ii, 4, 5. This illuminating, convincing, and converting power\nof the Spirit of God attending the word, remains the perpetual endowment\nand authentication of the Christian ministry. In addition to the zeal\nand power thus conferred, the apostles were by this baptism invested\nwith those gifts of courage, wisdom, inspiration, and miracles, which\nhad been promised by the Savior, and were requisite to qualify them for\ntheir special office and to attest their ministry. (Mark xvi, 17, 18;\nLuke xxi, 15-19; John xiv, 26; xvi, 13-15.)\n\nSuch was the change wrought by the baptism of Pentecost; such the new\ngifts by it conferred. With the coming of God\u2019s set time of mercy to the\nworld, it awakened in the hearts of his people a zeal for souls of every\nclass and nation. And it imparted to the word of the gospel a\ndemonstration and power of converting grace, correspondent to the\nbreadth of the new commission, and to the saving purposes of our blessed\nGod, toward an apostate race. In proportion as we, in these latter days,\nhave part in the baptism and Spirit of Pentecost, will we share in the\nsame ardor of zeal for the spread of the gospel and the conquest of the\nnations to the banner of Christ.\n\n\n SECTION LXVIII.\u2014_The Tongues like as of Fire._\n\nJesus had foretold his disciples that miraculous signs and wonders\nshould accompany and attest the word of the gospel published by them\n(Mark xvi, 17, 18), and the subsequent history gives abundant\nillustration of the fulfillment of this promise, in the healing of the\nsick, raising the dead and other miracles of power. But the only signs\nmentioned on the day of Pentecost are the \u201crushing mighty wind,\u201d the\n\u201ccloven tongues like as of fire,\u201d and the gift of \u201cother tongues.\u201d The\nfirst of these has been already considered. We will now inquire into the\n\u201ctongues like as of fire.\u201d \u201cThere appeared unto them cloven tongues,\nlike as of fire; and it sat upon each of them.\u201d Says Alexander,\n\u201c_Cloven_ should rather be, _distributed_, so that one sat on each of\nthem. (Vulg. _lingu\u00e6 dispertit\u00e6_.) The common version, which implies\nthat each tongue was divided into two or more, is at variance with the\nusage of the Greek verb (_diamerizomenai_), which sometimes denotes\nmoral separation or estrangement (Luke xi, 17, 18; xii, 52, 53), but\nnever, physical division. Its usual sense of distribution, or allotment,\nmay be seen by a comparison of Matt, xxvii, 35; Mark xv, 24; Luke xxii,\n17; xxiii, 34; and Acts ii, 45.\u201d[86] \u201cThere appeared unto them\ndistributed tongues like as of fire, and one sat on each of them.\u201d Such\nis the literal meaning of the evangelist. These tongues \u201c_appeared_,\u201d\n\u201c_like as_ of fire.\u201d Not burning, but brightness or illumination was\ntheir characteristic. They had thus the appearance of burning lamps, and\nseem evidently to have been symbols of that divine illumination which\nthrough the ministry of the gospel was about to be given to the\nGentiles. In the tabernacle and temple stood the seven branched golden\ncandlestick, with its seven lamps, which were by the priests daily\nreplenished with oil, and kept burning continually. In the opening of\nthe vision of the Apocalypse, John saw seven golden candlesticks, or\nlampstands, in the midst of which was one like the Son of man, in whose\nright hand were seven stars. These stars were the burning lamps of the\nlampstands. (Compare Rev. i, 12, 13, 16, 20; iii, 1; and iv, 5.) They\nwere explained to him. The candlesticks were the seven churches of Asia,\nand the stars were the angels of the seven churches. There has been some\nquestion among expositors, as to the form of church government\ncontemplated in this vision. But the most are agreed that, whatever was\nthe form, the angels were the ministry, conceived as lamps of light\nupborne by the churches. By this interpretation, we are led to the same\nunderstanding as to the golden candlestick in the tabernacle and temple,\nsince the scenery of the Revelation is a recognized transcript from the\ntemple, which was a pattern of the heavenly things. The seven lamps\nshining as stars in the darkness of the sanctuary, through the continual\nsupply of oil ministered by the priests, were a beautiful type of the\nministry and ordinances of the church of God, shining amid the moral\ndarkness of the world, through the gifts and graces of the Spirit poured\nupon them by Jesus, the great high Priest. The day of Pentecost had been\npredicted of old, as the time of the shedding of light upon the Gentiles\nby the awakened church. \u201cArise, shine; for thy light is come and the\nglory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For behold the darkness shall\ncover the earth and gross darkness the people; but the Lord shall arise\nupon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall\ncome to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.\u201d\u2014Isa. lx,\n1-3. By Zacharias, at the birth of John, and by Simeon, at the\npresentation of Jesus in the temple, He had been described in this\ncharacter,\u2014\u201cThe dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to\nthem that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death; to guide our feet\ninto the way of peace.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 78, 79. Says Simeon, \u201cMine eyes have\nseen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all\npeople,\u2014a _Light_ to lighten the _Gentiles_, and _the glory_ of thy\npeople Israel.\u201d\u2014Ib. ii, 30-32. John, in the beginning of his gospel\nspeaks in the same manner,\u2014\u201cIn him was life and the life was the Light\nof men, and the Light shineth in darkness.\u201d\u2014John i, 4, 5. Jesus had\ndescribed the ministry of John, under this figure. \u201cHe was a burning and\na shining light.\u201d\u2014John v, 35. He had distinctly foretold his disciples\nthat they were ordained to be the light of the Gentiles. \u201cYe are the\nlight of the world. A city that is set on a hill can not be hid. Neither\ndo men light a candle (_luchnon_, a lamp), and put it under a bushel,\nbut on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the\nhouse. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good\nworks and glorify your Father which is in heaven.\u201d\u2014Matt. v, 14-16. And\nnow, upon them waiting and expectant, He sheds down the oil of the\nSpirit\u2019s grace, kindles a light upon every brow, and inspires them to\nutter God\u2019s praises in the tongues of every land; thus, to them\nsignifying that the time was come to \u201cArise and shine,\u201d and to others\nannouncing that the Light of the Gentiles had risen upon the world.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n Alexander on the Acts.\n\n\n SECTION LXIX.\u2014_The Gift of Other Tongues._\n\nThe nature of this gift, and all the circumstances attending it unite in\ninvesting it with a character of peculiar impressiveness, significance\nand propriety among the miracles which attested the gospel. Devotional\nin its nature, and exercised in celebrating \u201cthe wonderful works of\nGod,\u201d it was an indication of the reception and enjoyment by those on\nwhom it fell of a large measure of the sanctifying graces of the Spirit.\nThe report of it, spreading over Jerusalem, was the attraction which\nassembled together that vast company, of whom three thousand were\nconverted that day. The prophetic nature of the sign demonstrated the\nidentity of the occasion with that predicted by Joel. And the\nsignificance of the scene,\u2014God\u2019s praises uttered in many languages,\u2014as\nthe anticipation of a world-wide acceptance of the gospel,\u2014brings this\nsign into intimate accord with the new spirit of missionary zeal, and\nthe tongues as of fire, which were the other principal phenomena of the\nday. It exhibited, in a figure, all the tribes and tongues of men, till\nthen immersed in idolatry and darkness, uniting with sudden harmony in a\nglad burst of praise to God for the wonderful works of his grace.\n\nThe conspicuous position occupied by this gift amid the scenes of\nPentecost and the relation which it sustained to the outpouring of the\nSpirit, as being the most observable gift thereby bestowed, occasioned a\nmanner of expression on the subject in the book of the Acts, which has\nled to some misconception and error. It consists in the use of the name\nof the Holy Spirit, and of phrases respecting his falling on the\ndisciples, being received by them, etc., when the subject spoken of is,\nnot his renewing and invisible graces, but the sensible phenomena which\nattested the preaching of the apostles. Thus, Peter, on the day of\nPentecost, having assured the multitude that what they saw and heard was\nthe fulfillment of the promise, \u201cI will pour out of my Spirit on all\nflesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy,\u201d and explained\nthat Jesus having received of the Father the promised Spirit, had shed\nforth this \u201cwhich ye now _see_ and _hear_;\u201d exhorted his hearers to\nrepent and be baptized, \u201cand ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the\npromise (by Joel), is to you and to your children (\u2018your sons and your\ndaughters\u2019), and to all that are afar off (\u2018all flesh\u2019).\u201d Here, the\nassurance of receiving the Holy Ghost, upon condition of repentance and\nbaptism, as well as the quotation from Joel, shows that Peter did not\nspeak of the renewing gift of the Spirit; which precedes and gives\nrepentance, but of the miraculous gifts which followed, and which they\nsaw and heard.\n\nAgain, upon the mission of Peter and John to Samaria, it is stated that\nthey prayed for the Samaritans, \u201cthat they might receive the Holy Ghost.\nFor as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in\nthe name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they\nreceived the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Acts viii, 14-17. Here, no distinct mention is\nmade of miraculous endowments. But the manner in which the gift was\nimparted, the fact that they were already believers, and especially the\nproposal of Simon magus, on the occasion, show that it was miraculous\ngifts that were conferred. The sorcerer would have offered no money for\nthe invisible renewing and sanctifying graces of the Spirit. \u201cSimon\n_saw_ that through the laying on of the apostles\u2019 hands the Holy Ghost\nwas given.\u201d And what he saw was what he sought to purchase. These\nperceptible and miraculous signs were therefore the things intended in\nthe expressions used, as to the receiving of the Holy Ghost, and his\nfalling upon the disciples.\n\nThe same manner of expression is seen in the account of Paul\u2019s interview\nwith certain disciples of John at Ephesus. (Acts xix, 1-7.) Paul asked\nthem, \u201cHave ye received the Holy Ghost, since ye believed?\u201d So reads the\ncommon version. But it should be,\u2014\u201c(_Elabete, pisteusantes_), Did ye,\nupon believing receive the Holy Ghost?\u201d The question had reference to\nthe time of their first reception of the gospel. The apostle predicates\nhis question upon the assumption that these men were believers; and he\nelsewhere testifies that faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit. It is\nthus evident, as the sequel also shows, that it was not the ordinary\ngraces of the Spirit of which Paul inquired, but his extraordinary\ngifts. Such being the purport of his question, the answer is to be\ninterpreted in accordance with it. \u201cThey said unto him, We have not so\nmuch as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.\u201d That is, We have not\nheard of the miraculous gifts. \u201cAnd he said unto them, Unto what then\nwere ye baptized? And they said unto him, Unto John\u2019s baptism.\u201d So\nintimately was Christian baptism related to the baptism and miracles of\nPentecost, that Paul could not imagine any one to have received the\nformer, and yet remain ignorant of the latter. To suppose, as do some,\nthat these disciples of John meant to declare themselves ignorant of the\nexistence of the Third Person of the Godhead, is little short of a\ncontradiction in terms, in view of the essential place which was given\nto the Spirit in John\u2019s teachings,\u2014even were we to ignore the Old\nTestament testimonies, of which John\u2019s disciples can not have been\nignorant. What they meant, is manifest from the whole tenor of the\nnarrative. In the result, the Holy Ghost was bestowed on them by the\nlaying on of Paul\u2019s hands, \u201cand they spake with tongues, and\nprophesied.\u201d That was the subject of Paul\u2019s inquiry,\u2014the subject on\nwhich they were ignorant. And the form of expression is another example\nof the style of language which we have seen running through the pages of\nthe Acts on the subject.\n\nIn striking coincidence with the relation of this sign, as representing\nthe dissemination of the gospel to the nations of the Gentiles was the\norder of its manifestation. The command of Jesus was that the gospel\nshould be preached \u201cin Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and\nunto the uttermost parts of the earth.\u201d Precisely this was the order of\nmanifestation of the gift of tongues. First, it was given to the\ndisciples assembled in Jerusalem and representing all Judea, on the day\nof Pentecost. Then Philip having preached in Samaria, to the conversion\nof many, Peter and John were sent thither; and by the laying on of their\nhands, the gift was conferred upon the Samaritans. (Acts viii, 12-17.)\nAfterward, Peter was called to the house of the Gentile, Cornelius, and\nupon his preaching, \u201cthe Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the\nword,\u201d and they spake with tongues and magnified God. (Acts x, 44-47.)\nBeside these, there is but one other account, in which the manner of the\ngift is indicated. It is the case already mentioned, of the disciples of\nJohn in Ephesus. Respecting this sign, the following points are to be\nnoticed.\n\n1. As to its nature, it came under the general designation of prophecy,\nbeing an inspired utterance of the praises of God (Luke i, 67, 68), in\nwhich in the beginning at least, all the assembly, men and women united.\n(Acts i, 14; ii, 1, 4, 11; 1 Cor. xi, 5.) As such, Peter declared it to\nbe a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. \u201cYour sons and your daughters\nshall prophesy.... And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour\nout of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.\u201d\u2014vs. 17, 18. In this\nexercise, while the hearts and affections of the speakers were edified\nby the Spirit, in connection with the utterances thus inspired, their\nunderstandings did not ordinarily apprehend the meaning. (1 Cor. xiv, 2,\n4, 13, 14, 18, 19, 28. Compare Rom. viii, 26, 27.) It was in \u201canother\ntongue\u201d than that which was native to the speaker, and usually to him an\n\u201cunknown tongue.\u201d\n\n2. It was not, therefore, designed to facilitate the labors of the\napostles, by enabling them to preach in foreign languages; and there is\nno reason to believe that it was ever so used. The Scriptures are silent\non the subject, and the traditions of the primitive church to that\neffect are worthless. Its design seems to have been two-fold,\u2014the\nedifying of those upon whom the gift was bestowed;\u2014and, for a sign to\nthe hearers. (1 Cor. xiv, 22.) Of what it was a sign, intimation has\nbeen, already, given. It was a token that henceforth the Spirit of all\ngrace would be bestowed as freely, and work as effectually, in the\nhearts of Gentiles, as of the Jews; and that God\u2019s praises thus inspired\nwould be equally acceptable to him in every tongue and from every\npeople.\n\n3. Being intended as a sign of the ingathering of the Gentiles, it seems\nat first, and until the minds of the disciples had become fully imbued\nwith that idea, to have been very abundantly bestowed, and especially at\nJerusalem, the centre whence the healing waters, were to flow. In fact,\nits value as a great public sign depended materially upon the abundance\nof the gift, whereby, as on the first occasion, it presented a figure of\nall nations uniting in the worship of the true God and our Savior. But\nas the idea became familiar to the mind of the church, and the churches\nof the Gentiles multiplied, this gift seems to have fallen gradually\ninto a subordinate place, among the many with which the church was\nendowed. (1 Cor. xii, 1-10.) The occasion of its importance as a public\nsign having passed away, its chief value now consisted in the spiritual\nedification which was ministered to the possessors themselves, in its\nexercise (Ib. xiv); and it gradually disappeared from the church.\n\n4. As the apostles were the official witnesses, appointed by the Lord\nJesus to testify of his resurrection and exaltation to the baptizing\nthrone, this sign was at first given in immediate connection with, and\nconfirmation of, their personal testimony. It was also, with a like\nintimate relation to their witnessing office, conferred by the laying on\nof their hands, upon disciples who had been gathered in by the ministry\nof others. Apart from the personal presence and ministry of the\napostles, in one or other of these forms, there is no Scriptural\nintimation, nor reason to believe, that it was ever bestowed.\n\n\n SECTION LXX.\u2014_The Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins._\n\nWe have yet to contemplate the chief and crowning glory of Pentecost.\nThe endowments conferred on the apostles, and the new spirit infused\ninto the church, were but subsidiary means; glorious indeed; but only as\nthey ministered to a more glorious end. The signs and wonders of the day\nwere but an index hand which pointed away from themselves, and directed\nall interest and attention to that end. It appears, in the baptism of\nrepentance, then first administered by the ascended Savior from his\nthrone; the first fruits of which were the three thousand converts of\nthat day, and the harvest of which still coming in, will only then be\ncomplete, when all his redeemed shall have been gathered from every\nnation and kindred and people and tongue.\n\nThe baptism of John is called \u201cthe baptism of repentance.\u201d\u2014Acts xix, 4.\nBut it was so, only as the rock in the wilderness was Christ; only as\nthe bread and cup of the supper are the body and blood of the Lord. \u201cThe\nbaptism of repentance, for the remission of sins\u201d which he preached\n(Mark i, 4), was not his own. He preached \u201csaying that they should\nbelieve on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ\nJesus.\u201d\u2014Acts xix, 4. He confessed his own weakness, and the emptiness\nand futility of his own baptism, which was only a symbol, calling men to\nrepentance, but without power to confer it. \u201cI, indeed baptize you with\nwater, unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,\nwhose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy\nGhost.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 11. Jesus, after his resurrection, told his\ndisciples,\u2014\u201cThus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer,\nand to rise from the dead the third day; and that _repentance and\nremission_ of sins should be preached in _his_ name, among all\nnations.\u201d\u2014Luke xxiv, 46, 47. A few days after the baptism of Pentecost\nhad been received, Peter, in the presence of the rulers of Israel,\ntestified.\u2014\u201cHim hath God exalted with his right hand; a Prince and\nSavior, for to _give repentance_ to Israel, and the _forgiveness of\nsins_.\u201d Acts v, 31. \u201cThe forgiveness of sins,\u201d here, is the same in the\noriginal, as \u201cthe remission of sins,\u201d in the other places, and\nespecially in the statement concerning John\u2019s preaching. This identity\nof language is undoubtedly designed to indicate identity of subject. The\nbaptism which John preached,\u2014that of which his own was the figure,\u2014was\nthe true baptism of repentance and remission, which Jesus was enthroned\nto dispense,\u2014the baptism which, on the day of Pentecost, he bestowed, by\nthe outpouring of the Spirit, whose office it is to work repentance and\nto seal remission. The doctrine concerning this baptism, may be thus\nbriefly summed. By it, as given by the Lord Jesus, the Spirit is\nbreathed into the subjects of grace, entering them as a Spirit of life.\nThis is regeneration, the immediate effect of which is a new nature\nformed after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness. The\nindwelling Spirit and the new nature, inspired by him, lust against the\nflesh and loathe sin; and by consequence induce a true repentance and\nturning from it, and a pursuit after holiness. At the same time, the\nSpirit with which they are baptized, being in Christ as the head and\nsource of life to all the body, and in them as members, unites them to\nHim by such a tie,\u2014the tie of the one infinite Spirit common to both; so\nthat they are, with him, one body, and therefore, in him, partake in the\nmerits of his righteousness, and in it are justified.\n\nIn that last discourse of our Savior, to which we have already so fully\nreferred,\u2014that discourse which was an immediate anticipation and\nprophecy of Pentecost,\u2014this subject is presented in a form of great\ninterest and prominence. In fact, the thoughtful reader will find that\nentire discourse to center upon the two correlative ideas of the unity\nof the Persons in the Godhead, and the unity of believers, in Christ.\nMoreover, these two doctrines are presented as sustaining the most\nintimate relation to each other. In answer to Philip\u2019s request, \u201cLord\nshow us the Father,\u201d Jesus emphasizes with reiteration his own unity\nwith the Father, and exhorts the disciples, \u201cBelieve me that I am in the\nFather and the Father in me.\u201d Then, having promised to secure for them\nthe presence and illumination of the Comforter, he says, \u201cYet a little\nwhile and the world seeth me no more, but ye see me; because I live, ye\nshall live also. At that day, _ye shall know_ that _I_ am _in my\nFather_, and _ye in me and I in you_.\u201d\u2014John xiv, 8-11, 19, 20. This he\nillustrates by a parable. \u201cI am the vine, ye are the branches. He that\nabideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for\nwithout me (severed from me) ye can do nothing.\u201d\u2014Ib. xv, 1-8. In the\nwonderful prayer which closed that discourse, Jesus recurs to this\ntheme, in language which from any other lips would have seemed profane,\nso closely does he identify us with the glory of the Godhead. \u201cNeither\npray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me\nthrough their word, that they all may be one; as thou Father art in me,\nand I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may\nbelieve that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I\nhave given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them,\nand thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world\nmay know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved\nme.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvii, 20-23. The \u201cglory\u201d which the Father gave the Son and\nJesus gives his people, \u201cthat they may be one,\u201d is the Holy Spirit, who\nis called \u201cthe Spirit of glory and of God,\u201d who rests on his people (1\nPeter iv, 14), and \u201cthe glory of the Father,\u201d by whom Christ was raised\nfrom the dead. (Rom. vi, 4. Compare viii, 11; and 1 Peter iii, 18.)\n\nSuch is the relation which by the baptism of the Spirit is established\nbetween Christ and the Father and believers. Touching the manner and\nprocess of it, the following are the most important points.\n\n1. Each Person of the Godhead severally co-operates in this work of\ngrace. The Father is its Author and source, by whom the Son was\ncommissioned for its execution and the Spirit given him to that end.\nHence, this gift of the Spirit to the people of God, whilst made through\nthe Son, is constantly referred to the Father, as being primarily and\nessentially his gift. The Son, having purchased salvation through the\nblood of his cross, is commissioned as sovereign administrator, to\ndispense it to the redeemed,\u2014\u201cto give eternal life to as many as the\nFather hath given him.\u201d\u2014John xvii, 2. In fulfilling this office, he, as\nthe Father\u2019s representative and likeness, \u201ccan do nothing of himself,\nbut what he seeth the Father do.\u201d And as the Father, having life in\nhimself, has given to the Son to have life in himself, and to quicken\nwhom he will (John v, 19-30), he bestows his salvation and quickens his\npeople, by shedding on them that Spirit of life which the Father shed on\nhim. The Spirit, thus given, dwells in the believer in his own proper\ncharacter, as being the efficient cause of life and holiness.\n\n2. All is postulated upon the fact that the Spirit, as given to and\ndwelling in all fullness in the Lord Jesus, is the principle and spirit\nof his life; by which he was born of the virgin; by which he lived in\nholiness, and offered himself a spotless victim to justice; by which he\nwas quickened and rose from the dead, and which, as his Spirit, the\nbreath of his nostrils, he now breathes into whom he will.\n\n3. In baptizing his people, he imparts to them the same Spirit which is\nthus in him, to be in them the Spirit of life, making their bodies his\ntemples and instruments (1 Cor. vi, 19; Rom. vi, 13); and their souls\nthe subjects of his pervasive and transforming power. (Rom. viii, 4, 5.)\n\n4. In this baptism, the Holy Spirit is not sent as an outside messenger\nor agent,\u2014a third party coming _from_ Jesus to the objects of his grace.\nTo impress us with the height of his throne and the exaltation of his\nmajesty, he says, \u201cI will _send_ him unto you.\u201d But, in the same\ndiscourse, he also says, \u201cAt that day ye shall know that I am in my\nFather, and ye in me and I in you;\u201d and moreover promises, that \u201cIf a\nman love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and\n_we_ will come unto him and make our abode with him.\u201d\u2014John xiv, 20, 23.\nThe Father and the Son are just as nigh the believer as is the Holy\nSpirit, whose office it is to attest their presence and interpret their\ncommunications to the soul. Since the Spirit is \u201cthe Spirit of\nChrist,\u201d\u2014is given to him and remains in him in all fullness, it follows,\nthat only in him, can any one receive or enjoy the indwelling and graces\nof the Spirit. Hence, the style in which, in the narrative of Pentecost,\nthe baptism is spoken of, not as the sending of a person, but the\nshedding down of an element. \u201cHe hath shed forth _this_.\u201d[87] Hence the\nmanner in which, in Peter\u2019s quotation from Joel, it is repeatedly said,\n\u201cI will pour out _of_ my Spirit.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 17, 18. And hence the\ninterpretation which Jesus, by anticipation, gave to the Pentecostal\nbaptism; when he breathed on the disciples and said, \u201cReceive ye the\nHoly Ghost;\u201d and the sign of the outbreathed mighty breath. Hence Paul\u2019s\ntestimony,\u2014\u201cYour life is hid with Christ in God;\u201d and his declaration as\nto himself,\u2014\u201cI live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\u201d Christ and his\npeople breathe one Spirit and live one life. Baptized by that one Spirit\ninto one body, and all made to drink of that one Spirit, they are thus\none with him, \u201cmembers of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.\u201d\u2014Eph.\nv, 30. This union is only less close and intimate than that of the\nFather and the Son. (John xvii, 21.) On it depends the whole process of\njustification and grace.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n \u03a4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf, in the neuter gender.\n\n\n SECTION LXXI.\u2014_Paul\u2019s Doctrine of this Baptism._\n\nPaul, in one brief sentence gives a comprehensive view of the manner and\nresults of this Baptism. \u201cAfter that the kindness and love of God our\nSavior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have\ndone, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of\nregeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us\nabundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his\ngrace, we should be made heirs, according to the hope of eternal\nlife.\u201d\u2014Titus iii, 4-7.\n\nHere, an amendment is proposed, in the fifth verse, so as to read,\u2014\u201cthe\n_laver_ (_loutrou_) of regeneration. Bishop Ellicott declares this\nrendering to be \u201cindisputable.\u201d[88] Other expositors favor it, and the\nCommittees of revision of the New Testament have honored it by inserting\nthe word, in the margin of the Revised Version, here, and in Eph. v, 26.\nA rendering thus importunate and intrusive, necessitates a critical\nexamination. The first point to be noticed is that the word, laver, is\nambiguous; and in the sense which is assumed in its insertion in the\ntext, is without warrant in the Greek language or customs. \u201cWe know very\nlittle of the baths of the Athenians during the republican period; for\nthe account of Lucian, in his Hippias, relates to baths constructed\nafter the Roman model. On ancient vases, on which persons are\nrepresented bathing, we never find any thing corresponding to a modern\nbath, in which persons can stand or sit; but there is always a round or\noval basin (_lout\u0113r_ or _lout\u0113rion_), resting on a stand, by the side of\nwhich those who are bathing are represented standing undressed and\nwashing themselves, as seen in the following wood-cut, taken from Sir.\nW. Hamilton\u2019s vases.\u201d[89] The vessels used by the Greeks in bathing\nwere, (1) the _asaminthos_, in which, sometimes, the bather sat, while\nthe water was poured over him, as we have seen in the bath of Ulysses;\n(2) the _lout\u0113r_, the _laver_, a vessel neither in size nor proportions\nadapted to the purposes of immersion, nor ever so employed, but designed\nand used as a containing vessel for the water; (3) the pitcher or dipper\n(_arutaina_), with which water was taken from the laver, and poured over\nthe bather. There was no bath tub, nor provision of any kind for\nimmersion. The mode of bathing appears in the story, in Theophrastus, of\none who entered the bathroom (_balaneion_), and not being promptly\nwaited on, dipping the ladle, (_arutaina_), poured it over his own\nperson, and declared himself bathed, \u201cno thanks to you.\u201d[90]\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary, on Eph. v, 26. On the mode of baptism,\n circumstances detract greatly from the authority of divines of the\n English church. The doctrine of that body on the prerogative of the\n church to ordain rites and ceremonies has a double effect. On the one\n hand, it takes away the motive to a thorough study of the Scriptural\n evidence on the subject. On the other, it induces a sense of\n satisfaction in admitting that the apostolic mode of baptism was by\n immersion, and then pointing to the contrary form now in use, as an\n illustration of the exercise of the church\u2019s authority over the\n matter. When to this is added the veneration cherished for \u201cthe\n primitive church\u201d of the third and fourth centuries, in which\n immersion had gained extensive footing, and the recognition of that\n form in the rubric for baptism, hereafter quoted (below, p. 354), we\n will be justified in looking farther before accepting, as conclusive,\n the judgment, however pronounced, of divines of that church.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, _article_,\n \u201cBalne\u00e6.\u201d The engravings referred to, will be found on pages 200, 207,\n above.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n \u0392\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f43\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n Theophrastus, Char. 16 (9).\n\nThe word _loutron_ was used, (1) for the _water_ of the bath. In\nAthen\u00e6us, the question is asked, why _hot springs_ (_therma loutra_),\nappearing out of the ground, are by all declared sacred to Hercules, if\nwarm bathing was an unmanly luxury, as some asserted.[91] To the same\npoint, in Aristophanes, the question occurs,\u2014\u201cWhere did you ever see\ncold Heracleian _baths_ (_loutra_)?\u201d[92] In Sophocles, \u0152dipus directs\nhis daughters \u201cto bring a _bath_ (_loutra_) of running waters.\u201d[93]\nHomer represents the curly headed Hecameda heating a warm _bath_\n(_loetra_).[94] And Euripides describes Antigone pleading to be allowed\n\u201cto pour _waters_ (_loutra_) over the corpse\u201d of Polynices;[95] that is,\nto bathe it for burial. In this use of the word, together with the mode\nof bathing by the pouring of successive dippers, or waters, over the\nperson, is explained the fact that the word is very rarely found in the\nsingular number, and in Homer, the oldest of the classics, never;\nalthough in its plural form (_loetra_, contract, _loutra_), it\nfrequently occurs in his poems. This fact is very strongly against the\nsupposition that the word contained any allusion to the bathing vessel,\nwhich would demand the singular number.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Athen\u00e6us, Deipnosoph. xii, 6 (512).\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n Aristophanes, Nub. 1051.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n \u1f29\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70. Soph., \u0152d. Col. 1598.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f10\u03cb\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f19\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7.\u2014Iliad xiv, 6.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u2019 \u1f15\u03b1.\u2014Eurip., Phoen. 1667.\n\nThe word designated (2.) the _washing_ which was accomplished by the\nwater. In the comedies of Aristophanes, the women in revolt, warn the\nmen who threaten to assail them,\u2014\u201cIf you happen to have soap, we will\ngive you _a bath_ (_loutron_);\u201d which they do, by dashing buckets of\nwater over them. Thereupon, the men run to the police, complaining,\u2014\u201cDo\nyou not know what a _washing_ (_loutron_) these have washed us, just\nnow, and that in our clothes, and without soap?\u201d[96] The idiomatic\nexpression here (\u201cto wash a washing\u201d), indicates how very close is the\nrelation between the verb _louo_, to wash, and its derivative,\n_loutron_, a washing. The one expresses the action, or doing; the other,\nthe thing done. The same idiom presents itself in Antigone\u2019s account of\nthe obsequies of her slain brother Polynices. \u201cWashing it a pure washing\n(_lousantes agnon loutron_),\u201d they gathered leaves, and burned \u201cthe poor\nremains.\u201d[97]\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03b4\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9.\u2014Aristophanes, Lysist.\n 377, 469.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n Sophocles, Antigone, 1201.\n\nAs bathing was performed by the outpouring of water on the person, the\nword was thence used (3.) to designate libations, performed by a like\noutpouring of water, in honor of gods or heroes. Thus, Agamemnon having\nbeen murdered at the instigation of his wife Clytemnestra, Orestes pours\n(_loutra_) _libations_ at his father\u2019s tomb;[98] and Electra dissuades\nher sister Chrysothemis from fulfilling her mother\u2019s commission, to\noffer (_loutra_) _libations_ at the same place, as a means of averting\ncoming vengeance.[99]\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac. Sophocles. Elect. 84.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af. Ib. 434.\n\nThe word designates (4.) a bathing place. Plutarch describes Alexander\nas speaking of \u201chaving washed off the sweat of battle (_loutr\u014d_) _with\nthe bath_ of Darius.\u201d[100] In such passages, the controlling idea is not\na supposed bathing vessel, but the cleansing water of the bath; as is\nhere indicated by the form of the participle \u201c(_apolousamenoi_), having\nwashed off;\u201d and by the instrumental dative \u201c(_loutr\u014d_), _with the\nbath_;\u201d which show that, whatever the construction of the bathing place\nof Darius, the Greek mode was present in the mind of Alexander. The idea\nof _loutron_ is further illustrated by its compounds. At Athens, before\na marriage, the bride was bathed with water brought from the fountain of\nCallirhoe, by a young girl, who was hence called (_h\u0113 loutrophoros_),\n\u201cthe bath-water carrier.\u201d So, the fee for the privilege of the bath,\nwas, _epiloutron_,\u2014_for the bath_.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n \u1f38\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7.\n Plutarch, Alexand. 20.\n\nThe voice of the classics is clearly against the rendering in question.\nThe fact that the Greeks are entirely silent as to a washing by\nimmersion, or any vessel for the purpose,\u2014the distinct name of _lout\u0113r_\ngiven to the only vessel that contained water,\u2014the bathing performed by\npouring,\u2014the use of _loutron_ to express such bathing, and to designate\nthe water itself, where there was no vessel, and libations, in which\nthere was water poured out, but no laver, nor bathing,\u2014the primitive and\npeculiar employment of the word in the plural number,\u2014and the\nderivatives formed from it, all inure to the one conclusion. At least,\nin classic Greek, _loutron_ does not mean, a _laver_, but _water_ for\nwashing, and the _washing_ accomplished by it; and that, with intimate\nreference to its affusion on the person.\n\nNor does the Hellenistic Greek utter a different testimony. In the Song\nof Songs, it is said,\u2014\u201cThy teeth are like a flock, shorn, which came up\n_from the washing_ (_apo tou loutrou_).\u201d So reads the Septuagint. From\nEcclesiasticus (above, p. 169) we have the proverb, \u201cHe that is baptized\nfrom the dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his _washing_\n(_loutr\u014d_)?\u201d Here, cleansing by the sprinkled water of separation is\ncalled _loutron_, a washing. So Philo (above, p. 175) describes the\npurifying rites, the _washings_ (_loutra_) and the sprinklings, of the\nJews. Josephus says of the two springs of Mach\u00e6rus, near the Dead Sea,\nthe one hot, and the other cold, that \u201cwhen mingled together they make a\nmost pleasant _bath_ (_loutron_).\u201d[101] And Paul, himself, writes that\nChrist gave himself for the church, \u201cthat he might cleanse it, purifying\nit with _the washing_ (_t\u014d loutr\u014d_) of water.\u201d Here the new version must\neither make nonsense of the passage, or do violence to the Greek. Either\nit must read, \u201cpurifying it _with_ the laver,\u201d that is, with the bath\ntub, not the washing; or, \u201c_in_ the laver,\u201d a rendering forbidden by the\ninstrumental dative (_t\u014d loutr\u014d_.)\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n Jewish War. VII, vi, 3.\n\nOn the other hand, in more than a dozen places,\u2014wherever the lavers of\nthe tabernacle and the temple are mentioned, the Septuagint is\n_lout\u0113r_,\u2014the same word, in the same sense in which it was used by the\nGreeks to designate the containing vessel. In a word, neither in the\nclassics, nor in Hellenistic Greek, is _loutron_ ever found in the sense\nof a laver, or bathing vessel. Or, if it is so used, the Lexicons ignore\nit; Stephanus, in his great Thesaurus, knows nothing of it; and the\nadvocates of that rendering do not adduce it. And were such example\nfound, it would be wholly insignificant as to the interpretation of\nPaul, in presence of all these facts.\n\nIf now, we ask for the evidence in favor of the new version, the answer\npresents two points,\u2014_first_, that certain versions of the New\nTestament,\u2014the Vulgate, Claromontanus, Syriac, and Gothic,\u2014have so\ntranslated _loutron_; and _second_, that in accordance with Greek usage,\nthe termination, _on_ (loutr_on_), justifies the assumption that the\nword designates an instrumental object. As to the first\nconsideration,\u2014it may be asserted with confidence that we are as fully\npossessed of the means of determining the question as were the unknown\nauthors of those versions; and the growing prevalence at that time, of a\nritualistic spirit in the church, and the consequent introduction of the\nform of immersion, sufficiently account for the rendering, apart from\nany critical considerations. Respecting the termination, _on_, the\nnumber of examples in which it is found in words that designate\ninstrumental objects is too few to establish a rule. But were it\naccepted as decisive, the whole weight of its authority is against,\ninstead of being in favor of the proposed amendment. A laver, and\nespecially a Greek laver, is no instrument of bathing. Perhaps the\n_arutaina_, the dipper, might be so called. But the _water_ and the\n_washing_, each are instrumental causes of _the cleansing_, the\nsalvation; of which, in the text, the apostle says,\u2014\u201che saved us (_dia\nloutr\u014d_) _by means of the washing_.\u201d Nor do the classics ignore this\nrelation. Plato (above, p. 181) asks concerning \u201cthe _washings_\n(_loutra_) and sprinklings,\u201d\u2014\u201cAre they not effectual to one end, to\nrender a man pure, both as to body and soul?\u201d\n\nIn the text, _loutron_ means, the washing, but with intimate reference\nto the water as the means,\u2014a sense which we have just seen illustrated\nfrom the classics. Strictly, the regeneration is the washing, of which\nthe water is the instrument. The figure thus used, the apostle\nimmediately explains. \u201cThe washing of regeneration, even the renewing of\nthe Holy Ghost.\u201d As water is the instrument of washing, so the Spirit\nshed down by Jesus Christ is the instrument of that spiritual work which\nis indicated alike by the two identical words, regeneration, and\nrenewing. Paul then proceeds with the pronoun \u201cwhich,\u201d\u2014equally\nappropriate, in the construction of the original, to the water\n(_loutrou_), or to the Holy Spirit, as its antecedent; and, in fact,\nreferring to both, as identified in one,\u2014\u201cwhich water, even the Spirit,\nhe shed on us abundantly (_dia_) by the hand of Jesus Christ.\u201d Orestes\nspeaks of himself and companions \u201c(_cheontes loutra_) pouring water\u201d of\nlibation at the tomb. So Paul speaks of \u201c(_loutrou hon execheen_) the\nwater of cleansing which He shed forth on us.\u201d In the latter case, the\nprefix, _ex_, emphasizes the source of the outpouring, but otherwise the\nconception and action of the two passages is the same. By the hand of\nhis Son, God the Father from on high sheds his Spirit, and baptizes us\nwith his renewing power. Thereby united to the Lord Jesus, we are thus\ninvested with his righteousness, and so, says the text, \u201care justified\nby his grace.\u201d And since by the same union we share his relation as\nSon;\u2014\u201cif sons, then heirs,\u201d \u201caccording to the hope of eternal life.\u201d\n\nThis baptism of the Spirit is the theme of frequent discussion in Paul\u2019s\nwritings. He particularly dwells on it as being the instrumental cause\nof that intimate unity which exists in the body of Christ, and of\nequality in privilege among all the members, Jews and Gentiles. \u201cAs the\nbody is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one\nbody, being many are one body, so also is Christ. For, by one Spirit are\nwe all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether\nwe be bond or free; and have been all made to drink one Spirit.... Now\nye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xii,\n12-14, 27. Here, the figure of baptism is followed up by the expression,\n\u201chave been all made to drink one Spirit;\u201d\u2014literally, \u201chave been all\nwatered with one Spirit.\u201d The preposition, (_eis_) \u201c_into_ one Spirit,\u201d\nis rejected by the critical editors as spurious; and the verb (_potizo_)\nmeans, to _apply_ water, either externally or internally,\u2014to water, to\ncause to drink. Compare in the same epistle, 1 Cor. iii, 2, \u201cI have _fed\nyou_ (_epotisa_) with milk;\u201d and 6-8,\u2014\u201cApollos _watered_ (_epotisen_).\u201d\n\nThe same point is set forth in another epistle\u2014\u201cEndeavoring to keep the\nunity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one\nSpirit; even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one\nfaith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and\nthrough all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace,\naccording to the measure of the gift of Christ.... That we henceforth be\nno more children, ... but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into\nhim in all things, which is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole\nbody, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint\nsupplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every\npart, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in\nlove.\u201d\u2014Eph. iv, 3-16.\n\nThat the \u201cone baptism\u201d here spoken of is that wherein, \u201cby one Spirit we\nare all baptized into one body,\u201d is manifest from the connection and the\nanalogy of the other passages here presented above and below. To suppose\nit to be water baptism, would be to make the apostle exclude that\nspiritual and real baptism of which water baptism is the shadow, and to\nwhich, in all his writings, he constantly gives so much importance as\nthe means of the union which he here discusses.\n\nIn another place, the apostle represents this baptism as merging all\nother relations in the one tie of identity with Christ. \u201cAs many of you\nas have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither\nJew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor\nfemale; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ\u2019s then\nare ye Abraham\u2019s seed, and heirs according to the promise.\u201d\u2014Gal. iii,\n27-29. Here, again, it is clear that the baptism spoken of is that of\nthe Spirit. The oneness with Christ, thus complete by this baptism, Paul\nuses as a powerful argument of the duty of his people to be dead to the\nworld that crucified him, dead to sin and all the works of the old man,\nand alive only to God. (Rom. vi, 3-6; Col. ii, 9-11.) These passages\nwill receive special consideration hereafter.\n\nThe unity of conception which pervades these Scriptures is manifest, and\nmakes it evident that they all contemplate one and the same baptism,\nthat in which by one Spirit all Christ\u2019s people are baptized into one\nbody, the spiritual body of Christ.\n\nTouching the nature of this baptism, the following are the chief\nparticulars:\n\n1. The entrance of the Spirit shed down by Jesus is regeneration, or the\nnew birth. It is the imparting of new life to the soul,\u2014the introduction\nof a principle of grace, \u201cthe new man,\u201d which, like its source, the\neternal Spirit, is immortal and supreme wherever it exists; and which,\nsustained and nourished by the indwelling Spirit, will grow and expand\nuntil it gains full and exclusive possession of all the faculties and\npowers, making the soul its seat, the body its temple, and the members\nits instruments.\n\n2. Coincident with this is the death of the old man, the destruction of\nthe controlling principle and power of evil in the soul. Hitherto, it\nreigned supreme. But now, slain; and, cast out, it remains, a \u201cbody of\ndeath\u201d in the members; offensive in its corruption, and by its\nloathsomeness acting as a stimulus to the opposing principle of grace.\n(Rom. vii, 24.)\n\n3. The result is, that whereas, formerly, the sinful affections \u201cdid\nwork in our members to bring forth fruit unto death,\u201d \u201cnow, being made\nfree from sin and become servants to God,\u201d his people have \u201ctheir fruit\nunto holiness.\u201d\u2014Rom. vii, 5; vi, 22.\n\n4. The Spirit thus given is not a transient influence; but is within the\nbeliever, a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life;\u2014a\nwell, from which it is his privilege at all times to drink of that one\nSpirit. Thereby, \u201cto every one of us is given grace according to the\nmeasure of the gift of Christ;\u201d so that we \u201cgrow up into him in all\nthings which is the Head, even Christ.\u201d\u2014Eph. iv, 7, 15. Thus grace is\nnourished, in preparation for glory.\n\n5. While such are the effects of this baptism on the spiritual condition\nof the redeemed, equally important are its influences on their external\nrelations. The first is their justification. United to the Lord Jesus,\nas members of his body, the consequence is that their sins are laid to\nthe charge of their Head, and satisfaction for them credited to the\nblood of his cross. On the other hand, his righteousness is recognized\nas theirs, and in it they stand, not only pardoned, but justified;\napproved, and entitled to the inheritance of glory. They are \u201caccepted\n_in_ the Beloved; _in_ whom we have redemption through his blood, the\nforgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace.\u201d\u2014Eph. i, 6, 7.\n\n6. Another result is their reception to the relation and privileges of\nchildren of God. Born of the Spirit,\u2014born of God, they are thus by\ninheritance children. Members of Christ,\u2014the first-born, the eternal\nSon,\u2014they share in his relation, and are in him sons; and if sons then\nheirs;\u2014heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.\n\n7. The final result is the resurrection unto glory. \u201cIf the Spirit of\nhim that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up\nChrist from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his\nSpirit that dwelleth in you.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii, 11.\n\nSuch is the one baptism, of which all ritual baptisms are mere shadowy\nsymbols,\u2014the baptism which Paul proclaims,\u2014\u201cOne Lord, one faith, one\nbaptism\u201d (Eph. iv, 5), a baptism, one and alone from its very nature, as\ndispensed by the one only Mediator, in the bestowal of that one Spirit,\nwhich belongs to and is therefore imparted by him alone. Thus have we\nthe perfect antitype of the baptisms of the Old Testament,\u2014the\nadministrator, Jesus the great High Priest; the element, that living\nwater, the Holy Spirit; the mode, his outpouring upon us from heaven;\nthe effect, washing to the corrupt,\u2014life to the dead. By this means,\ndoes our Baptizer bestow on his people all grace for the present time,\nand the resurrection and glory in the end.\n\n\n SECTION LXXII.\u2014_Noah Saved by Water._\n\nBeside the places before cited, one remains to be noticed. It is 1 Peter\niii, 17-22. There are some various readings in the MSS., although none\nthat materially affect the interpretation. Adopting what seem the best,\nthe passage is as follows:\u2014\u201cIt is better, if the will of God be so, that\nye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. For Christ, also, once\nsuffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to\nGod, being put to death as to the flesh, but quickened as to the Spirit.\nBy which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, formerly\ndisobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,\nwhile the ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight, souls were\nsaved by water. You also now antitype baptism saves (not the putting\naway of the filth of the flesh, but [conformity to] the demand of a good\nconscience toward God); by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the\ndead; who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels\nand authorities and powers being subjected to him.\u201d\n\nBoth Peter and those to whom his epistles were addressed, were familiar\nwith Paul\u2019s writings. (2 Peter iii, 15, 16.) In the passage here cited,\nthe preacher of the day of Pentecost speaks of that Spirit baptism the\nbeginning of which he had then witnessed, in a style which constantly\nreminds us of the language and manner of Paul, on the same subject. If\nPeter speaks of Christ as having been \u201cquickened by the Spirit,\u201d or\nrather \u201cquickened as to the spirit,\u201d Paul tells us that thus he became,\n\u201ca quickening spirit.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv, 45. If Peter states that \u201cantitype\nbaptism now saves us,\u201d the baptism, that is, of the Spirit, of which\nwater baptism is the type,\u2014Paul says that \u201cHe saves us by the washing of\nregeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us\nabundantly through Jesus Christ.\u201d\u2014Tit. iii, 5. Peter represents this\nbaptism as saving us \u201cby the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the\ndead;\u201d and Paul, to the same effect, testifies that \u201ceven when we were\ndead in sins God hath quickened us together with him and hath raised us\nup together\u201d (Eph. ii, 1, 4-6); and that we are \u201cburied with him in the\nbaptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the\noperation of God who hath raised him from the dead.\u201d\u2014Col. ii, 12. To the\naccount which, on the day of Pentecost, Peter gave of the exaltation of\nthe Lord Jesus to God\u2019s right hand, he here adds,\u2014\u201cangels and\nauthorities and powers being subject to him,\u201d\u2014language in which we\nrecognize the style of Paul\u2019s repeated descants on the same theme. (Eph.\ni, 20, 21; Col. i, 16; ii, 10.) As Peter\u2019s language is so thoroughly\nimbued with the style of thought and expression of Paul, we need not\nhesitate to interpret the passage by the doctrine of the great apostle\nof the Gentiles.\n\nThe design of Peter is, to encourage the people of God in the endurance\nof injustice and persecution for righteousness sake. His first argument\nis the example of Christ, who suffered patiently the just for the\nunjust, \u201cbeing put to death as to the flesh,\u201d that is, \u201cas to his\nnatural life,\u201d \u201cbut quickened as to the Spirit,\u201d inasmuch as his death\nwas to him the exhausting of the curse under which he died, and was,\ntherefore, the release of the Spirit of life which was in him, from all\nrestraint upon his quickening energies, by which, therefore, he rose\nfrom the dead. Thus, the very sufferings of his death were his door of\nentrance into life. Unexpressed, but latent in the apostles\u2019 argument is\nthe fact which, on the same subject, he states, in his second epistle,\nthat \u201cthe longsuffering of the Lord is salvation\u201d (2 Peter iii, 15),\nthat having so pitied the ungodly as to die for them, praying for his\nenemies on the very cross, he now spares the persecutors of his people,\nif possibly they may repent (2 Peter iii, 9), and that, in the end, \u201cthe\nLord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations\u201d (or\npersecutions), \u201cand to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be\npunished.\u201d\u2014Ib. ii, 9. This, he illustrates by the case of Noah and the\nold world. The question as to \u201cthe spirits in prison\u201d (Vs. 19), does not\nbelong to the present inquiry. The point of interest is the eight souls\n\u201csaved by water.\u201d\u2014Vs. 20. To understand this, it is necessary to keep it\ndistinctly in mind that the point to which the apostle\u2019s argument is\ndirected is,\u2014the righteous suffering persecution, and the persecutors\nspared. He assumes what can not but have been the fact, that during the\none hundred and twenty years of the building of the ark, Noah, \u201ca\npreacher of righteousness\u201d (2 Peter ii, 5), was exposed to bitter\npersecution. If we consider that \u201cthe earth was filled with violence\u201d\n(Gen. vi, 11-13), that Noah\u2019s preaching could not but be exceedingly\noffensive to those whose wickedness he reproved, and that his holy life,\nas \u201che walked with God,\u201d and his building of the ark, by which he\n\u201ccondemned the world\u201d (Heb. xi, 7), combined to intensify the hostility,\nit must be evident that nothing but the almighty protection under which\nhe was sheltered could have saved him and all his from speedy\ndestruction. It also seems to be implied by the language here, and by\nthe connection in which Peter elsewhere introduces the same matter (2\nPeter ii, 5-9), that when the flood came, the enmity and hatred had\nreached a crisis; so that the call to enter the ark was like the\nbringing of Lot out of Sodom, a rescue from present destruction by the\nwicked. Thus, the very waters which purged the world by sweeping away\nthe ungodly, were the salvation of the eight persons, who shut up in the\nark, were upborne upon their bosom. They were \u201csaved by water,\u201d while,\nas it rose, the world ready to perish would, in mad and impotent\ndespair, have wreaked a blind vengeance upon the prophet and his family,\nfor the terrible judgment of God; like Ahab with Elijah, in the days of\nthe famine. But \u201cthe Lord shut him in\u201d (Gen. vii, 16), and the waters\nbore them up, safe amid their perishing enemies.\n\nPeter next points out that analogous to this is the salvation of\nChrist\u2019s people,\u2014that as the waters of the deluge were the destruction\nof the old world, but life to the new, to Noah, and his house,\u2014so the\nbaptism of the Spirit is death to the old man, but life to the new,\nthrough union with the Lord Jesus and participation in his life. \u201cYou\nalso, now, antitype baptism saves, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ\nfrom the dead. Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the\nflesh, arm yourselves with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in\nthe flesh\u201d (that is, as stated immediately after, he that hath become\n\u201cpartaker of Christ\u2019s sufferings\u201d), \u201chath ceased from sin.\u201d\u2014Ch. iv, 1,\n13. Here we recognize perfect identity of thought and argument with what\nhas already appeared in Paul\u2019s writings. \u201cSo many of us as were baptized\ninto Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death. Therefore, we are\nburied with him by the baptism into his death, that like as Christ was\nraised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also\nshould walk in newness of life.\u201d\u2014Rom. vi, 3, 4.\n\nThe conclusion of Peter\u2019s argument is found, a little farther\non,\u2014\u201cBeloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is\nto try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you. But rejoice,\ninasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ\u2019s sufferings, that when his glory\nshall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.\u201d\u20141 Peter iv,\n12, 13. So Paul says, \u201cIf so be that we suffer with him, that we may be\nalso glorified together.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii, 17. It is evident that the two\ngreat apostles are perfectly united in their testimony concerning this\nbaptism and its relations to the plan of salvation.\n\nIn the foregoing exegesis, I have regarded both forms of the pronoun in\nthe beginning of the twenty-first verse, as alike spurious; at the same\ntime that the language of that verse is understood as containing a\nreflex allusion to Noah and his family \u201csaved by water.\u201d The phrase\n\u201cantitype baptism\u201d does not, it is true, necessitate the previous\nmention of a type baptism. But it certainly does invite us to look for,\nand expect such mention, an expectation confirmed by the presence of the\nparticles, \u201c_also, now_.\u201d \u201cYou, _also, now_, antitype baptism saves.\u201d\nHere seems to to be an allusion to something in the past, corresponding\nto the antitype baptism of the present. And when we find the immediately\npreceding mention of the salvation by water of Noah and his family, we\ncan not be mistaken in recognizing this as the type to which, in the\nphrase \u201cantitype baptism,\u201d Peter refers. The salvation, therefore, of\nNoah by the waters of the deluge was a baptism. Dr. Dale asserts the ark\nand not the water, to have been the instrument of the salvation, and\nquotes examples to justify the translation of _dia hudatos_, by\n\u201c_through_ the water,\u201d as a medium and not an instrument. But (1.) it\nis, of course, true that this is one meaning of _dia_. (2.) One of his\nexamples, \u201cfaith tried by fire\u201d (1 Peter i, 7), shows that it may also\nexpress instrumental relations. (3.) More pertinent would have been a\ncitation of the parallel clause which immediately follows the phrase in\nquestion. As Noah is stated to have been saved \u201cby water\u201d (_dia\nhudatos_), in the typical baptism, so \u201cantitype baptism saves us _by the\nresurrection_ (_dia anastase\u014ds_), of Jesus Christ.\u201d The parallel, here,\nbetween type and antitype, requires that in both clauses, the\npreposition should be understood in the same sense; and, as in the\nantitype, _dia_ certainly points out the resurrection of Christ, as\nbeing the instrument or means of our salvation, so in the type, must we\nunderstand it to designate the waters of the flood as the means of\nNoah\u2019s deliverance.\n\n\n SECTION LXXIII.\u2014_Christ\u2019s Baptizing Administration._\n\nThus Jesus fills the throne in the heavens, and possesses all power and\nprerogative for accomplishing the purposes of the Godhead, concerning\nthe human race\u2014the redeemed and the lost; concerning Satan and his\nangels, and the whole universe of God, moral and physical, as\ninseparably connected with the moral history and destinies of these. And\nthus, in every aspect of his work, as it progresses, from the day of\nPentecost to the final consummation and glory, he is in the exercise of\nthat office wherein he was announced by his herald John, as he that\nshould baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,\u2014that office of the\ngracious aspects of which as toward his people, the baptism of water has\nbeen, for all ages, the symbol and seal. For, on Pentecost, Jesus only\nbegan to fulfill the prophecy and promise,\u2014\u201cI will pour out of my Spirit\non all flesh.\u201d Not even yet is the breadth of its meaning accomplished.\nHe will continue to breathe his Spirit into his people, till all are\ngathered in. So, of them, individually, the purifying, although assured\nby the first baptism which they respectively receive, is brought to\nfruition only through the daily breathings of Christ\u2019s life in them, the\ninfluences of his Spirit quickening them continually; as the leper was\nnot cleansed by one affusion, but was sprinkled seven times. And while\nthe idea of baptism has special reference to the first act of grace in\nbestowing the Spirit, it views that act as comprehensive of the whole\nprocess of grace, which is potentially involved in, and secured by it.\n\nIt is not for us to know the times and seasons \u201cwhich the Father hath\nput in his own power.\u201d\u2014Acts i, 7. But, respecting some things of vital\ninterest as to the order and issue of coming events, in the history of\nChrist\u2019s baptizing office, we do know by the testimony of God.\n\n1. Whatever, to our limited and carnal apprehensions, may be the\nmysteries of the past history of the gospel in the world, there has been\nno lack of power in the baptizing scepter of Christ, nor mistake in its\nexercise. The Baptizer is that Son of man in whom dwelleth all the\nfulness of the Godhead bodily, and who is the personal Wisdom of God,\nand the Power of God. His blood paid the price of salvation. His arm\novercame and his heel crushed the serpent, during the days of his\nhumiliation in the flesh. And now, enthroned in power, he doeth in his\nwisdom according to his pleasure. If the heathen of old could say, \u201cThe\nmills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine,\u201d well may\nwe confide in our King, that he need not make haste, in the fulfillment\nof his purposes. \u201cBeloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one\nday is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one\nday.\u201d\u20142 Pet. iii, 8. Four thousand years rolled by, before the promise\nmade to the fallen woman in the garden was fulfilled, in the virgin\nbirth of the babe of Bethlehem. And now, \u201cthe vision is yet for an\nappointed time; but at the end it shall speak and not lie; though the\npromise tarry wait for it; because it will surely come; it will not\ntarry.\u201d\u2014Hab. ii, 3.\n\nIt does not fall in with the purposes of the present discussion to enter\ninto the prophetic question, as to the time and manner of the future\ndevelopments and glory of the Redeemer\u2019s kingdom. Respecting it, one\nthing is certain. The past has been a time of the hiding of his power;\nbut the light of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will yet cover\nthe earth as the waters cover the sea. The Branch of Jesse \u201cshall stand\nfor an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his rest\nshall be glorious.\u201d\u2014Isa. xi, 10.\n\n2. Every soul to whom the grace of God has come, from the day of\nPentecost to this hour, has received it from the immediate hand of\nJesus, baptizing him with the Holy Ghost. And so it will be to the end.\nThus, each one so redeemed is a new proof and pledge that Jesus fills\nthe throne,\u2014that Satan and all the powers of darkness are under his\nfeet; and that the hearts of men are in his hands, to give eternal life\nto as many as the Father hath given him.\n\n3. When the end shall come, and the mystery of God shall be finished, it\nwill appear that in every aspect of the issues joined with Satan,\ntriumph and glory crown the head of the Son of man. Nor will it be the\nmere force of physical omnipotence crushing the feebler powers of Satan.\nBut the glory of perfect righteousness, of wisdom and understanding, of\ncounsel and might, of knowledge and fear of the Lord, in the Head and\nleader of the salvation,\u2014a perfection, not merely of moral excellence\nbut of all gifts and endowments, tried and proved, first, in the form of\na servant under the law, in obedience and sufferings, amid the\ntemptations of the world and the flesh, the wiles of the devil, and the\ninflictions of God,\u2014a perfection then shown upon the throne of glory, in\nadministering with perfect wisdom and perfect skill the vast and various\naffairs of God\u2019s boundless empire, thwarting and turning to confusion\nthe plots and policies of Satan and his angels, rectifying the disorders\nwrought by the enemy, and vindicating God\u2019s glory impeached through man.\n\nIt will be a moral triumph revealed in each one of the redeemed, once a\nprostrate slave of Satan and sin, baptized and quickened, and aroused to\nstruggle for liberty, and made more than conqueror, in the conflict,\nthrough the grace and Spirit of Christ, over Satan and all his powers\nwithout, and indwelling sin and corruption,\u2014each one scarred with the\nwounds of battle, but all\u2014the crushed serpent writhing beneath their\nfeet,\u2014wearing the white robes of triumph and waving the palms of\nvictory;\u2014all clothed in the righteousness of One, and each grown to the\nstature of Christ, in the perfection of holiness and beauty, after the\nimage of God.\n\nIt will be the moral triumph of the whole ransomed host, by one Spirit\nbaptized into one body, her garments of wrought gold and needle-work,\nreceived and revealed, spotless and complete in all divine\nperfections,\u2014the bride of the Lamb, the glory of her husband, as he is\nthe image and glory of God. (1 Cor. xi, 7.) In them shall the\nprincipalities and powers in the heavenly places behold and study and\nadmire the reflected likeness of the unapproachable glory of the\ninfinite Invisible.\n\nIt will be the triumph involved in all this revelation of glory and\nblessedness in contrast with the spectacle of Satan and his followers\nand work, exposed before all intelligences, in shame and everlasting\ncontempt;\u2014his achievements seen in discord and darkness, in sin and\nsuffering and sorrow, in lamentation and woe, in the loss to him and to\nhis of all the divine perfections in which they were created, and in\ndistortion, deformity and discord, possessing and pervading them all;\nhis confident wisdom and power turned to imbecile folly, and his\nconspiracies and wiles made the occasions and means of fulfilling God\u2019s\nplan which he opposed, and crowning the Son of man with glory.\n\nThe true dignity and significance of the rite of baptism can only then\nbe adequately realized when we appreciate this comprehensive extent and\ngrandeur of the baptizing office of Christ, signified by it. In the\nfulfillment of that office he now orders all things; and its exercise\nmust be continuous to the end. The Great Baptizer must breathe the\nSpirit of life into all that mighty multitude, out of every generation\nand race, whom the Father has given Him. He must send fire upon the\nearth, and divide between his people and his enemies, and vindicate the\nFather\u2019s sovereignty and grace in all his dealings with the wicked. He\nmust, at last, by the quickening virtue of the baptism of His Spirit,\nraise up his saints,\u2014their bodies glorious as his own glorious body, and\ntheir souls perfect in holiness,\u2014and place them on the throne of\njudgment with himself; judge and cast the wicked out of his kingdom;\nconfirm the holy angels in rectitude and blessedness, and cast\nSatan,\u2014thwarted, defeated and bound in chains of darkness,\u2014into the gulf\nof fire,\u2014him and his angels and followers. He must purge the earth and\nheavens with fire, from the defilement which Satan and sin have wrought,\nand out of them create and adorn the new heavens and the new earth, the\nabode of righteousness, the home of the holy and the blessed,\u2014where the\nmany sons shall dwell with God and the Lamb. He must make all things\nnew.\n\nThen may the triumphant Son of man proclaim his work accomplished, and\nhis office ended. Then may he,\u2014not now from the cross, but from the\nthrone,\u2014cry, \u201cIt is finished!\u201d \u201cThe former things are passed away, and\nbehold I have made all things new.\u201d Sin and the curse are\nabolished;\u2014tears, and death, and sorrow, and crying, and pain are no\nmore; and in life and immortality the earth-born sons of God possess the\nglory.\n\n\u201cIt is done!\u201d The floor is purged; the garner filled; and the chaff\nburned. The baptism is accomplished. Then shall the Son, his commission\nfulfilled, deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father, and shall\nhimself also be subject to Him that put all things under him, that God\nmay be all in all. (1 Cor. xv, 24, 28.)\n\n\n SECTION LXXIV.\u2014_Argument from the Real to Ritual Baptism._\n\nThus is Jesus revealed in characters of unspeakable grandeur, as the\ntrue and only Baptizer,\u2014his the real baptism, of which all others are\nmere shadows. His baptizing office is the very end of his exaltation,\nthe peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of his throne and\nscepter. As the cross of Christ is the symbol of the whole doctrine of\nhis humiliation, sorrow and death, so his baptizing scepter represents\nthe whole doctrine of his exaltation his kingdom and glory. And, as the\nsacrament of the supper shows forth his abasement and atonement for sin;\nso, that of baptism proclaims the glory and power of his exaltation, and\nthe riches of salvation and grace which he sheds on his people from on\nhigh. The ritual ordinance therefore if true to its office, must be true\nto the similitude of the real baptism,\u2014must represent and proclaim those\nvery things which are realized in the office and work of the great\nBaptizer. But what has the real baptism to do with the humiliation of\nChrist, in any of its aspects? And, especially, what has it to do with\nthe burial of his dead body? With the throne of his power, the\nprerogatives of his scepter, the grace, the grandeur and the glory of\nhis achievements to the end, its relations are intimate and from them\ninseparable. But with humiliation and shame, with death and the grave,\nit holds no relations but those of boundless distance and infinite\ncontrast.\n\nHere then, at the culminating point in the history of baptism and the\nplan of God\u2019s grace, as identified with it, the divergence of the\nimmersion theory from the statements, conceptions and principles of the\nScriptures on the subject interposes between them a widening and\ndeepening gulf, broad, profound and impassable. Whilst the Scriptural\nrite points exultingly upward to Christ\u2019s high throne, and calls us to\nlift up our heads and admire and adore the height of his majesty and the\ngrace and grandeur of his baptizing work,\u2014the immersion theory\nconstrains its votaries, with bowed heads and stooping forms, to grope\namong the graves, in the vain endeavor to trace some fanciful\nresemblance between the rite which they espouse and the form and manner\nof the burial of the dead,\u2014a burial, too, which, as thus imagined, the\ncrucified One never received!\n\nThe doctrine of the real baptism is thus utterly incongruous to that of\nimmersion. Equally irreconcilable with that form are all the phenomena\nand expressions used in connection with the administering of Christ\u2019s\nbaptism. The sound from heaven as of an outbreathed mighty breath poured\ndown, and filling all the place, was the only phenomenon of Pentecost\nindicative of form or mode. And its mode was affusion, or outpouring,\nand descent from above. The language in which the transaction is\neverywhere described and referred to is equally specific and invariable.\nIt was a shedding down\u2014a pouring down\u2014a falling upon\u2014a filling of the\ndisciples;\u2014a style of expression used, not on the occasion, only, but in\nevery subsequent allusion to the subject. So, the prophecy cited by\nPeter is an express definition of this as the mode. \u201cI will pour out of\nmy Spirit.\u201d But, more than this, it identifies the outpouring of\nPentecost with all those Old Testament prophecies, in which the gift of\nthe Spirit is spoken of in terms of pouring and sprinkling. All these,\nagain, as we have formerly seen, are intimately associated with the\nbaptisms of the Levitical system. Those baptisms represented in ritual\nform the things which the prophets set forth in analogous figures. If\nChristian baptism departs from the Old Testament mode, it to the same\ndegree departs from the form in which the grace of Pentecost is\nuniformly predicted, represented, described, and referred to.\n\nThe attempt is made to evade the force of these facts by the assertion\nthat the \u201csound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,\u201d \u201cfilled all\nthe place where they were sitting;\u201d and that the disciples were immersed\nin it. But (1.) the immersion thus imagined is, an inversion of the\nBaptist theory. The result of an admitted affusion, it is an application\nof the element to the person, and by a sustained analogy, on Baptist\nprinciples, would require that the grave should have been brought and\nput about the body of Jesus, and that, in water baptism, the element\nshould be poured over the subject, until he is covered, although\ndrowning would be the inevitable result. (2.) There is, in fact, no\nanalogy, except in the jingle of words, between an immersion in water,\nwhich is immediately and inevitably fatal to life, and an immersion in\nthe vital air, which is the very breath of life, the withdrawal of which\nis fatal. (3.) If Christian baptism sustains any real relation at all to\nthe baptism of the Holy Spirit, which Christ administers\u2014as it assuredly\ndoes\u2014it is that of type to antitype\u2014of a similitude to the reality. Both\nthe form and the meaning of the rite must be derived from the nature of\nthe reality, of which it is the symbol. If then the immersion of the\ndisciples in the wind or breath of Pentecost is the antitype symbolized\nin the outward form of baptism, the ordinance means, not the burial of\nChrist\u2019s dead body, but the imparting of his Spirit of life to his\npeople. Thus the Baptist theory of the form and meaning of the ordinance\nis exploded, since the two ideas can not stand together. They are\nmutually destructive and the incongruity is fatal to the whole scheme,\nwhich can not stand without an immersion on Pentecost; and can not\nendure the crucial test of the only immersion which they can pretend to\ndiscover there.\n\nThe alternative is inexorable. If that which Christ dispenses is the\nnormal, the antitype, baptism, then by it the ritual baptisms of both\neconomies are to be interpreted; and their signification is to be found,\nnot in the sepulchre, but on the throne\u2014in the Spirit thence poured out,\nand the life and salvation thence dispensed;\u2014and the form of the\nordinance must needs correspond to its meaning. If, on the other hand,\nimmersion in water is the normal baptism, and the burial of the body of\nJesus, its meaning, then the baptism of Pentecost with all its phenomena\nand doctrine is to be struck from the record, as no baptism at all. _If\nthat which Christ dispenses is baptism, immersion is not._\n\n\n\n\n PART XII.\n THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT.\n\n\n SECTION LXXV.\u2014_Baptizo and the Resurrection._\n\nThe argument in proof that the disciples of John and of Christ were\nimmersed comprehends four essential propositions. (1) That _baptizo_\nmeans, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, to submerge,\u2014one or other of\nthese, and _nothing else_; (2) That the prepositions, _eis_, _en_, _ek_,\nand _apo_, as used in the New Testament, in connection with _baptizo_,\nrequire and enforce that meaning; (3) That the resort of John to the\nJordan, and to Enon, \u201cbecause there was much water there,\u201d is conclusive\nto the same effect; (4) That Paul, in saying that we are \u201cburied with\nChrist in baptism,\u201d refers to the form of immersion; (5) It is,\nmoreover, held that the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch\nshows it to have been by immersion. The last point will be considered\nfurther on.\n\nAs to _baptizo_, enough has already appeared to render it certain that\nthe definition heretofore insisted on by Baptists is untenable, and that\nthe word, in itself, determines nothing as to form. It was formerly\nmaintained as unquestionable, that _bapto_ and _baptizo_ are strictly\nequivalent; and that the meaning is, \u201cto dip, and nothing but dip.\u201d This\nassumption may now be considered obsolete. It is definitely abandoned by\nthe ablest representatives of immersion. Dr. Conant having been\nappointed thereto by the American (Baptist) Bible Union entered into an\nelaborate investigation of \u201cThe Meaning and Use of _Baptizo_.\u201d In a\ntreatise published under that title, he thus states the result. \u201cThe\nword, _immerse_, as well as its synonyms, _immerge_, etc., expresses the\nfull import of the Greek word, _baptizein_. The idea of emersion is not\nincluded in it. It means simply to put into or under water; without\ndetermining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats\nin the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not by\nthe word, itself, but by the design of the act, in each particular case.\nA living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of\ncourse to be immediately withdrawn from it; and this is to be\nunderstood, whenever the word is used with reference to such a case. But\nthe Greek word is also used where a living being is put under the water\nfor the purpose of drowning, and of course is left to perish in the\nimmersing element.\u201d[102] It is of the primary meaning of the word that\nDr. Conant here speaks. As we have already seen, he also recognizes a\nsecondary meaning, the importance of which he entirely ignores. As to\nthe former, the admission here transcribed is conclusive, although\nobscured by ambiguous and impertinent explanations. No verb can\n\u201cdetermine\u201d any thing subsequent to the completion of its own proper\naction. The healed paralytic, \u201c_departed_ to his own house.\u201d \u201cPaul\n_arose_ and was baptized.\u201d \u201cJohn _came_ baptizing.\u201d He that should\nexplain that \u201cdeparted\u201d does not of necessity imply that he never\nreturned, that Paul may have sat down again; and that for all the\nmeaning of \u201ccame\u201d John may afterward have gone away, would be held\nguilty of puerile trifling. Of course, _baptizo_ determines nothing but\nits own action. The explanation of Dr. C. that the word does not\ndetermine whether the object sinks to the bottom or is immediately taken\nout, is not trifling, because open to a more serious charge. It is a\ndiligent, although undoubtedly unconscious obscuring of the subject,\ninduced by the instinctive recoil of the author\u2019s own mind from the\npicture drawn by his definition. He is therefore impelled to retire it\ninto the background and veil its nakedness in the drapery of\nexplanations, by which he is as much confounded as are his\nreaders,\u2014explanations wholly impertinent to the question in hand, which\nis the meaning of _baptizo_. That word, in its primary classic sense, as\nhere defined, expresses a definite and _completed_ act. When by one\ncontinuous process a person or thing is put into the water and\nwithdrawn, it is not a _baptizing_, in the classic meaning, but a\n_bapting_, a dipping. It is true the word does not determine \u201cwhether\nthe object immersed sinks to the bottom or floats in the liquid, or is\nimmediately taken out,\u201d provided that by \u201cimmediately,\u201d is not to be\nunderstood, instantaneously,\u2014provided that by the baptism, the object is\ndeposited in the water and left there. The emersion, if it take place at\nall, must be a distinct and subsequent act, and can not be performed as\n_a part of the baptizing_. This, Dr. Kendrick, professor of Greek in the\nRochester University, and a member of the American Committee of Revision\non the New Testament, in his review of Dr. Dale, most emphatically\nconcedes, with italics and emphasis none the less significant because of\nthe intense irritation which breathes in his article. \u201cGranting that\n_bapto_, _always_ engages to take its subject from the water (which we\ndo not believe), and that _baptizo never_ does (which we readily admit),\nwe have Mr. Dale\u2019s reluctant concession that it interposes no obstacle\nto his coming out.\u201d _Baptizo_ \u201clays its subject under the water; it does\nnot hold him there a single moment. Its whole function is fulfilled with\nthe act of submersion. It offers no shadow of an obstacle to his instant\nemergence from his watery entombment. We have the utmost confidence in\nthe kindly purpose of _baptizo_, and of Him who has made its liquid\ngrave the external portal to his kingdom. Neither it nor He intends to\ndrown us. We let _baptizo_ take us into the water, and can trust to\nmen\u2019s instinctive love of life, their common sense, their power of\nvolition and normal muscular action, to bring them safely out.\u201d \u201cThe law\nof God in revelation sends the Baptist down into the waters of\nimmersion; when it is accomplished, the equally imperative law of God in\nnature brings him safely out.\u201d \u201cAs between the two [_baptizo_ and\n_bapto_], _baptizo_ is the appropriate word, partly from its greater\nlength, weight and dignity of form, and still more from its distinctive\nimport. It is not a dipping that our Lord instituted, but an immersion.\nHe did not command _to put people into the water_ and _take them out\nagain_; but _to put them under the water_, to _submerge_ them, to _bury_\nthem, symbolically, in the grave of their buried Redeemer; like him\nindeed, not to remain there, but with him to arise to newness of life.\nThis arising, though essential to the completeness of the transaction,\ncould not be included in the designation of the rite, any more than the\nrising of the Redeemer could be included in the words denoting his\ncrucifixion and burial.\u201d \u201cWe repeat with emphasis, for the consideration\nof our Baptist brethren; Christian baptism is no mere literal and\nsenseless \u2018dipping,\u2019 assuring the frightened candidate of a safe exit\nfrom the water; it is a symbolical immersion, in which the believer\ngoes, in a sublime and solemn trust, into a figurative burial, dying to\nsin for a life with Christ; and just as far as Mr. Dale\u2019s distinction\nholds good (which even thus far _he_ has not established), _baptizo_,\nand not _bapto_ is the only suitable designation of the baptismal\nordinance. The early Israelites were baptized to Moses in the cloud and\nin the sea. They emerged indeed, and were intended to emerge at last.\nBut it was in their wondrous march, through that long and fearful night,\nwith the double wall of water rolled up on each side, and the column of\nfiery cloud stretching its enshrouding folds above them,\u2014it was in this,\nand not in the closing emersion that they were baptized into their\nallegiance to their great Lawgiver and Leader.\u201d[103]\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n Review of Dale\u2019s Classic Baptism, in the _Baptist Quarterly_,\n\nOf the baptism of Israel, we shall take notice hereafter. In these\npassages, it is evident that the distinguished professor 1869, pp. 142,\n143. is as much disturbed at the apparition of his own raising as is Dr.\nConant. At first he seems determined to face it squarely, and calls upon\nhis Baptist brethren to look and see that it is nothing dangerous. But\nsuddenly, he crosses himself, and starts back in a hurried talk of the\nresurrection of Christ and the rising of his people to newness of life;\nall of which is very true and precious, but, has no more to do with the\nquestion in hand, himself being witness, than has the doctrine of\noriginal sin. The question is, the meaning of _baptizo_, and the\nprofessor admits that it has no part in the resurrection. The very\nperplexing position in which he found himself, is some apology for the\nconfusion of ideas and the incongruities which appear in his statements.\nHe is discussing the relative merits of the two words _bapto_ and\n_baptizo_. The former, in its primary and ordinary meaning, he can but\nacknowledge, engages both to put its subject into the water and take him\nout again; while _baptizo_ only puts him in. The latter, says the\nprofessor, was chosen because of this its distinctive import, because\nthe command was, _not_ \u201cto put the people into the water and take them\nout again; but to put them under the water,\u2014to submerge them.\u201d But\nbefore he is done, we are told that the coming out, \u201cthough essential to\nthe completeness of the transaction _could_ not be included in the\ndesignation of the rite.\u201d Does \u201cthe transaction,\u201d here mean the life\nsaving operation which he confides to the \u201cinstinctive love of life,\ncommon sense,\u201d etc? Or, are we correct in supposing it to mean that\nbaptismal rite which he is discussing? And if the latter be the design,\nhow is the statement to be reconciled with the reason just before given\nfor the employment of _baptizo_, because it does _not_ take the subject\nout of the water, while _bapto_ does? Waiving this difficulty, the\nquestion occurs,\u2014Why the rising \u201ccould not be included in the\ndesignation of the rite,\u201d seeing _bapto_ was ready to add that very idea\nto the meaning of _baptizo_? The question is anticipated by the\nprofessor, and the answer given. It is because the latter word has\n\u201cgreater _length_, _weight_, and _dignity_ of form!\u201d The meaning of the\nwords was a secondary consideration! _Bapto_ has but two syllables,\nwhile _baptizo_ has three. It has the advantage, therefore, in a greater\nlength, and a buzzing zeta, to add to its \u201cweight and dignity of form!\u201d\nOr, perhaps, the superior \u201cweight\u201d of the one word over the other\nconsists in the fact that while _bapto_ accurately expresses the hasty\nresurrection which the instinct of life and other influences specified\nso happily, though not invariably, connect with the administration of\nthe rite, _baptizo_ maintains a dignified silence on that part of the\nsubject. But the professor drifts back again to his first position. He\ninsists that the baptism of Israel into Moses was received in their\n\u201cwondrous march\u201d enclosed between the walls of water, and enshrouded in\nthe cloud, \u201cand _not_ in the closing emersion.\u201d And yet, even here, his\nprotest that _bapto_ itself would not have given absolute assurance of\nexit, looks like a disposition to weaken the force of \u201cthe distinctive\nimport\u201d of _baptizo_.\n\nHowever these \u201cdark sayings of the wise\u201d are to be interpreted, the\nfacts remain, that, confessedly, the word chosen by the Savior to\ndesignate the rite of baptism does not include in it the idea of\nemersion, typical of resurrection,\u2014that it was chosen in preference to a\nkindred word which does distinctly express that idea,\u2014and that the best\nreasons suggested by Baptist scholarship for this remarkable fact are,\nthat _burial_ and _not_ resurrection was the doctrine symbolized; and\nthat _baptizo_ sounds best! Such are the results of the elaborate\nresearches of the scholarly Conant, confirmed by the eminent learning of\nKendrick, divines than whom the Baptist churches have had none more\nzealous or more competent. Essentially the same is the definition\nreached through the exhaustive studies of our own departed Dale.\n\nThus, according to the Baptist rendering of the gospel commission, we\nare to go into all the world and _submerge_ every creature,\u2014a command\nwhich neither contains nor implies authority in any one to neutralize it\nby a systematic rescue of its subjects from the \u201cliquid grave.\u201d A result\nof the most serious import to our Baptist brethren follows from these\nfacts. The definition, to dip, for the sake of which they have so long\nseparated themselves, in translating the Scriptures into the languages\nof the heathen, is demonstrably and confessedly false, and the result is\na corrupting of the word of God.\n\nThe force of these facts against the very foundations of the immersion\nfabric is utterly destructive. But the matter does not rest even here.\nDr. Conant recognizes in _baptizo_ a second meaning. The word does not\neven limit itself to \u201csubmerge and nothing but submerge.\u201d It also\n\u201cexpressed the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which\none was, as it were enclosed or swallowed up, so that temporarily or\npermanently he belonged wholly to it.\u201d[104] Thus, the man who is brought\nunder the control of a passion of anger, fear, or love, or who is\novercome with wine or sleep, was by the Greeks said to be baptized with\nthese things. So, in the Scriptures, he who is under such control that\nhe is \u201cled of the Spirit,\u201d is said to be \u201cbaptized with the Spirit.\u201d\nThis meaning of _baptizo_ no candid scholar can deny; and in it we have\nalready seen abundant relief from all the perplexities of the immersion\ntheory. Respecting it, however, a caution is necessary. A mere momentary\nimpulse or influence by which one is seized, but, instantly, released,\nis not a baptism, in the classic sense. The word expressed a control\nwhich not only seizes but _holds_ its object. It brings him \u201cinto a new\n_state_ of life or experience.\u201d This use of the word flows from the\nprimary meaning, to _submerge_, as expressive not of comprehensive\ncontrol, only, but of continuance. Nothing analogous to a momentary\ndipping was known to the Greeks as a baptism.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n \u201cMeaning and Use of Baptizein,\u201d p. 158.\n\n\n SECTION LXXVI.\u2014_The Prepositions._\n\nIn the common English version of the New Testament, the translations\nwhich occur in connection with baptism are such as to show an evident\nbias on the part of the translators in favor of immersion. In fact they\nwere, all of them, immersionists, if not by personal conviction, then,\nby constraint of law. They were members, and with a few exceptions\nclergymen of the church of England, by law established. That church had\noriginally incorporated among its ordinances, baptism by trine\nimmersion. By the parliamentary revision during the reign of Edward VI,\nthe book of prayer was so altered as to require but one immersion. The\nrubric for baptism was and is to this day in these words:\u2014\u201cThen the\npriest shall take the child in his hands, and ask the name; and naming\nthe child, shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily\ndone, saying, \u2018N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.\u2019 And, if the child be weak, it shall\nsuffice to pour water upon it, saying the aforesaid words.\u201d[105]\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n \u201cThe Two Books of Common Prayer,\u201d set forth by authority of\n Parliament, in the reign of King Edward VI, edited by Edward Cardwell,\n D.D., Principal of St. Alban\u2019s Hall, Oxford, 1852.\n\nAs to the bearing of the prepositions on the present argument, a brief\nillustration may make it clear to the English reader. In the following\ncitations, the words in italics answer to the Greek prepositions under\nwhich respectively they are cited.\n\n1. _En._ \u201cAnd were all baptized of him (_en_) _in_ Jordan.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii,\n6. \u201cJohn did baptize _in_ the wilderness.\u201d\u2014Mark i, 4. \u201cJohn was\nbaptizing _in_ Enon.\u201d\u2014John iii, 23. \u201cThese things were done _in_\nBethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.\u201d\u2014John i, 28. \u201cThe\ntower _in_ Siloam.\u201d\u2014Luke xiii, 4. \u201cElias is come, and they have done\n_unto_ him whatsoever they listed.\u201d\u2014Matt. xvii, 12. \u201cTurn the\ndisobedient _to_ the wisdom of the just.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 17. \u201cLest they trample\nthem _with_ their feet.\u201d\u2014Matt. vii, 6. \u201cSanctify them _through_ thy\ntruth, thy word is truth.\u201d\u2014John xvii, 17. \u201cThey that take the sword\nshall perish _with_ the sword.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxvi, 52. \u201cThere is none other\nname ... _by_ which we must be saved.\u201d\u2014Acts iv, 12. \u201cHe will judge the\nworld ... _by_ that man whom he hath ordained.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvii, 31. \u201cNow\nrevealed _by_ the Spirit\u201d\u2014Eph. iii, 5. \u201cThat _at_ the name of Jesus\nevery knee should bow.\u201d\u2014Phil. ii, 10. From these illustrations two\ndeductions are manifest (1.) _En_ does not always mean _in_. It may mean\n_with_ or _by_, instrumentally. \u201c_With_ the sword.\u201d \u201cThe name _by_\nwhich,\u201d etc. It may mean _by_ a mediate agent. \u201cRevealed _by_ the\nSpirit.\u201d \u201cHe will judge the world _by_ that man.\u201d It may mean _at_,\n_by_, or _in_, locally. \u201c_In_ Enon.\u201d \u201c_At_ Siloam.\u201d It may be used in a\nyet more general signification, as, \u201c_At_ the name.\u201d Other meanings\nmight be stated, but these are sufficient (2.) If, by reason of the\nphrase \u201c_in_ Jordan,\u201d we must understand that John immersed his\ndisciples _into_ the Jordan, it of necessity follows that he also\nimmersed them \u201c_into_ Enon,\u201d and \u201c_into_ the wilderness.\u201d In short, the\nexpression indicates that the Jordan was the place _at_ which the\nbaptizing was done:\u2014this, and this only. Why it was done there, we shall\npresently see.\n\n2. _Eis._ \u201cJesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John\n(_eis_) _in_ Jordan.\u201d\u2014Mark i, 9. \u201cThey went down both _into_ the water,\nboth Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him.\u201d\u2014Acts viii, 38. These\npassages mutually illustrate each other and show that the going _into_\nthe water was not the baptizing. \u201cHe came and dwelt _in_ a city called\nNazareth.\u201d\u2014Mat. ii, 23. \u201cHe cometh _to_ a city of Samaria,\u201d but he\nremained outside, at the well, while the apostles went \u201c_into_ the\ncity,\u201d whence the Samaritans \u201cwent out of the city and came to\nhim.\u201d\u2014John iv, 5, 8, 28, 30. \u201cHe loved them _to_ the end.\u201d\u2014Ib. xiii, 1.\n\u201cI speak _to_ the world.\u201d Ib. viii, 26. \u201cIf thy brother trespass\n_against_ thee.\u201d\u2014Matt, xviii, 15. \u201c_Therefore_\u201d (Literally, _to_ this)\n\u201ccame I forth.\u201d\u2014Mark i, 38. \u201cWhat are they _among_ so many.\u201d\u2014John vi, 9.\n\u201cThe Son which is _in_ (on) the bosom of the Father.\u201d\u2014John i, 18. \u201cHe\nwent up _into_ (_to_, or, _on_,) a mountain.\u201d\u2014Matt., v, 1. \u201cDepart\n_unto_ the other side.\u201d\u2014Ib. viii, 18. \u201cFell down _at_ his feet.\u201d\u2014Ib.\nxviii, 29. _Eis_ is even used in express contrast with entrance into.\n\u201cThe other disciple did outrun Peter, and first (_\u0113lthen eis_) _came to_\nthe sepulchre, ... yet went he not _in_. Then cometh Simon Peter\nfollowing him and (_eis-\u0113lthen eis_) _entered into_ the sepulchre.\u201d\u2014John\nxx, 4-6. This illustrates a usage concerning _eis_. When entrance _into_\nis to be expressed by the mere force of the word, it must be doubled.\nSee Matt. vi, 6; x, 5, 12; Luke ix, 34, etc. The same remark applies to\n_ek_, in the sense of _out of_. But neither of these words is ever used\nin duplicated form, with reference to baptism. It is evident that the\nword of itself determines no more as to the mode of the baptism of Jesus\nthan does _en_. The ordinary office of _eis_ is to point to the terminus\nof a preceding verb of motion. When it is said that Jesus came and dwelt\n(_eis_) _in_ a city called Nazareth, _en_ would have been the proper\npreposition to express the in-dwelling; but _eis_ is preferred because\nthe city was the terminus of the coming \u201cHe came (_eis_) _to_ a city.\u201d\nSo Mark above uses the same word, not because of its appropriateness to\nthe baptizing, which is always elsewhere expressed by _en_, but because\nthe Jordan was the terminus (_eis_) to which he came from Galilee.\n\n3. _Ek._ \u201cAnd when they were come up (_ek_) _out of_ the water.\u201d\u2014Acts\nviii, 39. In his gospel, Luke the author of this account thus uses the\npreposition. \u201cSaved _from_ our enemies.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 71. \u201cEvery tree is\nknown _by_ its own fruit, for _of_ thorns men do not gather figs; nor\n_of_ a bramble-bush gather they grapes.\u201d\u2014Ib. vi, 44. \u201cHe cometh _from_\nthe wedding.\u201d\u2014Ib. xii, 36. \u201cAll these have I kept _from_ my youth\nup.\u201d\u2014Ib. xviii, 21. So far as this word determines, Philip and the\neunuch may have come up _from_ the water, without having been _in_ it,\nat all.\n\n4. _Apo._ \u201cJesus when he was baptized, went up straightway (_apo_) _out\nof_ the water.\u201d\u2014Matt. iii, 16. _Apo never_ means, \u201cout of,\u201d as here\ntranslated; but, \u201cfrom,\u201d \u201caway from.\u201d \u201cWhen Jesus was come down _from_\nthe mountain.\u201d\u2014Matt. viii, 1. \u201c_From_ whom do kings take tribute?\u201d\u2014Ib.\nxvii, 25. \u201cCast them _from_ thee.\u201d\u2014Ib. xviii, 8. \u201cBeginning _from_ the\nlast unto the first.\u201d\u2014Ib. xx, 8.\n\nFrom these illustrations, which might be multiplied indefinitely, it is\nevident that the prepositions will not bear the stress put upon them by\nthe Baptist argument. Not only are they, in themselves, insufficient to\nconstitute a reliable basis for the conclusions sought; but the\nstatements to which they belong have respect, _not_ to the _mode_ of the\nbaptism, but to the places of it. They are defined by the phrases, \u201c_in_\nJordan,\u201d\u2014\u201c_in_ Enon,\u201d\u2014\u201c_in_ Bethabara.\u201d Recent Baptist writers have had\nthe courage to follow their principles to the result of translating\nJohn\u2019s words,\u2014\u201cI immerse you _in_ water, but he shall immerse you _in_\nthe Holy Ghost and _in_ fire,\u201d\u2014a rendering from which the better taste,\nif not the better scholarship, of the translators of King James\u2019s\nversion revolted. The thorough consideration already given in these\npages to the baptism of the Spirit justifies an imperative denial of the\ncorrectness of this translation. If any thing in the Bible is clear, it\nis that the baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is not an immersion,\nbut an outpouring.\n\nOn the question of the prepositions in this connection, light is shed by\nan expression of the apostle Paul. \u201cBy one Spirit are we all baptized\ninto one body, ... and have been all made to drink one Spirit.\u201d\u20141 Cor.\nxii, 13. Of this passage we have already indicated that \u201cinto,\u201d as found\nin the last clause, in the common version (\u201cto drink _into_ one\nSpirit\u201d), is spurious, and that _potizo_ (\u201cmade to drink\u201d), properly\nsignifies, to _apply_ water or other fluid, whether externally or\ninternally, to water, to cause to drink. In this passage, we have both\nthe prepositions, _en_ and _eis_, each dependent on the one verb,\n_baptizo_, but each having its own distinctive subject. \u201cBaptized\n(_en_), _in_ one Spirit (_eis_), _into_ one body.\u201d Into which of these\nmedia does the immersion take place? Shall we follow the Baptist\ninterpretation of the words of John, \u201cHe shall immerse you _in_ the Holy\nGhost?\u201d But in the first place, we have seen that this is false to the\nreal manner of the baptism in question; which consists in a shedding\ndown of the Spirit. In the second, how then, in harmony with Baptist\nprinciples, are we to understand the other clause of the\npassage,\u2014\u201cImmersed _in_ one Spirit, _into_ one body?\u201c Are there here two\nimmersions by one act? the one subject put at one and the same time into\ntwo different media? Moreover, the language with which the apostle\ncloses the passage, while it is in perfect accord with the true mode of\nthe baptism of the Spirit, is altogether incongruous to the Baptist\ninterpretation. If we are baptized with or by the Spirit, shed upon us,\nwe may consistently be said to drink (or, to be watered with) the\nSpirit. For, the earth and its vegetation drink the rain that falls upon\nthem. But if we must be immersed in the Spirit, Paul\u2019s language implies\nthat in order that men be caused to drink they are to be immersed in the\nwater. \u201cImmersed in one Spirit, and all made to drink one Spirit.\u201d\n\nBut the phrase, _en heni Pneumati_, does not mean \u201c_in_ one Spirit.\u201d As\nwe have seen, the preposition may and often does mean \u201c_with_,\u201d or\n\u201c_by_,\u201d the Spirit, as the agent or instrument. Especially by Paul, the\nwriter of the passage in question, is the phrase so used,\u2014\u201cThrough Him\nwe both have access (_en heni Pneumati_), _by_ one Spirit unto the\nFather.\u201d\u2014Eph. ii, 18. Here is the very phrase in question. Through the\nLord Jesus, the Mediator, _by_ his Spirit as the instrument, who, being\nsent by him helpeth our infirmities, in prayer (Rom. viii, 26), we have\naccess to the Father\u2019s presence. Again,\u2014\u201cOn whom,\u201d as the chief corner\nstone, \u201cwe are builded together, for an habitation of God (_en\nPneumati_), _by_ the Spirit,\u201d who is the efficient builder of the\nspiritual temple. Again, the apostle tells of the mystery which is \u201cnow\nrevealed unto His holy apostles and prophets (_en Pneumati_), _by_ the\nSpirit\u201d (Eph. iii, 5), and exhorts us, \u201cBe not drunk with wine, wherein\nis excess, but be filled (_en_) _with_ the Spirit\u201d (Ib. v, 18), and to\n\u201cpray with all prayer and supplication (_en_) _by_ the Spirit.\u201d\u2014Ib. vi,\n18. So in the text,\u2014\u201c_With_, or, _by_ one Spirit,\u201d the instrument and\nagent of grace shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ \u201care we all\nbaptized\u201d\u2014brought into a new state of incorporation \u201cinto one body,\u201d\nwhich he pervades and controls as the Spirit of life. Into it we are not\nimmersed; but, united by his common in-dwelling power, are made daily\n\u201cto drink of that one Spirit,\u201d which is in us, \u201ca well of water\nspringing up into everlasting life.\u201d\u2014John iv, 14.\n\nIt is not necessary to the present purpose to dwell further on the\nsignification and bearing of the prepositions. The moment _baptizo_\nceases to mean, to dip, and nothing else, the prepositions lose all\ndetermining force upon the questions at issue. If John\u2019s disciples were\ndipped or submerged in Jordan all is plain, and discussion is at an end.\nBut if John _baptized_ in Jordan, the question still remains,\u2014_How_ did\nhe baptize? This is very clearly illustrated by the case of the\nEthiopian eunuch, if we accept the immersion rendering of the\nprepositions. \u201cThey went down both into the water, both Philip and the\neunuch.\u201d They have now reached the place, _in_ the water, if you will.\nBut the baptism is yet to be performed.\u2014\u201c_And_ he baptized him.\u201d But\n_how_ did he do it? The baptism is now ended; but both are still in\nposition \u201c_in_ the water;\u201d out of which they are then stated to have\ncome. (Acts viii, 38, 39.)\n\n\n SECTION LXXVII.\u2014\u201c_There was much Water there._\u201d\n\nAppeal is made to the fact that John baptized \u201cin Enon, near to Salim,\nbecause there was much water there.\u201d\u2014John iii, 23. Enon (_Aen\u014dn_), is\nthe plural form, a word which means a spring or fountain. In a few\nplaces it is translated, a well of water. But it signifies a flowing\nspring. The name, therefore, means, The Springs near to Salim. All\nattempts to trace a town or city of that name have failed; and the whole\nmanner of John\u2019s ministry and statements of the evangelists indicate him\nto have selected a retired spot, rather than a town or city, as the\nplace of his preaching and baptism.\n\nThe phrase, \u201cmuch water,\u201d is not a correct translation of the original\n(_polla hudata_), which means, many waters,\u2014that is, many springs, or\nstreams. The phrase occurs nine times in the Greek of the Old Testament,\nand four times in the New, beside the place in question. It is never\nused in the sense of unity,\u2014\u201cmuch water,\u201d\u2014but invariably expresses the\nconception of plurality. In several places, it designates the waves of\nthe sea in a tumult. Thus, Psa. xciii, 3, 4,\u2014\u201cThe floods have lifted up,\nO Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their\nwaves. The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of _many waters_;\nyea, than _the mighty waves_ of the sea.\u201d See, also, 2 Sam. xxii, 17;\nPsa. xviii, 16; xxix, 3; Isa. xvii, 12, 13; Ezek. xliii, 2; Rev. i, 15;\nxiv, 2; xix, 6. In these places the noise of many waters, is the sound\nof the waves, as they toss in the fury of a storm, or thunder upon the\nshore. Again, it is used to designate many streams, and even the\nrivulets which for the purposes of irrigation were carried through\nvineyards and gardens. Thus, \u201cThy mother was as a vine, and as a shoot\nplanted by a stream, by waters; the fruit of which, and its sprouts were\nfrom _many waters_.\u201d\u2014Ezek. xix, 10. See, also, Num. xxiv, 7, and Jer.\nli, 13. In the last of these passages, Babylon is described as dwelling\n\u201cupon many waters,\u201d meaning, not the Euphrates, only; but the four\nrivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Chaboras and Ulai, and the many canals of\nirrigation, vestiges of which continue to this day, to which Babylonia\nwas indebted for its fertility, and the city for its wealth and power.\nCompare Psalm cxxxvii, 1, \u201cBy the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down,\nyea we wept, when we remembered Zion.\u201d In the text of John, the phrase\ncoincides with the name of Enon, to indicate that the peculiarity of the\nplace was a number of flowing springs. The bearing of these upon the\nquestion as to the mode of John\u2019s Baptism is inappreciable; as, for the\npurposes of immersion, he did not need more than one.\n\nBut, we recur to the challenge, so confidently urged. If John did not\nimmerse, why his resort to the Jordan, and to the \u201cmuch water\u201d of Enon?\nWe reply by another question. Why did the Lord Jesus concentrate his\nministry upon the shore of the Sea of Galilee? Why did he, after the\nclose of his labors in that part of the land, take up his abode at that\nvery \u201cplace where John at first baptized?\u201d\u2014John x, 40. A comparison of\nthe evangelists shows that, as did John (Luke iii, 3), so Jesus began\nhis ministry by journeying through the country and villages preaching\nthe gospel. But, as his fame spread abroad and the concourse of his\nhearers increased, he was accustomed to resort to the shores of the Sea\nof Galilee and the slopes of the mountains which enclose it on the west.\nA comparison of the evangelists shows the sermon on the mount to have\nbeen uttered from one of those mountains. (Matt. v, 1; Mark iii, 7-13.)\nIn the brief narrative of Mark, that sea is six times spoken of as the\nscene of his labors; and these are evidently mere illustrations of the\nhabit of his ministry. Thus, the first such mention states that \u201che went\nforth _again_ by the sea side, and all the multitude resorted unto him\nand he taught them.\u201d\u2014Mark ii, 13, and see iii, 7; iv, 1; v, 21; vi,\n31-33; vii, 31; viii, 10. Here, he fed the five thousand men, beside\nwomen and children, with five barley loaves and two small fishes; and\nhere, the four thousand, with seven barley loaves and a few small\nfishes. Afterward, when his ministry in Galilee was finished and he\nwould preach in Judea, he found himself beset, before his time, by the\nmachinations of the scribes and rulers. He therefore withdrew beyond\nJordan, to \u201cthe place where John at first baptized, and there he abode,\nand many resorted to him, ... and many believed on him there.\u201d\u2014John x,\n39-42, and Mark x, 1. It is evident that the facts here referred to were\nnot casual nor fortuitous. They constitute one of the most prominent\nfeatures of the story of our Lord\u2019s ministry. It is also manifest that\nthese and the facts concerning the places of John\u2019s ministry belong to\nthe same category; so that no explanation can be sufficient which does\nnot account for all alike.\n\nThe Baptist theory is not thus adequate. They will not pretend that it\nwas to immerse his disciples, that Jesus resorted to the lake and to\nBethabara. We may, therefore, conclude that the explanation of John\u2019s\nplaces of baptism is to be sought upon some other principle. A candid\nconsideration of the circumstances will discover it; and customs\npeculiar to this country may confirm the solution. The assemblies that\nattended on the ministry of John and of Jesus were essentially similar\nto our camp-meetings, with the only difference, that the simpler habits\nof the people of Judea and Galilee rendered any preparation of tents or\nbooths unnecessary. On one occasion we casually learn that the people\nremained together three days (Mark viii, 2); and the circumstances\nindicate that generally they were \u201cprotracted meetings.\u201d For example, at\none time, Mark states that \u201cJesus withdrew himself with his disciples to\nthe sea; and a great multitude from Galilee, followed him, and from\nJudea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan, and\nthey about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what\ngreat things he did, came unto him.\u201d\u2014Mark iii, 7, 8. Luke in one place\nspeaks of \u201can innumerable multitude of people (_t\u014dn muriad\u014dn tou\nochlou_, the tens of thousands of the throng) insomuch that they trode\none upon another.\u201d\u2014Luke xii, 1. See, also, the descriptions of John\u2019s\naudiences. In choosing the place for a camp-meeting, three things are\nrecognized as of the first necessity. These are, retirement,\naccessibility, and abundance of water. Why these are essential, needs no\nexplanation. As to the last, food may be brought from a distance; but if\nabundance of water, for the supply of man and beast, is not found on the\nspot, its use for such a purpose is manifestly and utterly\nimpracticable.\n\nThe argument applies with double force to the thirsty climate of Judea.\nAs heretofore stated, there are very few running streams in the land.\nThe requisite supplies for the people in the towns and villages in which\nthe population was concentrated were obtained from wells. There is\nscarcely a single perennial stream flowing from the west into the\nJordan, in its whole course from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. Its\naffluents are \u201cmere winter torrents, rushing and foaming during the\ncontinuance of rain, and quickly drying up after the commencement of\nsummer. For fully half the year, these \u2018rivers,\u2019 or \u2018brooks,\u2019 are often\ndry lanes of hot white or gray stones; or, tiny rills, working their way\nthrough heaps of parched boulders.\u201d[106] In a word, the banks of the\nJordan, the shores of the sea of Tiberias, and some such exceptional\nspots as The Springs near Salim, presented the only sites in Palestine\nin which the three requisites above indicated were to be found united.\nSuppose the multitudes that were gathered to our Savior\u2019s ministry,\u2014four\nand five thousand men, beside women, children and cattle; and those of\nJohn\u2019s preaching were, without doubt, as numerous,\u2014to have been\nassembled with an improvident forgetfulness of the prime necessity of\nwater! The alternative would have been a vast amount of suffering and\nthe dispersion of the assembly, or miraculous interposition. But this\ndoes not meet the case of John\u2019s congregations; for \u201cJohn did no\nmiracle.\u201d\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n Mr. George Grove, in Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary, _article_, \u201cPalestine.\u201d\n\nIt is plain that we need no immersion theory, to account for the places\nchosen by John and Jesus for fulfilling their ministry. The necessities\nof their numerous audiences were decisive, and were in harmony with the\nrequirement of the law that the sprinkled water of purifying should be\nliving or running water.\n\n\n SECTION LXXVIII.\u2014\u201c_Buried with him by Baptism into Death._\u201d\n\nThe principal remaining Baptist argument is derived from two expressions\nof the apostle Paul which are supposed to show by implication that\nbaptism was administered by immersion. These are;\u2014Rom. vi, 4,\u2014\u201cBuried\nwith him by baptism into death;\u201d and Col. ii, 12,\u2014\u201cBuried with him in\nbaptism.\u201d In our common English version as here quoted, there is a\nrepeated neglect of the definite article, where it occurs in the\noriginal, which obscures the meaning. This defect being rectified, the\nfirst passage reads thus:\u2014Rom. vi, 1-11. \u201cWhat shall we say then? Shall\nwe continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that\nare dead _by_ sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of\nus as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?\nTherefore, we are buried with him by the baptism into the death; that\nlike as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,\neven so we also should walk in newness of life. For, if we have been\nplanted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the\nlikeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man\n(_sunestaur\u014dth\u0113_) _was_ crucified with him, that the body of sin might\nbe destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For (_ho\nap\u014dthan\u014dn_) _he that died_ is freed (_dedikoiatai_, _is justified_) from\nsin. Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with\nhim.... For in that he died (_t\u0113 hamartia_) _by_ sin he died once: but\nin that he liveth he liveth (_t\u014d the\u014d_) by God\u201d (that is, \u201cby the power\nof God.\u201d\u20142 Cor. xiii, 4.) \u201cLikewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead\nindeed by sin, but alive by the power of God, through Jesus Christ our\nLord.\u201d\n\nIn the present state of our argument, it might seem almost needless to\ndiscuss this passage. But this and the parallel text sustain relations\nto the subject, which clothe them with an importance in the discussion,\nsuch as attaches to no other Scriptures whatever. In them is contained\nand exhausted the entire evidence in behalf of the assumption that the\nform of baptism represents the burial of the Lord Jesus. Confessedly,\nthat supposition, if not established by these two phrases of Paul, is\nwithout warrant anywhere in the Bible. But to prove the _interpretation_\nof the rite, they must of necessity, first, establish its very\nexistence, which as yet is more than problematical. That they are not\nlikely to prove adequate to the task thus laid upon them, will be\napparent to the reader upon a moment\u2019s consideration. It is evident, and\nadmitted by all, that the immediate subject of discussion in them is the\nbaptism of the Spirit, and not ritual baptism, in any form. If the\nlatter is referred to, at all, it is by mere allusion. That, this is\ntrue, as to the text to the Romans, is indicated alike by the form of\nexpression, \u201cbaptized into Jesus Christ,\u201d and by the phenomena and\nresults which are attributed to that baptism. It will hereafter appear\nthat the two phrases, \u201cbaptized into Jesus Christ,\u201d and \u201cbaptized into\nthe name of Christ,\u201d are those by which, in the Scriptures, the real\nbaptism, and the ritual, are discriminated from each other. The one\nunites to the very body of Christ, the true, invisible church. The other\nunites to the _name_ of Christ, and to that visible body which is named\nwith his name. That it is of spiritual phenomena, and not of ritual\nforms, that Paul speaks, is moreover evident, from the purpose and tenor\nof his argument. His object is to repel the suggestion that free grace\ngives liberty to sin. His fundamental point in reply to this is, that\nGod\u2019s people \u201care dead _by_ sin,\u201d in such a sense that it is impossible\nthey should \u201clive any longer therein.\u201d To prove this, is the whole\nintent of his argument. First, in designating the subjects of his\nstatements, he uses phraseology which emphasizes the difference between\na mere outward relation to Christ and the church, and that which is\nestablished by the baptism of the spirit. \u201cKnow ye not that _so many_ of\nus as were baptized _into Jesus Christ_.\u201d It is those who are truly one\nwith Christ by a real spiritual union, and only those, whom he\ndescribes, and of whom he predicates what follows.\n\n\u201cBaptized into Jesus Christ.\u201d This is the one only baptism of the\npassage, the effects and consequences of which the apostle proceeds to\nset forth. Or, are we here to recognize three baptisms,\u2014into Jesus\nChrist,\u2014into his death,\u2014and into his burial? The first effect of the\nbaptism into Christ Paul indicates by the phrase, \u201cbaptized into his\ndeath.\u201d In the baptism into Christ, \u201cby one Spirit are we all baptized\ninto one body,\u201d the body of Christ, \u201cand are all made to drink one\nSpirit.\u201d But it was by that Spirit that he offered himself without spot\nto God, and \u201cdied by sin,\u201d it being the meritorious cause of his death;\nand that Spirit being in us by virtue of the baptism, will cause the\nsame hatred of sin, and induce in us a sense of its demerit and\ncondemnation, so that we can no longer live in it. Such is the meaning\nof the apostle\u2019s expression, \u201cbaptized into his death,\u201d\u2014so united by the\nbaptism into Christ, that as he died for sin to destroy it in us, so we\nwill be dead to it in the same hatred and zeal for its destruction,\ninspired by the same Spirit. To intensify this conception, the apostle\npursues the figure yet farther.\u2014\u201cTherefore, we are buried with\nhim.\u201d\u2014How? By immersion in water? or, By any thing of which such\nimmersion is a symbol? No. But (_dia_) through, or, by means of the\nbaptism just spoken of; \u201cthe baptism into the death\u201d of Christ. That the\nexpression can not possibly mean any ritual form of baptism is certain\nevery way. The illative, \u201cTherefore,\u201d forbids it. It shows the burial to\nbe, not a physical phenomenon, real or ritual, but a consequence which,\nby virtue of the relation of cause and effect, logically results from\nsomething which either precedes or follows. But the boundaries in both\ndirections are the same.\u2014\u201c_Baptized into his death._ Therefore buried\nwith him, by the _baptism into the death_.\u201d The baptism into Christ, by\nwhich we are baptized into his death, is thus the instrumental cause of\nthe burial; a fact which utterly excludes any form of ritual baptism\nfrom the purview of the passage. But what is here meant by being buried\nwith him? In order to an answer, it will be necessary to ascertain\nprecisely who it is that dies and is buried with Christ. The answer\ncomes promptly. \u201c_We_ are buried.\u201d True; but the words are to be taken\nin the light of the apostle\u2019s own interpretation. It is not we, in the\nentirety of our persons, but our old man, of which this is said.\n\u201cKnowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of\nsin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.\u201d\u2014Vs. 6.\nIt is, to signify the utterness of this death and destruction of the old\nman,\u2014its obliteration out of our lives, so that we can not \u201clive any\nlonger therein,\u201d nor \u201cserve sin,\u201d that the apostle represents it as\nburied, and hidden away in a resurrectionless grave. The old man buried,\nso that the new man may unimpeded \u201cwalk in newness of life.\u201d In this\ndoctrine and these words of the apostle, we have the very baptism which\nDr. Conant admits to be expressed, \u201cby analogy,\u201d by the word\n_baptizo_;\u2014\u201c_the coming into a new state of life or experience_.\u201d Into\nthe conception of the passage, when critically appreciated, it is\nimpossible to introduce the idea of immersion, in any congruous or\nintelligible relation.\n\nThe apostle illustrates his subject with another figure, which has been\nsometimes pressed into the service of immersion. \u201cFor if we have been\nplanted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the\nlikeness of his resurrection.\u201d It has been assumed that the planting of\na tree is here associated with immersion in water (\u201cburied by baptism\u201d),\nas representing the burial of the dead. Thus, \u201cthe likeness of his\n_death_,\u201d which was by crucifixion, is confounded with the form of\n_burial_ of the dead. This is recognized by Dr. Carson, whose exposition\nof the figure is essentially correct. Of _sumphutoi_ (\u201cplanted\ntogether\u201d) he says,\u2014\u201cIt might, I think, be applied to express the\ngrowing together of the graft and the tree; but this would be the effect\nor consequence of grafting, and not the operation itself. It denotes, in\nshort, the closest union, with respect to things indiscriminately. There\nis no need, then, to bring either planting or grafting into the passage;\nand as neither of them resembles a resurrection, they should be\nrejected. When we translate the passage,\u2014\u2018For, if we have become one\nwith him,\u2019 or, \u2018have been joined with him, in the likeness of his\ndeath,\u2019\u2014we not only suit the connexion, to both death and resurrection,\nbut we take the word _sumphutoi_, in its most common acceptation.\u201d[107]\nThis witness is true. The phrase has no reference to the form of ritual\nbaptism, but to the intimacy of the union which that of the Spirit\nestablishes. The two expressions,\u2014\u201cBaptized into his death,\u201d and\n\u201cCoplanted with him in the likeness of his death,\u201d are coincident,\nmeaning essentially the same thing. It is, however, a fundamental defect\nin Carson\u2019s conception, that while he earnestly insists on the closeness\nof the union, by which Christ and his people are one, he fails to\nrecognize the essential fact that it is effected by the baptism of the\nSpirit. In his conception and vocabulary, it is a \u201c_constituted_ union.\u201d\nA ray of light entering his mind on this point would have transfigured\nhis whole system.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n Carson on Baptism, p. 251.\n\nBut what means our being joined with Christ in the likeness of his\ndeath? Here and elsewhere, Paul explains abundantly. \u201cHe died by sin,\u201d\nour sin, as being the meritorious cause of his death. \u201cHe was crucified\nthrough weakness,\u201d\u2014the weakness of his humiliation, under the law and\nthe curse. (2 Cor. xiii, 4.) He died by the cross, the agonies of which\nhe voluntarily assumed. And he lives again, by the power of God who\nraised him from the dead. So we also, if truly baptized into him, \u201care\nweak (_en aut\u014d_) in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God\ntoward us.\u201d\u20142 Cor. xiii, 4. We are weak in him, in a realizing sense\nimparted by his Spirit in us, of the desert and condemnation of sin, and\nof its prevailing power, which renders our emancipation from it a\ncrucifixion of the flesh, the agonies of which we voluntarily incur. And\nwe live with him, in the present life of the new man after his image,\ncreated by the baptism of his Spirit in us, as we shall finally live\nwith him in the life of glory. Thus we are joined with him in the\nlikeness of his death, and also of his resurrection.\n\nFrom this analysis, it is evident that the assumption of allusion to a\nsupposed ritual burial is wholly unnecessary to the exegesis of the\npassage. In fact, the supposition of such allusion is altogether\nincongruous and confusing to the argument of the place. (1.) The real\nbaptism and its effects are the alone subjects of the discussion; and\nany exegesis which ignores this must lead to error. (2.) The burial of\nwhich the apostle speaks is spiritual, as well as is the baptism. The\ntwo are in no sense identical; but the one is, by the apostle distinctly\nand sharply discriminated from the other. The baptism is the primary\ncause, of which the burial is _one_, and but one, of the results. The\nbaptism is the shedding upon us of the Holy Spirit of life in Christ\nJesus. The burial is the putting away, and obliterating of the old man\nout of our lives. It follows, that in any parallel figurative or ritual\nsystem, each one of these spiritual realities must have its own\nanalogue, as distinctly defined and discriminated, each from the other,\nas are the realities which they are designed to represent. And, in fact,\nsuch is the figurative system of the Scriptures, which represent the one\nby the figure of the outpouring of water, and the other by the burial of\nthe dead. To interpret, therefore, a ritual _baptism_ as symbolic of the\nspiritual _burial_, is as incongruous to the Scriptural conception, as\nwould be the employment of the burial of the dead to represent the\noutpouring upon us of the Spirit of life. And to understand the apostle,\nby the expression, \u201cburied by the baptism\u201d to mean directly the\nspiritual phenomenon which the phrase designates, and at the same time\nto convey an allusion to a ritual _baptism_ as being a symbol of the\n_burial_, is an absurdity which does violence to the whole conception,\nto the destruction of its propriety and significance. For, not only are\nthe two thus sharply discriminated by Paul, but he attributes to each\nits own relations and predicates, and assigns to each its own place in\nthe scheme of grace and in the argument which he states. To neglect,\ntherefore, the distinction, and confound them together, as is done by\nthe Baptist interpretation, destroys the whole logical force and\nsequence of the argument, and dissolves the connection between the\npremises and the conclusions.\n\nMoreover, were it even allowable, as it is not, thus to confound things\nthat differ, there still remains a point of difficulty in the way of the\nimmersion exegesis which, for its removal, demands something more than\nthe mere assumption which has heretofore been put in the place of proof.\nThe apostle speaks, not of immersion, but of burial. \u201cBuried with him.\u201d\nThat the two ideas are not identical does not need to be proved. Nor is\nthe difference so slight that the one would readily suggest itself as a\nfigure of the other. But in order to sustain the Baptist conclusions\nwhich depend on this language, it would be necessary to demonstrate that\nthe rites of sepulture with which the writers of the Scriptures were\nfamiliar, and in conformity to which the body of Jesus was entombed,\nbore a resemblance to immersion in water, so close and manifest, that\nthe one was a recognized symbol of the other. But there is certainly no\nsuch resemblance as to justify the gratuitous assumption that such a\nfigure was employed; and of its actual use, the Scriptures contain not a\ntrace.\n\nIs it still insisted that, nevertheless, there is an allusion to the\nrite of immersion? Such an allusion must be supposed to shed light or\nbeauty upon the presentation of the spiritual theme of the passage; or,\nit is an arbitrary impertinence. Let us then view the suggestion\nsquarely, in the light of the realized observance, thus forced into\ncritical notice. The theme of the apostle is the calm majesty and power\nof the Savior\u2019s three days\u2019 rest in the sepulcher, and of the silent and\nunseen mystery of his rising on the third day; and the tranquil energy\nof the same mighty power in the believer (Eph. i, 19, 20; ii, 1), by\nwhich he is quickened and raised up to the life of holiness. The figure\nwhich is intruded, to illuminate and adorn this conception, calls up\nbefore us the apprehension and haste of the ritual observance, and the\nagitation, the gasping and sputter of the dripping subjects of the rite,\nas they struggle up out of the \u201cwatery grave.\u201d Is it possible to\nconceive that master of rhetoric, the apostle Paul, to have called up\nthese, the essential and inseparable features of the rite of immersion,\nas a means of shedding light or beauty on his exalted theme?\n\n\n SECTION LXXIX.\u2014\u201c_Buried with Him in Baptism._\u201d\n\nCol. ii, 9-13.\u2014\u201cIn Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.\nAnd ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and\npower. In whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made\nwithout hands, in putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision\nof Christ (_suntaphentes aut\u014d en to baptismati_), _having been buried\nwith him by the baptism_, wherein also ye were raised up with him,\nthrough the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.\nAnd you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,\ndid he quicken together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.\u201d\nHere, in the phrase,\u2014\u201cthe body _of the sins_ of the flesh,\u201d which is the\nreading of the common version, the critical editors unite in rejecting\n(_hamarti\u014dn_) \u201cof the sins,\u201d which was undoubtedly a gloss inserted from\nthe margin, in careless transcription.\n\nIt is evident that the doctrine and argument of the passage just\nexamined from the epistle to the Romans, and this to the Colossians are\nessentially the same. In the former, Paul shows that the child of God\ncan not live in sin;\u2014in the latter that he ought to walk in Christ. The\ncontrolling motive of the apostle\u2019s argument, here, is, to free his\nreaders from the bondage of ritual ordinances and human devices of\nreligion. He begins with the admonition,\u2014\u201cBeware lest any man spoil you\nthrough philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after\nthe rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.\u201d\u2014vs. 8. To this, he\nagain recurs as the conclusion of his argument.\u2014\u201cTherefore, if ye _be\ndead_ with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why as though\n_living_ in the world are ye subject to ordinances, ... after the\ncommandments and doctrines of men?\u201d\u2014vs. 20, 21. It is with a view to\nthese things that the exhortation is written,\u2014\u201cAs ye have _received_\nChrist Jesus the Lord, so, walk ye in _him_, rooted and built up in\n_him_, and established in _the faith_,\u201d as contrasted with these\ntraditions of men. Thus, as in the parallel plea to the Romans, so here,\nthe determining idea is union with the Lord Jesus,\u2014that spiritual union\nof which the baptism of the Spirit is the efficient and only cause. The\ndignity and glory conferred by it are emphasized by the declaration that\n\u201cin Him dwelleth all, (_pl\u0113r\u014dma_) _the fullness_ of the Godhead bodily.\u201d\nIn the person of Jesus, the Son is incarnate; the Father\u2019s glory and\npower invest him, and the Spirit is his and dwells in him. \u201cAnd ye are\n(_pepl\u0113r\u014dmenoi_) _made full_ in him.\u201d \u201cMade full in him\u201d by virtue of\nthat mutual relation which Jesus describes;\u2014\u201cYou in me, and I in\nyou.\u201d\u2014John xiv, 20. Thus, made full, with all the graces of his\nindwelling Spirit, and so needing no recourse to the rudiments of the\nworld. With this fullness of grace, the apostle then contrasts the\ncoincident emptying of the old man. \u201cIn whom ye are circumcised with the\ncircumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,\nby the circumcision of Christ.\u201d Circumcision signified the cutting off\nand destruction of the corrupt nature derived by generation, the old\nman, through the blood and sufferings of the promised Seed of Abraham.\nThis operation is here called \u201cthe circumcision of Christ,\u201d as it is\nthat spiritual reality of which ritual circumcision was the type. The\napostle holds it up to view, as the substance, in contrast with the\nemptiness of the ritual shadow, against dependence on which he dissuades\nhis Colossian readers. This circumcision of Christ he proceeds to\nexplain farther. \u201cPutting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision\nof Christ, (_suntaphentes aut\u014d_) _having been buried with him_ in the\nbaptism.\u201d In the conception and argument of the apostle, emphasis rests\non the definite article, which here, and in the parallel place, already\nexamined, is ignored in the common English version, and in the Revised\nversion. Paul\u2019s aim in this place is to hold up the spiritual realities\nof the gospel in contrast with the emptiness of ritual forms. He\ncoordinates \u201c_the_ baptism\u201d with \u201cthe circumcision of Christ,\u201d in\nproducing the spiritual phenomena of which he is speaking. Or, rather,\nhe postulates the baptism as the ultimate cause of the circumcision and\nits results. That, by the phrase, \u201cthe baptism,\u201d he designates the same\nthing as in Romans vi, 4, is evident, as it is also that as in that\nplace, so here, the baptism is not the burial, but is related to it, as\nthe cause to the effect.\u2014\u201cBuried with him _by_ the baptism.\u201d How the\nbaptism effects the burial, has been shown in that place. The\ndistinction between the two, which is there so strongly marked, is in\nthis passage equally clear and important; and the consequences there\ntraced are here as legitimate and pertinent. The supposition of an\nallusion to immersion in water, in either place, is utterly groundless,\nand in both alike incongruous and destructive to the apostle\u2019s\nconception and argument. Certainly, this place no more than the other\nnecessitates recourse to the supposed rite of immersion, in order to a\nrational interpretation. And it is equally certain that at the touch of\na discriminating exegesis the supposed allusion to such a rite vanishes\nutterly away.\n\n\n SECTION LXXX.\u2014_End of the Baptist Argument._\n\nThe Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The _first_ is, that\n_baptizo_ means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge,\u2014one or other of these,\nas the different advocates of the cause may select,\u2014_and nothing else_.\nThe _second_ is, that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the\nbody of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion, or\nsubmersion in water was appointed as a symbol of his entombing. The\nfirst of these assumptions is essential to vindicate the mode in\nquestion, and the second to establish its typical significance. If\n_baptizo_ does not mean as defined, or if that is not the only meaning,\nthe whole immersion fabric falls to the ground. And if the second\nproposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning\nabsurdity.\u2014On these vital points, the following are the results of the\nevidence thus far developed in these pages.\n\n1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament and the New,\nare full of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit,\u2014while the divers\nbaptisms of the Mosaic ritual were unquestionably typical of it, and the\nprophecies abound in references to it under the figure of affusion\u2014the\nsprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain,\u2014the rite of immersion\ndoes not pretend to any better evidence than is found in a definition of\n_baptizo_, which is now admitted to be erroneous, and a few expressions\nin the New Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation.\nAside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole tenor of\nconception and language of the New Testament as well as of the Old.\n\n2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale,\u2014the admissions of\nDr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of Prof. Kendrick, prove that the\nword does not mean, to dip, to put in the water and take out again; but\nto put under the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in\nsubmerging the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed. There\nis therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion of the resurrection.\n\n3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results established by\nthe investigations of this volume, are confirmed by the distinct\nadmission of Dr. Conant, that the primary is _not_ the _only_ meaning of\nthe word. It not only means, to submerge, but also, \u201cthe coming into a\nnew state of life or experience.\u201d Thus, the citadel of the immersion\nposition is definitely abandoned. The word is _not_ limited to one\nmeaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it occurs, in any given place,\ndecides nothing as to the form of action expressed by it; since the\nquestion always arises,\u2014In what sense is the word here used? a question\nwhich, in every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the word.\nUntil so decided, any inference from the word is mere assumption.\n\n4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion, the\nprepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous to the\nsupposition that the rite was performed by affusion.\n\n5. The many waters of Enon prove nothing to the purpose; since abundance\nof water was necessary to John\u2019s congregations, had he made no ritual\nuse of it whatever.\n\n6. Equally futile is appeal to Paul\u2019s \u201cburied by the baptism,\u201d as the\nimagined allusion is unnecessary to the interpretation, incongruous to\nthe argument, and destructive of the distinctions which the apostle\ndraws, and the conclusions which he deduces.\n\n7. As to the remaining argument, from the baptism of the eunuch, we\nshall see hereafter, that while the facts recorded decide nothing, they\ncreate a presumption which distinctly indicates affusion.\n\nThus, the rite in question,\u2014foreign to the whole style of the Old\nTestament, its ritual and prophecies, and equally so to the language and\ndoctrines of the New,\u2014is left without a vestige of evidence, anywhere,\nwhether as to mode or meaning, even in those particular words and\npassages which have been the reliance of its advocates.\n\n\n\n\n PART XIII.\n BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.\n\n\nSECTION LXXXI.\u2014_The Doctrine is Contrary to the Whole Tenor of the Gospel._\n\nPaul was yet in the meridian of his strength, and the most active period\nof his ministry, when he wrote to the Thessalonians that \u201cthe mystery of\niniquity doth already work,\u201d\u2014the mystery out of which was to be\ndeveloped \u201cthat Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of\nhis mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.\u201d\u20142 Thes.\nii, 7, 8. There is nothing more remarkable, nor more humiliating, in the\nhistory of the church than the rapid defection from the simplicity of\nthe gospel which is apparent in the early remains of patristic\nliterature. The transition from the apostles and evangelists in the New\nTestament, to the writings of the fathers, is like that from the\nsplendor of the noonday sun to the deepening twilight of the evening. It\nwas the precursor of \u201cthe black and dark night,\u201d by which the gospel was\nobscured for so many ages, and which still enshrouds the churches of\nRome and the East in a mantle of gloom. Of this defection, the\nall-powerful cause was a false and mischievous interpretation of the\nScriptures concerning the relation of the covenant of Sinai to the new\ncovenant. They were interpreted as teaching that the visible church and\nits ordinances under the New Testament economy, was the antitype of the\nLevitical church and institutions,\u2014that the rites and ceremonies of the\nlatter were the shadow, of which the ordinances of the Christian church\nare the substance. Hence the Christian ministry became a priesthood,\nministering better sacrifices and more effectual purifyings than those\nof the Mosaic ritual; for in their hands and by virtue of their\nconsecrating prayers, the Lord\u2019s supper became a propitiatory sacrifice\nof the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and baptism administered\nby them became a spiritual regeneration,\u2014a purging of the\nconscience,\u2014the true baptism foreshadowed by the \u201ctype baptism\u201d of the\nOld Testament. Thus, Didymus Alexandrinus, having quoted Ezek. xxxvi,\n22,\u2014\u201cI will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from\nall your sins;\u201d and Psa. li, 7,\u2014\u201cSprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be\nclean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow;\u201d says,\u2014\u201cFor the\nsprinkling with hyssop was Judaic purification; which is continued by\nthem to the present time; but \u2018whiter than snow,\u2019 denotes Christian\nillumination, which is baptism. And Peter, that he may show in his first\nepistle, that if baptism, which was formerly, _in shadow_ (_en skia_)\nsaved, much more that which was _in reality_ (_en al\u0113theia_)\nimmortalizes and deifies us, wrote thus;\u2014\u2018Antitype baptism now saves\nus.\u2019\u201d[108] So Ambrose, as already quoted, says of the Psalmist,\u2014\u201cHe asks\nto be cleansed by hyssop, according to the law. He desires to be washed,\naccording to the gospel. He who would be cleansed by typical baptism was\nsprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop.\u201d Of\nthe doctrine of baptism, as thus conceived, Tertullian says,\u2014\u201cAll waters\nin virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin,[109] do, after\ninvocation of God accomplish sanctification; for the Spirit immediately\ncomes from heaven and rests upon the waters, sanctifying them by his own\npower; and they being thus sanctified, therewith acquire the power of\nsanctifying.\u201d[110] Derived from this is the modern doctrine of baptismal\nregeneration, according to which, it is only in and through the baptism\nof water that the renewing grace of the Spirit is imparted to men.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n Did. Alex. xxxix, 716. In Dale\u2019s Christ. Bapt. p. 342.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n He alludes to a relation to the Spirit, supposed to be indicated in\n Gen. i, 2.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n Tertullianus, De Bapt., ch. iv.\n\nIt is manifest that if this doctrine be true, baptism is the \u201cone thing\nneedful;\u201d and the church of Rome, and ritualists everywhere are right in\nthe unanimity with which they reduce the preaching of the word to a\nsecondary place, and count the progress of the gospel by the numbers who\nhave been subjected to the life-giving rite. If it be true, then water\nbaptism should be the theme of the New Testament; and the apostles and\nChristian ministry must have been commissioned and sent forth, _not_ to\npreach the gospel; but _to baptize_. What says the Word of God on these\npoints?\n\n1. As to the gospel commission, and the instructions connected\ntherewith, we have accounts from each of the four evangelists. John\nconfines himself almost entirely to those, of such supreme interest,\nwhich Jesus uttered at the table, the night of the betrayal. Matthew,\nMark, and Luke record the essential facts which occurred after the\nresurrection. The first thing that presents itself in examining these\naccounts is, that of baptism, as connected with the last instructions\ngiven the apostles, neither Luke nor John say one word. Thus, if the\ndoctrine in question be true, these two evangelists are guilty of\nleaving out of their record the very heart and essence of the whole\nmatter. This is the more remarkable, if we consider the character of the\nwriters who are thus chargeable. Did we forget the Spirit which guided\ntheir pens, it is yet impossible to imagine that Luke, \u201cthe beloved\nphysician,\u201d disciple, and companion of Paul, can have been unaware of\nthe just proportion to be preserved in his narrative; so as to ignore a\nmatter important as this. Or, John, the kinsman of Jesus, the beloved\ndisciple, who in the privilege of a perfect confidence and love, lay on\nhis bosom, and who received from the cross the legacy of the stricken\nmother,\u2014John was not ignorant of the mind of his Master, on a subject\nlike this, upon which depend the whole results of the work of\nredemption. The silence of these writers was not inadvertent, and it is\nfatal to the theory in question. What they do not report can have no\nplace among the essentials of the plan of salvation. It still, however,\nremains to account for their silence respecting the ritual ordinance of\nbaptism; which, apart from the unwarranted theory in question, all agree\nto be of divine authority. To this point we will return hereafter.\n\nIf, now, we turn to the other evangelists, the record of Matthew is as\nfollows: Matt. xxviii, 16-20. \u201cThen the eleven disciples went away into\nGalilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they\nsaw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake\nunto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go\nye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (_eis to honoma_),\n_into the name_ of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;\nteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and\nlo! I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.\u201d Here, it can\nnot be pretended that there is any thing to countenance the idea of\nbaptismal regeneration. The administering of the rite is enjoined on the\napostles. But no hint is given of its being necessary to salvation; and\nno such stress is laid upon it as to imply such necessity.\n\nMark records the language of Jesus on another occasion. Mark xvi,\n14-16,\u2014\u201cHe appeared to the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided\nthem with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed\nnot them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them,\nGo ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He\nthat believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not\nshall he damned.\u201d Here, is no more of baptismal regeneration than we\nhave found in Matthew. Emphasis is, indeed, given to baptism, by the\nconnection in which it is introduced. But at the very point on which all\ndepends the evidence gives way. \u201cHe that believeth and is baptized shall\nbe saved; but he that believeth not\u2014shall be damned.\u201d Thus explicitly\nJesus utters sentence of perdition against unbelief. But he as\nexplicitly omits baptism from mention on that side of the alternative,\nand thus expressly limits the condemning sentence to unbelief. Either\nthis language is designed to represent baptism as important but _not_\nessential; or, it is a snare which must take men at unawares, and\ninvolve them in danger of destruction from ignorance of the necessity of\nthe rite. Here then is no baptismal regeneration. The same inference\nfollows from the silence of the other evangelists on this point. The\neleven were all present and heard these words. If they were meant to\nimply baptismal regeneration, they were of the very highest moment. They\ncould not, therefore, be ignored, but must have been the very center and\ncontrolling principle of all their writings and teachings. And yet, the\nother gospels ignore them; and the epistles are equally silent. It is,\ntherefore, certain that the apostles did not understand the expressions,\nin the supposed sense. The true principle of harmony for the\ninterpretation of all these facts will be presented in another place.\n\n2. If now we examine the position of the great apostle of the Gentiles,\nwe shall find him give place by subjection to this doctrine,\u2014no, not for\nan hour. His is an independent testimony; for he was not with the eleven\nunder the personal ministry of Christ. It is also fuller than any other;\nrunning through his thirteen epistles. First, we find that it was not\nhis habit to baptize the converts of his own ministry; and that, upon\nprinciple. He says to the Corinthians,\u2014\u201cI thank God that I baptized none\nof you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in\nmy own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides, I\nknow not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to\nbaptize, but to preach the gospel.\u201d\u20141 Cor. i, 14-17. He moreover states\nthe reason of his special devotion thus to the preaching of the\ngospel,\u2014because \u201cit pleased God by the foolishness of _preaching_ to\nsave them that _believe_.\u201d\u2014v. 21. Here be it observed, the apostle\nspeaks of preaching, not abstractly considered, but in immediate\ncontrast with baptism. He does not baptize; but preaches, because\n_preaching_ is the means which God has chosen for the salvation of men\n_through faith_. Thus, baptism is, in the plainest terms denied the\nplace assigned it by the theory in question. But the evidence is even\nmore direct and conclusive. To these same Corinthians whom Paul thus\nreminded that he had not baptized them, he addressed a second epistle,\nin which he distinctly asserts that through his personal ministry the\nSpirit of God had been given them and new life wrought within them. \u201cYe\nare our epistle written in _your_ hearts,[111] known and read of all\nmen; forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ\nministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the\nliving God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the\nheart.\u201d He goes on to assert his ministry to be \u201cof the new covenant;\nnot of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth; but the\nspirit giveth life.\u201d\u20142 Cor. iii, 2, 3, 6. It needs no words, here, to\nshow that thus the apostle overturns the very foundations of the theory\nof baptismal regeneration. Paul did not baptize the Corinthians. But he\nministered to them the Holy Spirit of life and grace,\u2014the true baptism\nof which he speaks so largely in his epistles.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n That \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, the reading of the Textus Receptus, should be \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u201c_your_\n hearts,\u201d is testified by a number of MSS., among which is the\n Sinaiticus, and is imperatively demanded by the connection.\n\nIt is not necessary to go farther in tracing the doctrine of Paul on the\nsubject. He is everywhere consistent with himself as thus presented. It\nis however worthy of express notice that in his three epistles to\nTimothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications and duties\nof \u201cthe man of God,\u201d he does not once name or allude to the ordinance of\nbaptism. Had the apostle believed the doctrine of baptismal\nregeneration, it is not possible that he could have been thus silent.\nBut what need is there of thus inferring the sentiments of Paul? His\nfavorite doctrine, excludes and condemns this theory as an intrusive\nheresy. \u201cBeing justified _by faith_, we have peace with God, through our\nLord Jesus Christ.\u201d\u2014Rom. v, 1. \u201cBy grace ye are saved, _through faith_,\nand that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.\u201d\u2014Eph. ii, 8. \u201cO\nfoolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?... This only would I learn of\nyou, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the _hearing\nof faith_?\u201d\u2014Gal. iii, 1, 2. How is it that by no accident does he ever\nsay,\u2014\u201cby the hearing of faith, and _by baptism_?\u201d It is almost needless\nto add that the other apostles in their writings are in perfect accord\nwith Paul. In fact, ritual or water baptism is not once named in their\nepistles. The word, itself, occurs in them all only once,\u2014in the\nstatement of Peter respecting \u201cantitype baptism,\u201d which has been already\nexamined. If the apostles and evangelists are true witnesses as to the\nmind of Christ, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to\nhis teachings and subversive of the gospel.\n\nThis heresy is to be regarded with peculiar detestation and abhorrence\nbecause of the disparagement which it does to the sovereignty and glory\nof Christ\u2019s baptizing scepter. In any and every form of it, it divides\nthe work of grace between Christ and the human administrators of the\nempty sign. It subordinates and limits the sovereign exercise of his\nsaving power to the discretion of their wisdom and will, to the measure\nof their fidelity and ardor of their zeal. Whom they baptize,\u2014upon them\nhis grace may be bestowed, and upon them only.\n\nWe shall not examine in detail all the Scriptures which are appealed to\nin support of this theory. There are two which are the chief reliance of\nits advocates, an examination of which will be sufficient. If not in\nthem, the doctrine is not to be found in the Bible. They are, John iii,\n5, and Eph. v, 25-27.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXII.\u2014\u201c_Born of Water and of the Spirit._\u201d\n\nSaid Jesus to Nicodemus,\u2014\u201cExcept a man be born of water and of the\nSpirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.\u201d\u2014John iii, 5. Dr.\nPusey asserts that \u201cThe Christian church uniformly for fifteen centuries\ninterpreted these words of baptism; on the ground of this text alone,\nthey urged the necessity of baptism; upon it they identified\nregeneration with baptism.\u201d If the position thus maintained by the\nchurches of Rome and the east for so many centuries be the truth, it\npresents the Savior, the apostles and evangelists, and the Scriptures\nwritten by them, in a most extraordinary light. In the very beginning of\nhis ministry, in a private interview with the Jewish ruler, Jesus\nimparts to him this doctrine, on which confessedly the salvation of\nevery man depends. But, from that hour, neither he nor his apostles ever\nname it. In his public instructions to the people,\u2014in his private\ninterviews with his disciples,\u2014in those particular and assiduous\nteachings by which, as his own ministry drew to a close, he put them in\npossession of his whole mind concerning their ministry and the world\u2019s\nsalvation (John xv, 15), he is persistently and entirely silent on this\nvital point. \u201cStill,\u201d says Dr. Pusey, \u201cthe truth in holy Scripture is\nnot less God\u2019s truth, because contained in one passage only.\u201d The\nprinciple is sound; but its application here is a mere begging of the\nquestion. That question is, What mean these words? And the above axiom\nis no more true, and much less pertinent to the present occasion than is\nthe rule of interpretation laid down by Paul. \u201cHaving then gifts\ndiffering according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,\nlet us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.\u201d\u2014Rom. xii, 6. An\n_interpretation_ which takes a passage out of all congruous relation to\nthe rest of the Scriptures, and overturns the very foundations of the\nfaith therein set forth, is false. And such is the interpretation in\nquestion. The circumstances and connection indicate the true meaning of\nthe passage.\n\nThat Nicodemus, although perhaps lacking in courage, was an honest\ninquirer after the truth, is evinced by the circumstances of this\ninterview and by his subsequent history. He came by night, for fear of\nthe Jews. He came not to cavil but to be taught, as appears alike from\nhis own language and the manner of Christ\u2019s dealing with him. John had\nbeen for some time causing the land to ring with his warning cry; and\nmen\u2019s hearts were in expectation because of it and his baptism. After\nthis interview of Nicodemus with Jesus, we incidentally learn that in\nconnection with Christ\u2019s preaching his disciples also baptized. And\ntheir baptism was assuredly of the same intent as that of John,\u2014to\nprefigure the office of the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. We may,\ntherefore, conclude that their baptism was from the beginning associated\nwith Christ\u2019s ministry. Of these facts, a man of the rank and\nintelligence of Nicodemus, and in his state of mind, could not be\nignorant. He therefore comes for instruction as to the way of salvation.\nAt the beginning of the interview, he places himself definitely at the\nfeet of Jesus, as a disciple to be taught of him. \u201cRabbi, we _know_ that\nthou art a _teacher_ come from God; for no man can do these miracles\nthat thou doest except God be with him.\u201d To an application thus so\nprecisely in accord with Christ\u2019s own testimonies as to himself and his\nmiracles (John v, 36; x, 25; xiv, 10, 11), he responds by entering\ndirectly upon the question which was agitating the ruler\u2019s heart,\u2014that\ngreat question,\u2014How to be saved? \u201cJesus answered and said unto him,\nVerily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can not\nsee the kingdom of God,\u201d\u2014that kingdom of which the cry then was, \u201cThe\nkingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d The figure of the new birth was strange\nto Nicodemus; for, while the doctrine of renewing by the Holy Spirit is\nfamiliar to the Old Testament writers,\u2014the figure of a new birth is not\nfound in them. He therefore asks,\u2014\u201cHow can a man be born when he is old\u201d\nHere evidently the ruler views the matter as of practical and present\ninterest to him personally. \u201cHow can I, Nicodemus, at my age, be born\nagain?\u201d The purpose of Jesus, in using this new illustration was thus\naccomplished. Old truths in new forms often develop a power which\notherwise they lack. Jesus therefore, now answers, by a figure, familiar\nto his hearer, in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the baptisms of\nJohn and of Christ\u2019s disciples, \u201cExcept a man be born of water and of\nthe Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.\u201d\n\nFrom this view of the connection and circumstances, it is evident that\nthe passage is to be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament, and\nof the baptisms administered at the time of this interview, several\nyears before the ascension and day of Pentecost; and not by any thing\npeculiar to the time subsequent to that event. But it is an essential\nfeature of the theory of baptismal regeneration, that it holds the New\nTestament church to have this eminent advantage over that of the Old\nTestament, that the grace of regeneration is peculiar to the former, and\nto the ordinance of baptism as administered subsequent to the ascension\nof Christ. But the words of Christ to Nicodemus were no abstract setting\nforth of phenomena of grace to be enjoyed by the church in a coming\ntime, but an explanation of the way in which the ruler must be saved,\nthen and there, under the old economy. Viewing it in this light the\nfollowing are the facts essential to the exposition of the passage.\n\n1. The figure of metaphor was especially congenial to the Hebrew mind.\nTo its abundant use, the Scriptures are largely indebted for the energy\nand clearness with which the profoundest thoughts are there presented.\n\u201cLord, thou hast been our _dwelling place_ in all generations.\u201d\u2014Ps. xc,\n1. \u201cMoab is my _wash pot_.\u201d\u2014Ps. lx, 8. \u201cIn the hand of the Lord, there\nis _a cup_, and the _wine_ is _red_; it is full of _mixture_; and he\npoureth out of the same; but the _dregs_ thereof, all the wicked of the\nearth shall wring them out and drink them.\u201d\u2014Ps. lxxv, 8. \u201cUnto you that\nfear my name shall _the sun of righteousness_ arise with healing in his\nwings.\u201d\u2014Mal. iv, 2. Who would imagine the necessity of pausing to\nexplain that these expressions are not to be understood literally?\n\n2. Among these metaphors, no one was more familiar to the Jews than that\nof water, signifying the Holy Spirit. \u201cI will _pour water_ upon him that\nis thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour my Spirit upon\nthy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring.\u201d\u2014Isa. xliv, 3. This\nfigure has been already illustrated abundantly in these pages. It is\nonly here important to emphasize the fact that upon it the whole\nsignificance of John\u2019s and the Old Testament baptisms depended,\u2014which\nwere, at that precise time, so earnestly pressed upon the attention of\nthe Jews.\n\n3. This very figure was repeatedly used by our Saviour in the course of\nhis ministry. To the woman of Samaria he says, \u201cthou wouldst have asked\nof him, and he would have given thee _living water_.... Whosoever\ndrinketh of _the water_ that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but\n_the water_ that I shall give him, shall be in him _a well of water_\nspringing up into everlasting life.\u201d\u2014John iv, 10, 14. Again, \u201cIn the\nlast day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If\nany man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me,\nas the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of\n_living water_.\u201d\u2014Ib. vii, 37, 38. It is, moreover, to be remarked that\nboth of these places occur in the same gospel of John in which is found\nthe interview with Nicodemus. Nor is it without significant bearing on\nthe present point, that in the Revelation, by the pen of this same\nwriter, the metaphor of water is conspicuous, in this same sense. \u201cThe\nLamb ... shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.\u201d\u2014Rev. vii, 17.\nThe Lord Jesus says,\u2014\u201cI will give to him that is athirst of the fountain\nof the water of life freely;\u201d\u2014Ib. xxi, 6. John sees the \u201cpure river of\nwater of life clear as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and\nthe Lamb;\u201d\u2014Ib. xxii, 1. And the volume of revelation closes with the\ninvitation,\u2014\u201dLet him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him\ntake of the water of life, freely.\u201d\u2014Ib. 17.\n\n4. The Greek conjunction, _kai_, (\u201cand,\u201d) does not always express\naddition; but sometimes indicates an expository relation between two\nmembers of a sentence, and is equivalent to, _even_, _to wit_, _namely_.\nThus,\u2014\u201cFor blasphemy, _even_ because that thou being a man makest\nthyself God.\u201d\u2014John x, 33. \u201cHath made us kings and priests unto God,\n_even_ his Father.\u201d\u2014Rev. i, 6. \u201cA golden cup, full of abominations,\n_even_ the filthiness of her fornications.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvii, 4. \u201cBut ourselves,\n_even_ we ourselves, groan.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii, 23. \u201cGod, _even_ our\nFather.\u201d\u2014Phil. iv, 20. Three of these examples being from the writings\nof John again illustrate his style. It is evident that the phrase in\nquestion may be translated thus;\u2014\u201cExcept a man be born of water, _even_\nof the Spirit.\u201d In fact, such must have been the sense in which it was\nunderstood by Nicodemus. (1.) The phrase is professedly _explanatory_.\nIt is in reply to the perplexity of Nicodemus, at the primary statement\nof Jesus,\u2014\u201cExcept a man be born again,\u201d\u2014an expression the meaning of\nwhich is abundantly illustrated, in all parts of the New Testament. (2.)\nThe explanatory clause thus introduced, having performed its office,\nimmediately drops out of the discourse, which subsequently dwells upon\nthe new birth of the Spirit alone. \u201cExcept a man be born of water, even\nof the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is\nborn of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born _of the Spirit_ is\nspirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth, ... so is every one that is\nborn _of the Spirit_.\u201d It is impossible to account for the manner in\nwhich, after the one explanatory phrase, the water is thus ignored and\nexcluded, upon any other supposition than that by which it is viewed as\nan interpretation of the previous expression, a metaphor for the Spirit.\n(3.) The fact that in the circumstances, it was impossible for the ruler\nto have understood the language in question as referring to a water\nbaptism, which, upon the theory of baptismal regeneration, was not to be\nadministered until after the day of Pentecost; and that he was therefore\nshut up to regard it as a metaphor, rendered explanation necessary, if\nthat theory is true. The absence of any explanation makes it certain\nthat such was not the meaning of Jesus.\n\n5. The author of this narrative had, already, in the beginning of his\ngospel given an account of the manner of regeneration, which must be\naccepted as governing the whole of his subsequent record on the subject.\n\u201cAs many as received Him to them gave He power to become\u201d (_exousian\ngenesthai_, \u201cgave He _the prerogative of being_\u201d) \u201cthe sons of God, even\nto them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of\nthe will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.\u201d\u2014John i, 12,\n13. Here, it is not sufficient to say that baptismal regeneration is\nignored. It is absolutely excluded. The born of God are described in\nterms both exclusive and inclusive, by the phrase, \u201c_As many as_\nreceived him, ... that believed on his name.\u201d These, all of these, and\nnone but these, were born of God. The addition of baptism makes this no\nmore sure; nor does its absence affect the result. As many as receive\nChrist,\u2014As many as believe on his name, to them it is given to be the\nsons of God.\n\nIt is evident that the record of the interview with Nicodemus, all of\nwhich may be read in two or three minutes, is a mere abstract of leading\npoints of our Savior\u2019s discourse. The intent of the words in question\nmay be thus expressed. \u201cYou do not understand how a man can be born\nagain. But you are familiar with the rite of baptism, and you are\nacquainted with the Scriptures of the prophets, and the interpretation\nwhich they give to that rite as a symbol of the renewing work of the\nHoly Spirit. It is that of which I speak. Except a man be born of water,\neven of the Holy Spirit, who is the true water of life, he can not enter\ninto the kingdom of God.\u201d\n\n\n SECTION LXXXIII.\u2014\u201c_The Washing of Water by the Word._\u201d\n\nTo the Ephesians, Paul thus writes. Eph. v, 25-27. \u201cHusbands love your\nwives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it;\nthat he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the\nword; that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having\nspot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and\nwithout blemish.\u201d It is asserted that here baptism with water, and its\neffects are described. The \u201cwashing of water\u201d is the baptism, \u201cthe\nword,\u201d is the formula of the ordinance and unblemished holiness, the\neffect. But\n\n1. The subject of Paul\u2019s discussion is the relation of husband and wife,\nand the reference to the church is incidental, and by reason of the\nanalogy of the subjects. The conception which runs through and controls\nthe passage is that of a bridal, and each particular of the language is\nsuggested by this conception. Thus, in the phrase, \u201ca glorious church,\u201d\nrather \u201ca church gloriously adorned\u201d (compare Luke vii, 25, \u201cgorgeously\napparelled,\u201d) the apostle seems to have had in his mind (Psa. xlv,\n3),\u2014\u201cThe king\u2019s daughter is all glorious, within; her clothing is of\nwrought gold.\u201d So, the washing of water is expressly stated to be in\norder to his presenting her to himself \u201cnot having spot or wrinkle.\u201d The\nimmediate reference, therefore, of the language is to the washing and\ndecking of the bride, before marriage; and the original of the whole\nconception is to be found in Ezekiel xvi, 9-14. \u201cThen washed I thee with\nwater; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed\nthee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee\nwith badger\u2019s skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I\ncovered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put\nbracelets on thy hands and a chain on thy neck.\u201d It will hardly be\npretended that in this language of the prophet, the washing with water\nimplies any mixture of the natural element with that process of grace\nwhich is there described. And that the prophet and the apostle refer to\nthe same thing is manifest. There is no direct allusion in the passage\nto ritual baptism. The water is the familiar metaphor of the Spirit, and\nthe washing is the expression for his renewing and sanctifying\ninfluences on the soul.\n\n2. The assertion that (_r\u0113ma_) \u201cthe word,\u201d here means the formula of\nbaptism, is an assumption, wholly indefensible. In the first place,\nthere is no formula of baptism ordained by Jesus, or recognized or used\nby the sacred writers. Of this, the evidence will hereafter appear.\nMoreover, in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of Paul,\nthe word in question, _r\u0113ma,_ is invariably used in the sense of the\ntestimonies,\u2014the doctrines,\u2014_the word_ of God,\u2014the gospel. Thus, the\nangel said to the apostles,\u2014\u201cGo, stand and speak in the temple, to the\npeople, all (_ta r\u0113mata_) _the words_ of this life.\u201d\u2014Acts v, 20. Peter\ntells the house of Cornelius,\u2014\u201cThat _word_ (_r\u0113ma_) ye know ... how God\nanointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,\u201d etc.\u2014Ib.\nx, 37, 38. Paul, in this very same epistle, tells the Ephesians (vi, 17)\nthat \u201cthe sword of the Spirit\u201d \u201cis the _word_ (_r\u0113ma_) of God.\u201d And\nPeter declares that \u201cthe _word_ (_r\u0113ma_) of the Lord endureth forever;\nand this is the _word_ (_r\u0113ma_) which by the gospel is preached unto\nyou.\u201d\u20141 Peter i, 25. No word in the Scriptures is of a more unequivocal\nmeaning than this.\n\n3. The interpretation of _r\u0113ma_ as meaning the baptismal formula, is a\nrecognition of the unquestionable fact that \u201cthe word\u201d is made by the\napostle the instrumental cause of the sanctifying. Literally translated\nthe passage reads,\u2014\u201cThat he might sanctify it,\u2014having purified it by the\nwashing of water,\u2014by the word.\u201d Thus, the word is the instrument of the\nsanctifying, and the parenthetic clause states the figure by which the\nanalogy of the bride is sustained. The sanctifying and the purifying are\nthe same spiritual phenomenon, the one phrase being conformed to the\nidea of the church, the other to that of the bride. And, whether the\ncommon English version be accepted, or the construction of the original\nbe literally followed, as above, the result remains the same, that \u201cthe\nword\u201d is distinctly stated to be the instrument of the process described\nby the two words, \u201csanctify\u201d and \u201ccleanse.\u201d In what sense the word is\nsanctifying, let Jesus testify. \u201cThe words (_ta r\u0113mata_) that I speak\nunto you\u201d (_literally_, \u201cthat I have spoken unto you,\u201d that is, in his\npreceding discourse), \u201cthey are spirit, and they are life.\u201d\u2014John vi, 63.\n\u201cNow ye are clean, through (_tou logou_) _the word_ that I have spoken\nunto you.\u201d\u2014Ib. xv, 3. \u201cSanctify them through thy truth, thy word\n(_logos_) is truth.... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they\nalso may be sanctified through the truth.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvii, 17, 19. \u201cChosen\nunto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the\ntruth.\u201d\u20142 Thes. ii, 13. The word is the means and the Spirit the\nefficient author of grace.\n\n\n\n\n Part XIV.\n THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXIV.\u2014_The Ritual Law was not Repealed._\n\nIn the entrance of the church upon her new commission, her constitution\nwas unchanged. But the ordinances of testimony with which she was\nentrusted received an essential modification. The nature and the manner\nof this were alike remarkable; and as the subject has not received the\nattention due to its importance, it requires here the more careful\nconsideration. In the course thereof, it will appear that the Hebrew\nChristian church remained with its institutions all unaltered, as they\nwere received from Moses, and the ceremonial law in full authority and\noperation, down to the close of the New Testament canon. But the Gentile\nelement, which was by the preaching of the gospel gathered in and\nincorporated with the church, was, by express statute, exempted from the\nobligation of that law.\n\n1. The Lord Jesus was \u201ca minister of the circumcision for the truth of\nGod, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the\nGentiles might glorify God for his mercy.\u201d\u2014Rom. xv, 8, 9. He lived and\ndied in the full communion of the church of Israel, in so far as his own\naction or will was concerned; although he was in the end excommunicated\nand betrayed by the rulers of that church. He assured his disciples that\nhe came not to destroy the law but to fulfill. (Matt. v, 17.) Neither by\nexample nor by precept did he set aside or abrogate it; but, on the\ncontrary, having himself obeyed every precept and observed every\nordinance, he left it, at his ascension, in full and unimpaired\nauthority.\n\n2. The apostles and the church over which they presided in Jerusalem\nwere not only zealous in their observance of the law; but were not\naltogether exempt from the influence of some of the most obnoxious of\nthe traditions of the elders. Of this, the case of Peter\u2019s visit to the\nhouse of Cornelius presents a signal illustration. To prepare him to\nlisten to the message from the Roman centurion, a miraculous vision was\nshown him. And, when the disciples in Jerusalem heard of the matter,\nthey accused him, for having gone in to men uncircumcised and eaten with\nthem. And yet there was not a syllable in the laws of Moses to justify\nsuch extreme reserve. It was wholly based upon the traditions of the\nelders. So powerful and prevalent was the sentiment among Jewish\nChristians, on this subject, that it subsequently became the occasion of\na very singular dereliction on the part of Peter. Says Paul,\u2014\u201cWhen Peter\nwas come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be\nblamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the\nGentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself,\nfearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews\ndissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried\naway with their dissimulation.\u201d\u2014Gal. ii, 11-13. Respecting this it is\nnot enough to say that Peter and the Judaizers were all wrong. True. But\nsuch a state of things could not have existed, had the church or the\napostles understood the law of Moses to be, in any manner, abrogated or\nset aside.\n\n3. The calling and decree of the council of Jerusalem are very important\nfacts, as bearing on this subject. The occasion of the council was the\nattempt of Judaizing teachers to impose circumcision and the ritual law\nupon the Gentile converts. (Acts xv, 1-5.) Hereupon, \u201cthe apostles and\nelders came together to consider of this matter.\u201d\u2014v. 6. Here, at once,\nit is impossible that such a question could have arisen, had the\nabrogation of the Mosaic law been a fact known to the church in\nJerusalem; and assuredly in that case, there would have been no room for\nthe apostles and elders to \u201cconsider\u201d such a question, the very raising\nof which would have been the erection of a standard of open rebellion\nagainst Christ. The discussions and decree of the council were equally\nconclusive. No doubt was suggested, in any quarter as to the continued\nauthority of the law. No one hinted at the idea of its repeal. The\ndiscussion turned entirely on the privilege of the Gentiles to be\nspecially exempt from its requirements. The evidence of such exemption\nwas found in the fact that God had, in a special manner, shown his\nacceptance of them, outside the law. Upon this point, the whole issue\nturned; and the proof respecting it was formally given by Peter, in a\nrehearsal of the facts concerning the house of Cornelius (vs. 7, 8); and\nby Paul and Barnabas, in an account of \u201cthe miracles and wonders which\nGod had wrought among the Gentiles by them.\u201d\u2014vs. 12. Moreover, the\nconclusion reached (vs. 14-19), and the decree issued, had express\nrelation, to the Gentiles, only, and not to the whole body of the\nchurch. In a word, it was a decree recognizing and proclaiming the\nexemption of the Gentiles from the obligation of the existing law.\u2014\u201cThe\napostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which\nare _of the Gentiles_, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as\nwe have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you\nwith words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and\nkeep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.... It seemed good to\nthe Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these\nnecessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from\nblood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if\nye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.\u201d\u2014vs. 23-29. Such is\nthe only rule or decree found in the New Testament, respecting the\nritual law. It exempts the Gentiles from its obligations; but otherwise\nleaves it in unimpaired authority.\n\n4. With this view, the whole subsequent history of the apostolic church\nagrees. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was prompt and\ndecided in asserting and vindicating their liberty from the obligations\nof the law; but was himself conscientious in the observance of all its\nrequirements, and fully recognized their obligation upon himself and his\nbrethren of Israel. These facts were brought into question, and publicly\nestablished in the most signal manner. When he came to Jerusalem after\nhis third missionary tour, in an interview with James and the elders of\nthe church, they said to him \u201cThou seest, brother, how many thousands\n(_muriades_, how many tens of thousands,) of Jews there are which\nbelieve; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of\nthee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to\nforsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,\nneither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude\nmust needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do,\ntherefore, this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow\non them. Them take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with\nthem, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those\nthings whereof they have been informed concerning thee are nothing, but\nthat thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As touching\nthe Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they\nobserve no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things\noffered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from\nfornication.\u201d\u2014Acts xxi, 20-25. To this suggestion Paul agreed, and was\nin the temple in fulfillment of it, awaiting the time when \u201can offering\nshould be offered for every one of them,\u201d when a tumult was raised by\nthe unbelieving Jews, and his imprisonment took place, which resulted in\nhis being sent, in chains, to Cesarea, and to Rome. (Acts xxi, 26, 27.)\n\nRespecting this matter, the first point to be noticed is the fact that\nthe myriads of Jewish Christians were unanimous.\u2014They \u201cwere all zealous\nof the law.\u201d The imagination of Conybeare and Howson and others that the\nproceeding was the work of a Judaizing faction and was consented to for\nthe sake of peace, is not only without warrant in the record, but is in\ncontradiction to its whole tenor, and spirit. In fact the entire\nconception of the first named writers on the subject is characterized by\na strained and perverse ingenuity, rather than by the simplicity of a\nsound criticism. And yet they have to admit that the law continued in\nunimpaired authority over all Jewish believers. Why then labor to\nstigmatize the church in Jerusalem or an imaginary faction therein for\nbeing zealous in its maintenance?\n\nThe purpose and intent of this transaction as expressly avowed by James\nand the elders was to draw a broad line of distinction between Jews and\nGentiles in relation to the law. In their very suggestion to Paul, they\nrefer to the former council and decree.\u2014\u201cAs touching the Gentiles which\nbelieve, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing.\u201d\nThus, avowedly, the course proposed was designed to interpret that\ndecree, and to limit its purview to the Gentiles. It was, moreover, a\ntransaction taking place in circumstances which imparted to it the very\nhighest moment. It was in Jerusalem, the center whence Jesus had\ncommanded his apostles that the gospel should go forth. They were to\npreach in all the world, \u201cbeginning at Jerusalem.\u201d There, consequently\nthe first labors of the twelve were expended; there, some of them were\nalmost always found; and to that church the Gentile churches looked as\nthe fountain of their faith and authoritative exponent to them of the\nwill of Christ. Such had been the prophetic anticipation long before\nrespecting this very time.\u2014\u201cOut of Zion shall go forth the law; and the\nword of the Lord from Jerusalem.\u201d\u2014Isa. ii, 3. Already had that church\nsent forth the law concerning the relation of the Gentiles to the Mosaic\ninstitutions. And now the question to be decided was equally important,\nand the action proposed, although different in form, was equally\nresponsible and decisive. A decree of confirmation of the law, which had\nstood unimpeached for fifteen centuries would have been inappropriate\nand calculated rather to awaken doubts than to strengthen conviction.\nThe course proposed and adopted was more appropriate and effective. Paul\nwas the great apostle of the Gentiles, the recognized and world-renowned\nchampion, not only of the freedom of the Gentiles, but of the liberty of\nthe gospel, the liberty of all Christ\u2019s people. The spectacle,\ntherefore, of this great apostle, performing Levitical rites of\npurifying and publicly appearing at the temple, in order to the offering\nof sacrifices, in completion of a Nazarite vow, would constitute a most\ndecisive demonstration and announcement of the continued obligation of\nthe law, over all Israel. It was not a case, therefore, in which a\nprivilege might be waived for the sake of peace. Submission to these\nproposals, if they were unwarranted, would have been treason, at once to\nChrist and to the liberties of the apostle\u2019s own people. How likely it\nwas that Paul, having already vindicated with firmness and success the\nfreedom of the Gentiles from the bondage of the law, should have\nconspired to betray the liberties of his own beloved Israel, on the very\nsame point, in the interest of a time-serving policy, may be judged from\nhis whole history and writings. The alternative presented by the facts\nis of itself conclusive. Either the law remained in unimpaired\nauthority, over Israel,\u2014or, Paul and James, the elders, and all the\nmyriads of believing Jews, were united, without dissent or exception, in\na conspiracy to repudiate the authority of the Lord Jesus, and\nre-establish a law repealed by him.\n\n5. The action of Paul upon this occasion was not an instance of mere\noccasional conformity, but was expressly designed by the apostle as a\ntestimony to the Jews that he did not repudiate the law, but \u201cwalked\norderly and kept it.\u201d And an examination of his manner of life and\nministry will show that this testimony was true,\u2014that he was constant\nand conscientious in his own observance of the law, and recognition of\nits authority. Wherever he went, his first recourse was to the\nworshiping assemblies of the Jews, to which he joined himself as one of\nthem, withdrawing only when rejected from their company. (Acts xvii, 2;\nxix, 8, 9, etc.) One incident in the story of his ministry affords us a\nglimpse into the inner chamber of his sentiments and the spirit of his\npersonal life, as toward the law. On his second missionary tour, leaving\nCorinth, he sailed into Syria, \u201cand with him Priscilla and Aquila;\nhaving shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.\u201d\u2014Acts xviii, 18.\nSome expositors have explained this vow as taken by Aquila and not by\nPaul. Olshausen, who, however, rejects this theory, says that \u201cthose\nlearned men who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that\nthe statement can not be applied to him, because it would have been\ninconsistent with his principles regarding the abrogation of the\nceremonial law of Moses, to have taken upon him a vow.\u201d Conybeare and\nHowson, who hesitate between the two views, say that \u201cthe difficulty\nlies not so much in supposing that Paul took a Jewish vow (see Acts xxi,\n26) as in supposing that he made himself conspicuous for Jewish\npeculiarities while he was forming a mixed church at Corinth.\u201d But all\nadmit that the Greek in this place points as distinctly to Paul as does\nthe common English version. We already know enough, certainly, to\ncaution us against forcing an interpretation, on the ground that the\nceremonial law was abrogated. We have seen the apostle take upon him\nsuch a vow, in the most public and demonstrative manner. And, as to the\ndifficulty made by Conybeare and Howson, it is founded in a palpable\nmistake of the facts. The vow may have been made in Corinth. Of that we\nknow nothing. But the shaving of his head, to which alone the suggestion\nas to \u201cmaking himself conspicuous\u201d could apply, took place in Cenchrea,\nafter leaving Corinth and when in the act of sailing for Syria. So that\nthe facts as recorded look rather to the avoidance of notoriety than\nseeking it. So far as the record indicates, the vow being connected with\nPaul\u2019s own private religious life, was only known to his personal\nattendants, in connection with the fact of his shaving his head, and the\ndiligence with which he sought to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast.\n(Vs. 21, 22.) This was no doubt connected with the fulfillment of his\nvow, which of necessity required offerings at the temple. It thus\nappears that not only did the apostle maintain an outward and formal\nobservance of the law; but that his private devotional life and\nexperience took its form from the ordinances of that law, and found\nexpression in them; a fact utterly irreconcilable, as was his whole life\nand teachings, with the assumption that he looked upon them as being\nabrogated or obsolete.\n\nOn this and other occasions, there are intimations that as often as was\nconsistent with the duties of his ministry, he was accustomed to resort\nto Jerusalem, in observance of the annual feasts, and for the purpose of\nmaking offerings at the temple. \u201cI came,\u201d says he to Felix, \u201cto bring\nalms to my nation, _and offerings_. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia\nfound me _purified_ in the temple.\u201d\u2014Acts xxiv, 17, 18; comp. xx, 16.\n\nAnother important fact appears in the record. With a significant\ndiscrimination, Paul circumcised Timothy the son of a Jewess; although,\nhis father being a Greek, he might have claimed exemption as a Gentile\n(Acts xvi, 1-3); \u201cBut, neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek was\ncompelled to be circumcised; and that because of false brethren,\nunawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we\nhave in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we\ngave place, by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the\ngospel might continue with you.\u201d\u2014Gal. ii, 3-5. Thus, in Timothy and\nTitus, Paul\u2019s favorite disciples and constant attendants and helpers in\nhis later ministry, he carried with him exemplars and representatives of\nthe opposite relations to the law, which he recognized in the Jews and\nthe Gentiles.\n\nMoreover during his imprisonment, in reply to the charge of being a\ncontemner of the law, the apostle repeatedly and unqualifiedly asserted\nthat he had been constant and faithful in observance of it. In the\npresence of the council of Israel, he announced himself a Pharisee. Of\nthe same thing he writes to the Philippians, that he had \u201cno confidence\nin the flesh, Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any\nother man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I\nmore: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe\nof Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;\nconcerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness\nwhich is in the law blameless.\u201d\u2014Phil. iii, 3-6. It is true that the\ndescription here given by the apostle has especial reference to the past\ntime of his unconverted zeal. But it is also true, that his introductory\ncomparison with others, as to grounds of self-righteous confidence, is\nin the present tense, and indicates a conscious fidelity to the law down\nto the time of his writing. When accused before Festus, \u201che answered for\nhimself,\u2014Neither against _the law of the Jews_, neither against the\ntemple, nor yet against C\u00e6sar, have I offended any thing at all.\u201d\u2014Acts\nxxv, 8. And when at last he was taken to Rome, he there called the chief\nof the Jews together, and said to them, \u201cMen and brethren, though I have\ncommitted _nothing_ against the people or _customs of our fathers_, yet\nwas I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the\nRomans.\u201d\u2014Acts xxviii, 17.\n\nIs it asked, how all this is to be reconciled with the doctrine of the\nepistle to the Galatians, and other testimonies of Paul respecting\ncircumcision and the law? I answer,\u2014Paul nowhere utters a syllable in\ndisapproval of the observance of the law by the Jews, as a rule of life.\nWhat he assails is, a trusting in it, for themselves, or imposing it on\nothers, as a rule of righteousness unto salvation. While he proclaimed\nsalvation by grace, through faith alone, without the works of the law,\nmoral or ritual, he with perfect consistency not only himself kept the\nlaw, but enjoined it on his brethren after the flesh. His principle of\naction in this respect, he states explicitly, \u201cIs any man called, being\ncircumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in\nuncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and\nuncircumcision is nothing, _but the keeping of the commandments of God_.\nLet every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou\ncalled being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free\nuse it rather.\u201d\u20141 Cor. vii, 18-21. Thus distinctly does Paul recognize\ncircumcision as still being, to the Jews, a commandment of God; as\nexemption from it was to the Gentiles. And it need scarcely be said,\nthat circumcision here stands for the whole law. It is to be considered,\nmoreover, that this language of Paul is not a mere recognition of\ncircumcision as still existing by the providence of God; but it is an\nexpress and unreserved re-enforcement of the law, by his whole\nauthority, as an apostle of Jesus Christ,\u2014a re-enforcement broad and\nunlimited as to time or circumstances as was the law itself. This\nunlimited character of the apostle\u2019s decree, is emphasized and\nstrengthened by the exception which he appends to the general form of\nhis enunciation;\u2014\u201cLet every man abide in the calling wherein he was\ncalled.\u201d Lest any should interpret this rule as designed to apply to\ncases outside the theme in hand, he adds,\u2014\u201cArt thou called being a\nservant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it\nrather.\u201d So far from moderating or weakening the force of the apostle\u2019s\nprevious language, this adds greatly to it; showing as it does, that the\nquestion of exceptions and limitations was present to his mind. Then was\nthe time, if ever, for him to have intimated the doing away of the\nritual law; or, at least, to so guard his language as to harmonize it\nwith its ultimate abrogation, had such been the purpose of God. The\nfact, therefore, that neither here nor elsewhere does he allude to such\na purpose, but on the contrary gives the above unreserved injunction as\na permanent part of the written word of God, leaves us but one\nalternative,\u2014to reject the authority of Paul, as an inspired apostle, or\nto recognize circumcision and the law as being, to the Jew, the\ncommandment of God, unrepealed.\n\nIf, we further examine the epistles, we shall find that while they all\nare unanimous in repudiating the _righteousness_ of the law; they do\nnot, anywhere assert or imply its repeal, as toward Israel. It will\nmoreover be found that any inference as to the abrogation of the law,\nwhich may be deduced from the doctrine of grace, as taught by all the\napostles, applies as directly to the moral as to the ritual code; both\nof which are by them commonly comprehended together under the\ndesignation of, \u201cthe law.\u201d Upon their principles, reliance on a\nrighteousness of works is just as much to be reprobated in the one form\nas in the other; and the doctrine of salvation by grace is as consistent\nwith the continued obligation and observance of the ritual, as, of the\nmoral law.\n\n6. It is no slight argument in proof of the view here presented, that it\nalone exhibits the apostolic history as consistent and harmonious, based\nupon definite and inflexible principles, unanimously recognized and\nobeyed by the apostles and elders. That such must have been the case, is\ninvolved in the manner in which the apostles were appointed to preside\nover the transition period in the history of the church, and the Spirit\ngiven for their guidance therein. Many writers have assumed without the\ntrouble of proof, that the ritual law could not any longer possess\nlegitimate authority\u2014that the coming of Christ, and his one offering of\nhimself, of necessity, superseded and set it aside. They are, at once,\ninvolved in the necessity of treating the whole history of the apostolic\nchurch as one of compromising policies and timeserving expedients. We\nare told of the extreme Judaism of James, the more moderate conservatism\nof Peter, and the free evangelical spirit of Paul. Their principles and\nparties are represented as maintaining a continual struggle, and the\nvarious facts of the history are explained as the prevalence of one or\nthe other set of opinions, or the result of compromise. On the contrary,\nthere is not a trace of the least diversity of sentiment on these\nquestions between the parties named, or any of the apostles or leaders\nof the church. Some \u201cfalse brethren, unawares brought in\u201d (Gal. ii, 4),\nattempted to create division; but only developed harmony. The decree of\nthe council of Jerusalem was no compromise, but the expression of\nunanimous sentiments (_\u2018omothumadon_, \u201cwith one heart,\u201d\u2014Acts xv, 25),\nand was, moreover, dictated by the Holy Spirit. \u201cIt seemed good _to the\nHoly Ghost_ and to us.\u201d The so-called partisans of James, the Judaizing\nzealots, who troubled Paul\u2019s ministry, were expressly repudiated in that\ndecree, which was moved in the council by Peter and James, and\napparently drafted by the hand of the latter.[112] The reason why the\nlabors of James and Peter were mainly confined to the circumcision in\nJudea, while Paul preached among the far off Gentiles, was precisely the\nsame in both cases,\u2014the will of Christ. Says Paul,\u2014\u201cWhen they saw that\nthe gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of\nthe circumcision was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually in\nPeter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me\ntoward the Gentiles;) and when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be\npillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and\nBarnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the\nheathen, and they unto the circumcision.\u201d\u2014Gal. ii, 7-9. No. The\nblood-bought church of Christ, was not left, at this critical time, to\nthe mercies of the passions and prejudices, the narrowness and factions\nof fallible men. It was under the direction of the Lord Jesus, and the\ninspiration of the Holy Spirit. The prayer \u201cthat they all may be one,\u201d\nwas not unheard, nor unanswered of the Father; and the promise that the\nSpirit should guide them into all truth was fulfilled.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n The \u201c_Greeting_\u201d (_Chairein_) Acts xv, 23; is found nowhere else in\n the New Testament, save in James i, 1.\n\nFrom this careful survey, it appears, that the New Testament contains no\nevidence of the abrogation or passing away of the ceremonial law,\u2014that\nits unimpaired authority over Israel was fully and universally\nacknowledged and asserted by the apostles and the churches over which\nthey presided; while the exemption of the Gentiles from its requirements\nwas recognized as exceptional, and secured by formal consultation and\ndecree;\u2014that this condition of things continued unchanged to the close\nof the New Testament canon;\u2014and that as a necessary consequence, that\nlaw never has been repealed, to this day. As once before, during the\nseventy years of the Babylonian captivity, Israel was providentially\nprecluded from its observance, so at present, it is one of the most\nafflictive features of the divine dealings with them, that the law,\nwhich they idolized and so grievously perverted, still binds them; while\nthe destruction of the temple, the disorganization of the nation and the\nobliterating of the priesthood renders its fulfillment by them\nimpossible.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXV.\u2014_Why the Gentiles were Exempt from the Law._\n\nThe exemption of the Gentile Christian church from the authority of the\nceremonial law must be accounted for upon some principle which will\nharmonize with all the facts. The common theory assumes it to be of the\nvery nature of a type to perish and be abrogated by its realization in\nthe antitype. Thus, it is supposed, that the sacrificial system of\nnecessity expired with its fulfillment by Christ\u2019s one offering of\nhimself. But, as we have seen, the law was not in fact abrogated, but\ncontinues in unimpaired authority over Israel. Why, then, are the\nGentiles exempt from its obligations?\n\nThe reason was briefly intimated by Peter. \u201cWhy tempt ye God, to put a\nyoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we\nwere able to bear;\u201d\u2014literally, \u201cneither (_ischusamen_) _were strong_ to\nbear.\u201d\u2014Acts xv, 10. This verb means, _to be strong_, and is sometimes\nused with a negative particle, as here, to indicate a labor of great\ndifficulty, not amounting to an impracticability. Thus, in John xxi, 6,\nit is said of the net of fishes,\u2014\u201cThey _were not able_\u201d (were not\n_strong_) \u201cto draw it, for the multitude of fishes.\u201d And yet,\nimmediately after, when their force had been reduced by Peter casting\nhimself into the sea and swimming to land, they came \u201cdragging the net\nwith fishes,\u201d and Peter himself drew it to land. (vs. 8, 11.) The ritual\nlaw was a burdensome, although not impossible institution, for Israel,\nwhen dwelling in their own land. But, as a system of worship for a\nworld-religion, it was unsuitable. Essential to it was the one temple,\naltar and priest, at Jerusalem, typical of the one sanctuary and service\nin heaven. Hither must all males repair statedly, three times a year,\nand both men and women upon many special occasions beside, of a personal\nnature. To a population of four or five millions, dwelling in the narrow\nlimits of Palestine,\u2014a territory the extreme dimensions of which were\nabout 100 miles by 150,\u2014this was possible, although burdensome. But, to\nthe distant millions of the world\u2019s inhabitants, manifestly it would\nhave been utterly impracticable.\n\nMoreover, to the race at large, the ceremonial law had already fulfilled\nits most important and essential offices. Undoubtedly, it could still\nhave been used by the grace of God, as it had been for ages before, as a\nmode for the effectual transmission and dissemination of the gospel\ntestimony, kept in unimpaired purity by the agency of unchanging forms.\nNor is the fact to be everlooked, or lightly regarded, that\nrepresentations to the eye and the physical senses have a peculiar power\nover the affections and the heart, a power often greater and more\ninfluential than any appeal to the intellect through the organs of\nhearing. Had such been the will of God, the ritual system was certainly\nsusceptible of being made a powerful auxiliary to the dissemination of\nthe gospel, by its relation to these principles of man\u2019s nature.\n\nBut, when the gospel was given to the Gentiles, the system of elementary\nideas which were embodied and exhibited in the Mosaic ceremonial\npossessed a world-wide diffusion. The art of writing had been developed\nand disseminated. The Old Testament Scriptures were already written and\nwidely distributed, and the gospels and epistles were soon to follow.\nThus the cardinal importance of the ritual ordinances as a mode for the\nrecording and perpetuation of the gospel was obsolete,\u2014replaced by means\nmore appropriate to a religion now destined for the world. And the\n\u201cdemonstration of the Spirit and of power,\u201d which now accompanies the\npreaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, is abundant compensation for\nthe ritual system, as an appeal to the affections, through the senses.\n\nIt is thus apparent that the discrimination, in the beginning made\nbetween Jew and Gentile respecting the ceremonial law,\u2014its obligation on\nthe one, and the exemption of the other,\u2014was neither arbitrary nor\nunmeaning, but alike reasonable and susceptible of full and beautiful\nrealization in practice. It implied the continuance of Israel as a\npriest-kingdom among the nations, maintaining at Jerusalem, as a\nstandard of faith to the world, that system of rites which so\nbeautifully, so clearly and impressively set forth the gospel to the\neyes and senses of men; whilst, the world over, the same gospel should\nhave been published, by the written and printed word, by the living\nvoice, and by the simple ritual of Gentile Christianity, practicable\neverywhere. But such was not the purpose of God. At the beginning, our\nfirst parents by sin forfeited the Eden which might have been theirs.\nSo, Israel forfeited her offered privilege. Jerusalem was destroyed, and\nthe gospel and the church were given to the Gentiles,\u2014\u201cuntil the\nfullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be\nsaved.\u201d\u2014Rom. xi, 25, 26.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXVI.\u2014_The Christian Passover._\n\nTo the church among the Gentiles, two simple ordinances remain, an\ninheritance from the ancient church,\u2014a memorial and link of connection\nand identity between the two; and a continuous sealing of the same\ncovenant, transmitted from the one to the other. That the Supper is thus\nderived from the paschal feast, can not be denied. As early as Jacob\u2019s\nprophecy of Shiloh, \u201cthe blood of the grape\u201d was appropriated as a type\nof Christ\u2019s sufferings. (Gen. xlix, 9-12.) Afterward, in the Levitical\nsystem, a meat or bread offering made of fine flour mixed with oil, and\na drink offering of wine, were made essential parts of all sacrificial\nofferings. (See Num. xv, and xviii.) Of the festival offerings, to which\nthe passover belonged, a part only was offered upon the altar; the rest\nbeing appropriated to the worshippers. They thus enjoyed communion with\nGod, at his table; and hence the proverbial description of \u201cwine which\ncheereth God and man.\u201d\u2014Judg. ix, 13. Thus, in the passover and all the\nLevitical sacrifices, two distinct elements were typical of Christ\u2019s\nsufferings; but in wholly different aspects. The blood signified the\nsatisfaction demanded by justice; and it was, therefore, utterly\nprohibited that men should eat of it. (Lev. xvii, 10-14.) It was poured\nupon the altar. But the wine expressed the virtue of that satisfaction,\nimparted to believers and received by them, to their spiritual\nnourishment. Thus, the wine of the supper is not a substitute for the\nblood of sacrifice, but is a distinct and co-ordinate type, transmitted\nfrom the passover, and other sacrificial rites, and unchanged in its\nmeaning. The unleavened bread always symbolized the Bread of life that\ncame down from heaven; and the cup always represented the blood of the\nnew covenant.\n\nThat the passover was from the beginning a type of the atonement of the\nLord Jesus, is certain. (1.) The ordinance was a feast upon a sacrifice.\nFrom the foundation of the world, sacrifice signified one thing,\u2014the\nsatisfaction to be made to justice by the Lord Jesus. Such being the\ncase, the feast of Israel upon the pascal lamb could have but one\nmeaning. That meaning was set forth by Jesus, who having been announced\nby John as the Lamb of God, himself says, \u201cIf any man eat of this bread\n(_artou_, \u201cof this food\u201d), he shall live forever, and the food that I\nwill give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the\nworld.\u201d\u2014John vi, 51. (2.) The deliverance of Israel from the bondage of\nEgypt, was an exercise of the same redeeming function, which is\ndisplayed in the salvation of men; and was a type of that salvation.\nHence the preface to the ten commandments.\u2014\u201cI am the Lord _thy God_\nwhich have brought thee _out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of\nbondage_\u201d (Ex. xx, 2); which the Westminster catechism explains that\n\u201cbecause God is the Lord and our God and Redeemer, therefore, we are\nbound to keep all his commandments.\u201d (3.) Jesus himself at the very time\nwhen he eliminated the Lord\u2019s supper out of the passover, declared the\nlatter to be a type of his sufferings and death. \u201cWith desire I have\ndesired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto\nyou, I will not any more eat thereof, until _it be fulfilled_ in the\nkingdom of God.\u201d\u2014Luke xxii, 15, 16.\n\nHow plainly the Lord\u2019s supper was an epitome and perpetuation of the\npassover, will be understood, by reference to the manner of observance\nof the latter in the time of Christ. It was required of those who\npartook of the feast, that they should not sit, but recline at the\ntable, as expressing liberty and rest. When they were thus disposed,\nwine was distributed, and after thanks given by the presiding person,\neach one drank a cup. The master then explained the nature and occasion\nof the feast, and distributed a second cup. He then brake the unleavened\nbread, gave thanks, and gave it to the company, with the bitter herbs\nand other provisions that were on the table, and afterward the flesh of\nthe lamb. When all had eaten and the supper was ended, he that presided\ntook another cup of wine, and, after blessing God, all drank of it. This\nwas called \u201cthe cup of blessing,\u201d because of the blessing on it, which\nended the feast. Thus the order of the feast was, (1) Thanksgiving; (2)\nA cup of wine; (3) The commemorative discourse; (4) A second cup; (5) A\nsecond thanksgiving; (6) The broken bread; (7) The flesh of the lamb;\n(8) The closing blessing; (9) The cup of blessing. So, at the beginning\nof the supper, Jesus took the cup, and gave thanks and said, \u201cTake this,\nand divide it among yourselves.\u201d After discourse, and washing the\ndisciples\u2019 feet, \u201che took bread, and gave thanks and brake it and gave\nunto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in\nremembrance of me. Likewise, also, the cup after supper, saying, this\ncup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.\u201d\u2014Luke xxii,\n17-20.\n\nThe Lord\u2019s supper was not, therefore, a distinct ordinance, instituted\nafter the passover was ended, by the use of remaining elements. But it\nwas a perpetuation of the passover, itself, by appropriating and\ninterpreting portions of the elements, from time to time, during the\nprogress of the feast; the bread being that which was broken and eaten\nbefore the paschal flesh, and the wine that which closed the feast;\nwhich was known to the Jews and described in the Talmud, as the cup of\nblessing, and which is designated by that name by the apostle Paul, in\nspeaking of the Lord\u2019s supper. (1 Cor. x, 16.) The particular number and\norder of the cups of wine and of the thanksgivings were regulations of\nthe scribes, promotive of order and propriety in the observance; but not\nincluded in the divine requirements of the institution, and therefore\nnot essential to it. This fact being taken into account, it will appear\nthat the paschal feast remains to us entire, except only the sacrificial\nflesh of the lamb. Of it Paul says, \u201cChrist our passover is sacrificed\nfor us; therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither\nwith the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread\nof sincerity and truth.\u201d\u20141 Cor. v, 7, 8.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXVII.\u2014_The Hebrew Christian Church._\n\nWe proceed to trace the order and process of the development of the\nChristian church, as it took place under the Sinai constitution, with\nthe ordinances modified as we have seen. The synagogue system had grown\nup long before the time of Christ. In it provision was made for\nfulfilling those injunctions of the law which insisted so much on\ninstruction and study in the word of God, and which set apart the\nSabbaths as days of holy convocation. (Lev. xxiii, 3, etc.) In the\norganization of these societies, respect was undoubtedly had, at first,\nto the ties of consanguinity; so that the members of a given cluster of\nfamilies, living in the same vicinity and originally descended from one\nhead, were constituted a synagogue, under the direction and government\nof those who by the right of primogeniture were the family elders. But,\nin the time of Christ, the whole system of the distribution and\ninheritance of the land, and of the family organization, as appointed by\nthe law of Moses, had been broken up by the repeated captivities, the\ndispersion of the ten tribes, and the vicissitudes of war and peace. The\nsynagogue system was therefore more artificial in its structure, and\nmore characterized by the voluntary principle. Indications of voluntary\nassociation and elective affinity are plainly seen in the names of the\nsynagogues members of which were active in the persecution of\nStephen.\u2014\u201cThe synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and\nAlexandrians.\u201d\u2014Acts vi, 9. It is indeed evident that in the general\ncircumstances of the Jews at that time, in Judea and elsewhere, the\nworshiping assemblies must usually have been the products of voluntary\nassociation, more or less influenced by congeniality of sentiments among\nthe members. Pharisees and Sadducees severally would seek the worshiping\nassemblies in which their respective views were favored. Those of the\nsame foreign nationality would naturally gravitate toward each other.\nAnd, in general, congeniality, from whatever cause, would be potential\nin these associations.\n\nThe existence, at this time, in the bosom of the Jewish church of the\ntwo sects, or parties, of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, was a very\nimportant fact in preparing the way for the gospel. These parties are,\nin the original Greek, designated by the generic word, _hairesis_, which\nis commonly translated, \u201csect,\u201d as \u201cthe _sect_ of the Sadducees\u201d (Acts\nv, 17), \u201cthe _sect_ of the Pharisees\u201d (Ib. xv, 5), \u201cthe _sect_ of the\nNazarenes,\u201d (Ib. xxiv, 5). In one place, it is, \u201cthe way which they call\n_heresy_.\u201d\u2014Ib. xxiv, 14. Neither of these words, however, is a happy\nrendering of the original; which has nothing of the idea of doctrinal\nerror, now attached to the word, heresy; and nothing of the odium\ninvolved in the designation of \u201csects;\u201d nor, of the denominational\nseparations which are expressed by it. The word, as used in Luke\u2019s\nhistory signifies, a party, or rather, a society having a distinctive\norganization more or less complete, for certain special purposes; but\ncontinuing in the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the\nJewish church and the temple worship. Such was the position at once\nassumed, by the apostles and the converts of their ministry. They were\norganized in separate synagogues. They observed the first day of the\nweek, as a day of assembling for worship and the breaking of bread. They\nreceived their converts by the familiar rite of baptism. But they were\nall zealous of the law, and faithful, therefore, even above others in\nthe observance of its requirements. Thus, despite all the odium which\nPharisees and Sadducees might seek to cast upon them, it was impossible\nto impeach them of apostasy from Judaism, or unfaithfulness to Moses.\nHence, the result recorded by Luke. \u201cThey, continuing daily with one\naccord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat\ntheir meat with gladness and singleness of heart; praising God, and\nhaving favor with all the people.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 46, 47.\n\nSuch was the aspect of things in Jerusalem and Judea for a quarter of a\ncentury; from the first dissemination of the gospel to the times of\nanarchy which preceded the desolation of the land. In the bosom of the\nJewish church, beside the great body of the people, were the three\nsocieties just mentioned. The Sadducees were comparatively few in\nnumber, but influential, by reason of their social position and wealth,\nthe party being composed almost exclusively of the priests and\naristocracy. The Pharisees were more numerous, and in greater favor with\nthe people; for, while the Sadducees were chargeable with lax opinions,\nthe Pharisees were \u201cthe straitest sect of the Jews\u2019 religion,\u201d including\nall those who hoped to secure the favor of God through the righteousness\nof the law. Beside these was \u201cthe sect of the Nazarenes,\u201d far greater in\nnumbers than either of the others; and, at first, more in favor with the\nmass of the people,\u2014a favor which they seem to have retained till the\ngrowing corruption and disorder which heralded the catastrophe of the\nnation, rendered them odious, alike by the contrast of their lives with\nthe prevailing licentiousness, and by the rebukes and warnings which\nthey could not fail to utter.\n\nWhilst the number of the Christians, as compared with the whole nation\nwas, no doubt, small, the mistake is to be avoided of regarding it as\ninsignificant. A comparison of the various statements on the subject\nwill lead to the conclusion that the company of the believers must have\nbeen so large as to constitute one of the most conspicuous features in\nthe aspect of the nation. On the day of Pentecost \u201cthere were added unto\nthem about three thousand souls.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 41. A few days afterward,\n\u201cmany of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men\nwas about five thousand.\u201d\u2014Ib. iv, 4. Soon after, it is again recorded\nthat \u201cthe people magnified them. And believers were the more added to\nthe Lord, multitudes both of men and women.\u201d\u2014Ib. v, 13, 14. Again, it is\nstated that the high-priest demanded of the apostles,\u2014\u201cDid not we\nstraitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And behold,\nye have filled Jerusalem with your _teaching_ (_didach\u0113s_), and intend\nto bring this man\u2019s blood upon us.\u201d\u2014Ib. v, 28. Such was the progress of\nthe gospel that these rulers were alarmed lest they should be called by\nthe people to account for the death of Jesus. Soon, again, we read that\n\u201cthe word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied\nin Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient\nto the faith.\u201d\u2014Ib. vi, 7. Immediately after this Stephen was martyred,\nand \u201cthere was a great persecution against the church which was at\nJerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of\nJudea and Samaria, except the apostles.\u201d\u2014Ib. viii, 1. By the dispersed\nbelievers, the gospel was carried through the land and to the Gentiles.\n(Ib. xi, 19.) And in Jerusalem itself the word of the Lord was not\nbound. The persecution, in its active form, soon ceased, and when the\nconverted Saul retired from Jerusalem to Tarsus, we read that \u201cthen had\nthe churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were\nedified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the\nHoly Ghost were multiplied.\u201d\u2014Ib. ix, 31. Such was the new growth of the\nchurch in Jerusalem that when Paul made his last visit to that city,\nJames could say to him,\u2014\u201cThou seest, brother, how many (_muriades_) ten\nthousands of Jews there are which believe.\u201d\u2014Ib. xxi, 20. To the\ninference which naturally follows from these representations, the\nobjection has been raised, that there is no accounting for such numbers,\nin the after history. Alexander suggests, that many were false\nprofessors, who \u201cafterward apostatized or separated from the church, as\nEbionites, or Judaizing heretics.\u201d[113] So dark a view, however, is not\nrequired by the facts. Doubtless there were some defections. But there\nis no reason to suppose them to have been of the extent here implied.\nThe circumstances in which they united with the persecuted followers of\nthe man of Nazareth, were not such as to present attractions to false\nprofessors. The patristic tradition that none of the Christians perished\nin the siege of Jerusalem, they having all retired to Pella, whilst it\nmay possibly be true, concerning those who lived in Jerusalem, is by no\nmeans probable. And so far from Jesus having taught the disciples to\nexpect such a result, the reverse is the case. That the churches of\nbelievers which had been flourishing for a quarter of a century in\nJudea, Galilee and Samaria must have suffered greatly, from the\ndisorders and anarchy which preceded the final catastrophe, is certain,\nand of it Jesus expressly forewarned them.\u2014\u201cYe shall be betrayed both by\nparents and brethren and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall\nthey cause to be _put to death_. And ye shall be hated of all men for my\nname\u2019s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish\u201d (even\nthough ye be put to death). \u201cIn your patience possess ye your souls. And\nwhen ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the\ndesolation thereof is nigh.\u201d\u2014Luke xxi, 16-20. See, also, Matt. xxiv,\n9-13; Mark xiii, 9-13. As to what afterward became of the Christians of\nJudea,\u2014in view of the scanty remaining records of the time, and of the\nmanner in which they were identified with their brethren of Israel as\nbeing none the less Jews because they were Christians,\u2014it is not\nsurprising that we can not distinctly trace their subsequent history.\nOne fact, however, is patent on the face of the scanty record, and is\nsufficient to satisfy all the demands of the occasion. It is, that as\nthe Christian churches, at a later period, emerge into the light of\nhistory they everywhere bear the broad and indelible impress of Hebrew\nChristian influences.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n Alexander on Acts, xxi, 20.\n\nThe subsequent history of the Hebrew church in Jerusalem itself very\nsignally confirms the view here presented. As soon as the city began to\nbe repeopled, a church was re-established, under the presidency, as\nEusebius reports, of Simeon the son of Cleopas. Of his successors, that\nhistorian says,\u2014\u201cWe have not ascertained, in any way, that the times of\nthe bishops of Jerusalem have been regularly preserved on record. For\ntradition says that they all lived but a very short time. So much,\nhowever, have I learned from writers, that down to the invasion of the\nJews under Adrian there were fifteen successions of bishops in that\nchurch, all which, they declare to have been Hebrews from the first, and\nreceived the knowledge of Christ pure and unadulterated, so that in the\nestimation of those who were able to judge, they were well approved and\nworthy of the episcopal office. For, at that time, the whole church\nunder them consisted of believing Hebrews who continued from the time of\nthe apostles until the siege that then took place.\u201d The historian gives\na list of the succession of fifteen bishops. \u201cThese are all the bishops\nof Jerusalem that filled up the time from the apostles until the above\nmentioned date,\u2014all being of the circumcision.\u201d[114] The list ends with\nthe name of Judah, who perished by the sword of the impostor, Simon,\nsurnamed Bar Kokeba, \u201cthe Son of the Star.\u201d This adventurer, originally\na robber chieftain, had announced himself as the expected Messiah of\nIsrael. The Jews, groaning under the oppressions of the Romans, rushed\nto arms and rallied to his standard, to the number of more than 200,000\nmen. He would brook no neutrality. The Gentiles of Palestine had to\nchoose between his service and the sword. His demands, repelled by the\nHebrew Christians, brought on them his exterminating vengeance, and\nJudah, the last of the Hebrew succession of the bishops of Jerusalem,\nperished, with a multitude of his church, under the swords of the\nJews.[115] Thus closed in blood the history of the Hebrew church in\nJerusalem, in the year 132. As for Simon,\u2014after successfully defying for\ntwo years, the whole power of Rome, he and his forces were finally\ncooped up in the town of Bethar, which was taken by storm. The impostor\nperished, with a multitude of his followers, and the remnant glutted the\nslave markets of the world. \u201cThe numbers of persons who perished by\nsword, flame, and hunger, have been stated as high as 700,000, by\nothers, 580,000. As to Judaism and the Jewish people, the land might be\nsaid, for some time, to be a solitude. The native inhabitants who had\nescaped the butchery of the war were expatriated either by banishment or\nflight, or sold into bondage. No Jew was now permitted to come within\nsight of Jerusalem, and Gentile colonists were sent to take possession\nof the soil. Jerusalem in fact became a Gentile city.\u201d[116]\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n Eusebius iii, 11; iv, 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n Etheridge\u2019s Jerusalem and Tiberias, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n Etheridge, Ibid. p. 72.\n\nSays Mosheim,\u2014\u201cWhen the emperor (Adrian) had wholly destroyed Jerusalem,\na second time, and had enacted severe laws against the Jews, the greater\npart of the Christians living in Palestine, that they might not be\nconfounded with Jews as they had been, laid aside the Mosaic ceremonies,\nand chose one Mark who was a foreigner and not a Jew, for their bishop.\nThis procedure was very offensive to those among them whose attachment\nto the Mosaic rites was too strong to be eradicated. They therefore\nseparated from their brethren, and formed a distinct society, in Perea,\na part of Palestine, and in the neighboring regions; and among them the\nMosaic law retained all its dignity unimpaired.\u201d[117] These Jewish\nChristians, known as Nazarenes, are traceable for several centuries,\northodox in their faith and embraced in the fellowship of the Catholic\nchurch, but strict in the observance of circumcision and the law of\nMoses, as far as practicable in the circumstances of the Jews.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Cent. II., Part II., Ch. v, 1, 2.\n\n\n Section LXXXVIII.\u2014_The Gentiles Graffed in._\n\nWhile such as we have described was the constitution of the church in\nJerusalem and Judea, in the days of the apostles, it elsewhere presented\na different aspect. At Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica,\nCorinth, Rome and other places, Jews and Gentiles were associated\ntogether in the churches. Where such was the case, the Jewish members,\nlike their brethren in Judea, maintained the ordinances of both the\nLevitical and Christian liturgies. They kept sacred alike the Jewish\nSabbath and the Lord\u2019s day. They were circumcised, and observed all the\nrequirements of the law of Moses, and maintained all the services of the\nsynagogue system. At the same time, they on the Lord\u2019s day, united with\ntheir believing Gentile brethren, in observing the ordinances of the\ngospel church, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nOn the other hand, the Gentile members of these churches were\nuncircumcised and free from the bondage of the ritual law. They kept\nholy the Lord\u2019s day only; on which they united with their Jewish\nbrethren in the ordinances of Christian worship and religion. At the\nsame time these Gentile converts were more or less in the habit of\nfrequenting the synagogue services, to hear the reading of the\nScriptures and join in the worship of the God of Israel. In these\nservices their position was similar to that held by the class of persons\nwho were known as \u201cdevout persons,\u201d or \u201cproselytes of the gate.\u201d In\nfact, it was usually from these that the first Gentile converts to\nChrist were gathered. The strong tendency, which the circumstances were\ncalculated to induce in them, to embrace the entire system of Judaism as\nit was maintained by their Jewish Christian brethren, elicited from Paul\nthose expostulations which have been misunderstood as implying the\nabsolute abrogation of the law. His earnestness therein was induced by\nthe fact, that the voluntary assumption of the yoke of the ritual law,\nby those upon whom God had not laid it, was a manifest apostasy from the\ndoctrine of grace,\u2014an attempt to fulfill a righteousness of works.\n\nOf the mixed state of these churches, the first epistle to the\nCorinthians presents constant illustrations. In it, Paul indulges in a\nfrequency of allusion to Old Testament facts which presupposes his\nreaders to be familiar with the sacred books of the Jews. In one place,\nhe addresses them as being of the stock of Israel, \u201cBrethren, I would\nnot that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the\ncloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses\nin the cloud and in the sea.\u201d\u2014Ch. x, 1-11. On the other hand, the\napostle alludes to disorders and offenses, in the church, which were\nevidently committed by the Gentile members (vi, 9-11; xi, 20-22), and\nmoreover, says expressly,\u2014\u201cYe know that ye were Gentiles, carried away\nunto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.\u201d\u2014xii, 2. He also, as we have\nalready seen, gives express instructions for continuing the distinction\nbetween Jew and Gentile, in the church. \u201cIs any man called being\ncircumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in\nuncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.\u201d\u2014vii, 18.\n\nBut there was yet another class of churches, which may be exemplified in\nLystra, Derbe, and Galatia,\u2014churches where there were no Jews, or in\nwhich their number was so small as to constitute an unappreciable\nelement. In them, the Christian Sabbath and ordinances were alone\nobserved, the assemblies and services on the Lord\u2019s day being precisely\nthe same in their nature and manner as those maintained where Jews and\nGentiles were united.\n\nOf all these churches, whether of Jewish, mixed, or Gentile elements,\nthe local constitution and form of government was the same; being that\nof the synagogue. This the circumstances rendered inevitable; and to it\nall the statements and intimations of the Scriptures testify. In fact,\nin the epistle of James they are expressly designated by that name.\u2014\u201cIf\nthere come unto your _synagogue_, (_sunagog\u0113n_) a man with a gold\nring.\u201d\u2014Ja. ii, 2. It is true the epistle is inscribed, \u201cto _the twelve\ntribes_ which are scattered abroad.\u201d\u2014Ib. i, 1. But it is to the\nChristians of those scattered tribes, that he addresses himself. With\nthem Gentile believers were always to be found united; and no one will\npretend that there were two forms of organization; one for the Jews, and\nanother for the Gentiles. These churches were self-governed, so far as\ninternal order and discipline were concerned. But with relation to the\nfundamental laws of their existence and rule of their faith they were in\na state of recognized and entire dependence on the church in Jerusalem.\nThis relation was indicated and expressed in a very peculiar and\nconclusive manner. The vital question concerning the relation of the\nGentiles to the law of Moses arose in the church in Antioch, in which\nthere were not only certain prophets (Acts xiii, 1, 2), but Paul the\ngreat apostle of the Gentiles. Naturally, we should have expected such a\nquestion to be brought to an immediate decision, by prophetic\nrevelation, or by the authority of the apostle, confirmed by signs\nfollowing. And, in fact, there _was_ an immediate divine interposition.\nBut it was an interposition by which the question was remanded to\nJerusalem to be decided there. Paul says to the Galatians,\u2014\u201cI went up to\nJerusalem, with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up\n(_kata apokalupsin_) in accordance with a revelation.\u201d\u2014Gal. ii, 1, 2.\nAgain, when he came to Jerusalem, there were present John, the beloved\nof Jesus, and Peter, the chief of the apostles; beside James, the\nbrother of the Lord and head of the church in Jerusalem. (Ib. ii, 9.)\nBut not by either or all of them was the question decided, but referred\nto the council of the church, and, under the direction of the Holy\nSpirit, was there determined by deliberative consultation and vote; and\nthe decree was drawn up and sent forth in the name of \u201cthe apostles, and\nelders and brethren.\u201d\u2014Acts xv, 22, 23, 25. The relation of that council\nto the Jerusalem eldership and church is indicated by the manner in\nwhich at a later date those elders referred to it, in conference with\nPaul. \u201cAs touching the Gentiles which believe, _we_ have written and\nconcluded.\u201d\u2014Acts xxi, 25, 18. Upon Paul\u2019s return to Antioch, and\nresumption of his missionary labors, after the council, he and his\nattendants, \u201cas they went through the cities, delivered them the decrees\nfor to keep, that were ordained of the apostles _and elders_ which were\nat Jerusalem.\u201d\u2014Ib. xvi, 4. It would thus appear beyond question, that\nthis business was so ordered by the Head of the church, as to\ndemonstrate the fact of the organic dependence of the Gentile churches\neverywhere,\u2014not upon the authority of the apostles, as such, but upon\nthe ancient church of Israel, in the councils of which the apostles sat\nas elders, with the elders. (1 Peter v, 1.) It was an indication to the\nGentile churches that their privilege was that of _partakers_ with\nIsrael in _her_ spiritual things. (Rom. xv, 27.) Believing Israel was\nthus presented, as not only the source whence the gospel flowed to the\nGentiles, but as ordained to be to them the authorized exponent of that\ngospel. The principle here involved, is appealed to by Paul, when in\nrepressing the arrogant assumptions of some in the Corinthian church, he\ndemands of them,\u2014\u201cWhat! came the word of God out from you? or, came it\nunto you, only?\u201d\u20141 Cor. xiv, 36. In this relation of the Jewish church\nto those of the Gentiles, there was a fulfilment of the prophecy of\nIsaiah (ii, 3) reechoed by Micah:\u2014\u201cIn the last days ... many nations\nshall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,\nand to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways,\nand we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and\nthe word of the Lord from Jerusalem.\u201d\u2014Micah iv, 1, 2.\n\nThus, while the great body of Israel after the flesh rejected the Angel\nof the covenant, who was promised at Sinai to their fathers (Ex. xxiii,\n20), and in so doing forfeited and were cut off from its fold, their\nbelieving brethren remained in full possession of its rights, and\nprivileges; and the Gentiles, receiving Christ, became with them\npartakers therein, according to the proviso which from the beginning\nreserved room for them;\u2014\u201cFor all the earth is mine.\u201d\u2014Ex. xix, 5.\n\nIt was at a time when the condition of things here described, in Judea\nand among the Gentiles had attained to its completest realization, that\nPaul addressed the Romans in a figure which is in beautiful accord with\nthe literal facts; as they had been already realized. \u201cIf some of the\nbranches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert graffed\nin among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the\nolive tree,\u2014boast not against the branches. But, if thou boast, thou\nbearest not the root; but the root, thee. Thou wilt say, then,... The\nbranches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well: because of\nunbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not\nhighminded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take\nheed lest he also spare not thee.... And they also if they abide not\nstill in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in\nagain. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by\nnature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how\nmuch more shall these which be the natural branches, be graffed into\ntheir own olive tree.\u201d\u2014Rom. xi, 17-24.\n\nThe Christian church is not a new institution, nor its constitution a\nnew organic law. But it is, in the strictest and most absolute sense,\nlineally and organically one with that of Israel, founded and\nperpetuated upon the covenant of Sinai.\n\n\n\n\n PART XV.\n CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.\n\n\n SECTION LXXXIX.\u2014_History of the Rite._\n\nBut two of the evangelists, Matthew and Mark, mention baptism in\nconnection with the last instructions of Jesus; and of these, Mark\nintroduces it in an incidental way, as though it had been a matter\nalready understood. (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20; Mark xvi, 15, 16.) The reason\nwas that the apostles were not then first commissioned to baptize. On\nthis point, Calvin speaking with reference to the arguments of the\nAnabaptists says, \u201cIt is a mistake worse than childish to consider that\ncommission as the original institution of baptism,\u2014which Christ had\ncommanded his apostles to administer, from the commencement of his\npreaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law and\nrule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if they\ncontained the first institution of it.\u201d[118] Upon this, Dr. Dale\nsays,\u2014\u201cCalvin is right in dating Christian ritual baptism from the\nministry and authority of Christ, and not from that of John, even if\nthey were entirely identical, which they are not. The baptism of John is\nChristian baptism, _as far as it goes_; but it is Christian baptism\nundeveloped in the blood shedding of an atoning Redeemer, in which\nshedding of blood, \u2018for the remission of sins,\u2019 ritual baptism has its\nexclusive ground.\u201d Again, speaking of the words of Peter, on the day of\nPentecost,\u2014\u201cRepent and be baptized,\u201d\u2014he asks,\u2014\u201cWhat was this baptism?\nWas it a Jewish baptism, a ceremonial cleansing of the body, merely? Was\nit John\u2019s baptism, a spiritual baptism (_baptisma metanoias_) in which\nno Holy Ghost was yet \u2018poured out,\u2019 no _crucified_ Redeemer was yet\nrevealed? Was it Christian baptism, the baptism of Christ, the\ncrucified, the Risen, the Ascended, the Pourer out of the Holy\nGhost?\u201d[119] In these passages we have a statement of differentia upon\nwhich the lamented author insists earnestly, as distinguishing the\nbaptisms named, from each other. As to the Jewish baptisms,\u2014those which\nwere appointed by the divine law, they were, as we have seen, spiritual\nin the same sense precisely as were the baptisms of John and of Christ;\nand the latter were and are \u201ca ceremonial cleansing of the body,\nmerely,\u201d in the same sense as were the baptisms of the Jews. To this\nday, \u201cthe letter,\u201d or outward form of Christian baptism is a ceremonial\ncleansing of those who are ritually unclean. No otherwise could it show\nforth \u201cthe spirit\u201d of the ordinance, which is the real purging, by the\nSpirit, of those who are spiritually defiled. From the beginning to the\npresent day, the ritual baptisms always signified the very same\nspiritual truths. And they were all alike devoid of any spiritual power\nin themselves.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n Institutes, Book IV, chap, xvi, \u00a737.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n Dale\u2019s \u201cChristic Baptism,\u201d pp. 430, 431.\n\nBut let us trace the line of connection between them. Very early in the\nministry of Jesus, before the imprisonment of John, while the latter was\nbaptizing in Enon, \u201cJesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea;\nand there he tarried with them and baptized.\u201d But \u201cwhen the Lord knew\nhow the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples\nthan John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he\nleft Judea, and departed again into Galilee.\u201d\u2014John iii, 22; iv, 1-3.\nHere, be it observed, (1.) that John was the intelligent, faithful and\ninspired forerunner and herald of the Lord Jesus. The gospel which he\npreached was that which the Spirit of Christ gave him, and the baptism\nwhich he administered set forth that gospel in ritual figure. His\npreaching was summed in one word. \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is\nat hand.\u201d (2.) The Lord Jesus preached the very same word, and gave it\nto the apostles and the seventy to proclaim, when he sent them abroad\nthrough the land. \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d (3.)\nThere is not an intimation in the Scriptures, nor suggestion to justify\nthe idea, of the least difference in the form and nature of the baptisms\nat this stage of the history, administered by them respectively.\nCertainly if there were differences, they must have been characterized\nby a minuteness and subtlety, fit rather to exercise the ingenuity of\nhair-splitting schoolmen, than to instruct the common people of Judea;\nwho, upon the supposition of diversity, were called to _choose between\nthe rival baptisms_. John\u2019s baptism was at first into the name of \u201cthe\ncoming One,\u201d \u201cthe Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire.\u201d Of that\nbaptism his was proclaimed to be a symbol. When Jesus came, John at once\nidentified him as the coming One, and thenceforth his baptism was into\nthe name of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not mean that John made use of those\nphrases. To this point we shall come presently. But \u201cJohn verily\nbaptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that\nthey should believe on him which should come after him; that is, on\nChrist Jesus.\u201d\u2014Acts xix, 4. The rite which he dispensed sealed upon the\nrecipients their profession of repentance and faith in Jesus, the Son of\nGod, the atoning Lamb, the King Baptizer. In a report of one of his\ndiscourses, which occupies seven verses of the gospel of John, each of\nthese titles and the things implied in them is brought out with perfect\ndistinctness. (John i, 29-36.) That John was ignorant of the precise\nform of crucifixion, as that in which atonement was to be made, is\npossible; although even there the facts do not warrant the confidence of\nDr. Dale\u2019s assertions. But that he was not ignorant of Christ\u2019s atoning\noffice, his own words distinctly testify. \u201cBehold the _Lamb of God_,\nwhich taketh away the sin of the world.\u201d\u2014John i, 29. (4.) The whole\nmanner of the narrative from which we learn the fact that Christ\u2019s\ndisciples baptized, indicates the identity of the ordinance as\nadministered by them with that of John. The fact is not mentioned for\nits own sake, but as introductory and explanatory of the testimony of\nJohn respecting Jesus. (John iii, 22-30.) In fact, we have no\ninformation whatever of the nature and meaning of Christ\u2019s baptism, as\nthus originated, except in its justly assumed identity with that of\nJohn. This, the language of John\u2019s interlocutors implies (Ib. 26), and\nupon the basis of this assumption the whole narrative rests. This remark\napplies also to the subsequent statement,\u2014that \u201cthe Lord knew how the\nPharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than\nJohn; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.\u201d\u2014John iv, 1,\n2. Here the one word, \u201cbaptized,\u201d without qualification or\ndifferentiating phrase, is applied to both Christ\u2019s disciples and John,\nand plainly identifies the rite administered by them as one and the\nsame. That such was the case can not be successfully questioned.\n\nAnd now, what have we, in the ordinance thus dispensed by the disciples\nunder the eye, and as a seal to the preaching, of Christ, but Christian\nbaptism? True, the disciples were ignorant at that time, of the doctrine\nof the cross, which in fact they refused to believe, till their Master\nwas crucified before their eyes. But while the baptism was administered\nby their hands, it was in Christ\u2019s immediate presence, by his authority,\nand as a seal to the gospel which he preached. How then could their\nignorance and hardness, or that of John, if he be so impeached, change\nthe nature of the rite which by Christ\u2019s authority they both\nadministered? And, especially, how could this be, when in fact that\nbaptism, while it presupposed Christ\u2019s atoning sufferings, yet had no\nimmediate relation to them, but to his kingdom and glory,\u2014the theme of\nJohn\u2019s preaching,\u2014the one thing in Christ\u2019s instructions which the\napostles gladly received?\n\nTo what extent this baptizing function of the apostles continued in\nexercise during the subsequent ministry of Christ, we are not informed.\nBut, the manner in which, first and last, the subject is treated by the\nevangelists implies that it never was in abeyance. Hence, in his final\ninterviews with them, Jesus does not speak of the ordinance as a\nnovelty, nor as a rite to be reintroduced; but alludes to it as to a\nfamiliar subject. In fact, his only recorded references to it, have in\nview, not the ordinance, in itself considered, but _its bestowal on the\nGentiles_. \u201cGo ye, disciple _all nations, baptizing them_.\u201d\u2014Matt.\nxxviii, 19. \u201cGo ye into _all the world_ and preach the gospel to every\ncreature. _He that believeth and is baptized_ shall be saved, but he\nthat believeth not shall be damned.\u201d\u2014Mark xvi, 15, 16. By this decree,\nthe ordinance, which, as we have seen, was already divested of its\nsacrificial elements, was released from its peculiar and restricted\nrelation to the Jewish people. Heretofore, only the circumcised could be\nadmitted to baptism; and the rite, when administered to them, was\nreceived as a certificate of title to the privileges of the covenant, in\nconnection with the Mosaic ritual and the temple service. But, by this\ndecree of Christ, it was appropriated to the use of the Gentiles, also;\nas certifying to them a part in the same covenant, relieved of the\nencumbrance of the ritual law. That its administration to the converts\nof Christ\u2019s ministry is not mentioned, presents no just occasion of\nsurprise, in view of the familiarity of the ordinance and the emphasis\nalready given to it in connection with John\u2019s ministry. That Christ\u2019s\ndisciples baptized at all is only known to us by the incidental mention\nin the last of the evangelists.\n\nThe facts here developed are of immense importance in their bearing upon\nour present inquiry. The Lord Jesus did not _institute_ baptism, at any\ntime. He recognized it as an ordinance of God given to Israel ages\nbefore,\u2014accepted it personally from the hands of John,\u2014immediately\nappointed his disciples to administer it to the Jews in conjunction with\nJohn, and then, after his resurrection and assumption of the sceptre,\ncommanded them to dispense it to the Gentiles also.\u2014\u201cAll power is given\nunto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations\nbaptizing them.\u201d\n\nThe rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John, by Paul at Ephesus (Acts\nxix, 1-7), may be thought inconsistent with the assertion of the\nidentity of the baptisms of John and of the Christian church. But when\nthe facts are considered in their true relations, they will appear in\nperfect harmony with all that have been heretofore adduced, and entirely\nconsistent with the conclusions thence derived. John was the herald of\nChrist. His preaching and baptism had neither significance nor value,\nexcept as they directed the attention and faith of his disciples to the\ncoming of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which He should\nadminister. To the great mass of those who received his baptism, no\nprofit resulted, because it was not followed up by a waiting for\nChrist\u2019s coming, and a devotion to him when he was revealed. It effected\nno actual separation of such disciples from the unbelieving mass of the\nnation. When, therefore, the crisis came and the Saviour was crucified,\nthey sustained no relation of identity with him and his cause; but were\nan undistinguishable part of the nation, whose rulers betrayed and\ncrucified Him. The baptism which they had received was no magical rite,\nleaving an indelible impress on the recipients; but a rational\nordinance, designed to mark and seal a separation and consecration unto\nChrist. Precisely here, was the point of Paul\u2019s testimony to these\nmen.\u2014\u201cJohn verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto\nthe people that they should _believe on him which should come after\nhim_, that is, _on Christ Jesus_.\u201d Where this intent of John\u2019s baptism\ndid not follow,\u2014where no separation unto Christ was actually effected,\nthe parties remained unclean, with the unclean nation. In them was\nfulfilled the proverb of the son of Sirach.\u2014\u201cHe that is baptized from\nthe dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his\nwashing?\u201d\u2014Ecclus. xxxi, 30. Such was the case with any of the converts\nof Pentecost, who had been John\u2019s disciples. And such evidently were the\nEphesian disciples. They were believers in the Messiah of prophecy, as\nheralded by John. But their faith was weak and supineness prevalent.\nThey had not followed up the line of John\u2019s testimony, with the zeal of\na living consecration. The baptism which they had received had effected\nno separation unto Christ. When, therefore, under the ministry of Paul,\nthey were prepared to begin a new life, their consecration was sealed by\na new administration of the same baptism.[120]\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n See Alexander on Acts xiv, 5.\n\nThat this is a just view of the case in question farther appears from\nthe manner in which it is presented in immediate connection and contrast\nwith that of Apollos, whose story closes the eighteenth chapter of the\nActs, as that of the twelve opens the nineteenth. Of him it is stated\nthat he was \u201can eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, instructed\nin the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and\ntaught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of\nJohn. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue; whom, when Aquila\nand Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him\nthe way of God more perfectly.\u201d\u2014Acts xviii, 24-26. The silence, here, on\nthe subject of baptism, and the emphasis given to its statement\nimmediately after, in the case of the twelve, is pregnant. For, all\noccurred in the same city of Ephesus, where Apollos was instructed and\npreaching just before Paul\u2019s coming, and the baptism of the twelve.\n\nNOTE.\u2014How can we consistently restore excommunicated persons without\nrebaptism? Is not the prevalent practice a relic of the _opus operatum_\nheresy? \u201cIf any one assert that in the three sacraments, baptism,\nconfirmation, and orders, there is not a mark imprinted on the\nsoul,\u2014that is a certain spiritual and indelible token, whence, it may\nnot be repeated,\u2014let him be anathema.\u201d\u2014_Council of Trent, Sess._ vii.\n_Canon_ 9. Is this the faith which we hold?\n\n\n SECTION XC.\u2014\u201c_Baptizing them into the Name._\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd Jesus came and spake unto them and said, All power is given unto\nme, in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and (_math\u0113teusate_)\n_disciple_ all nations, baptizing them (_eis_) _into_ the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway\neven unto the end of the world.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxviii, 18-20.\n\nHere are two things to be considered:\u2014(1) The phrase, \u201cinto the name;\u201d\n(2) \u201cThe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\n1. \u201cInto the name.\u201d The phrase, \u201cin the name,\u201d as found in the common\nEnglish version, represents three distinct forms of expression, in the\noriginal, which are essentially different in their meaning, and should,\ntherefore, be carefully discriminated. They are \u201c(_en_) _in_ the name;\u201d\n\u201c(_epi_) _for_ the name,\u201d and \u201c(_eis_) _into_ the name.\u201d The essential\nidea expressed by the first of these is, representative union, as a\nperson who speaks or acts \u201cin the name\u201d of another, identifies himself\nwith that other. Thus,\u2014\u201cWhatsoever ye shall ask _in my name_.\u201d\u2014John xiv,\n13, 14, 26; xv, 16, etc. \u201cYe are justified _in the name_ of the Lord\nJesus.\u201d\u20141 Cor. vi, 11. \u201cGiving thanks _in the name_ of the Lord\nJesus.\u201d\u2014Eph. v, 20. \u201cDo all _in the name_ of the Lord Jesus.\u201d\u2014Col. iii,\n17. Hence the use of the expression, as signifying, \u201cby the authority\nof.\u201d Thus, \u201cI am come _in my Father\u2019s name_, and ye receive me not; if\nanother shall come _in his own name_, him ye will receive.\u201d\u2014John v, 43.\n\u201c_In the name_ of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.\u201d\u2014Acts iii,\n6. \u201cI command thee, _in the name_ of Jesus Christ, come out of her.\u201d\u2014Ib.\nxvi, 18. There is but one passage in which this form of expression is\nused in connection with _baptizo_. Acts x, 48,\u2014\u201cHe commanded them to be\nbaptized, _in the name_ of the Lord.\u201d The analogy of the phrase\nelsewhere, would require us to understand it here as meaning, \u201cby the\nauthority of the Lord.\u201d The codex Sinaiticus reads,\u2014\u201cHe commanded them\n(_en to \u2018onomati Ju Xu baptisth\u0113nai_), _in the name of Jesus Christ to\nbe baptized_.\u201d Cyril of Jerusalem quotes the passage in the same\norder.[121] Not only does the form of the phrase in itself call for this\nrendering, but the connection is equally clear, in the same direction.\nThe case was the baptism of the house of Cornelius. Peter demands,\u2014\u201cCan\nany man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have\nreceived the Holy Ghost, as well as we?\u201d The point at issue was the\nadmission of the Gentile world to a part in the salvation of Christ.\nPeter had on the day of Pentecost testified that it was the Lord Jesus\nby whom the Holy Ghost had been poured out. He had been admonished by\nJesus in a vision that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the\nblessings of the gospel. He now calls the attention of his six Jewish\ncompanions (Acts xi, 12), to the fact that the house of Cornelius was\nbaptized by the Lord Jesus himself, with the same Spirit which had been\npoured upon the Jews on Pentecost; and with an emphatic pause,\nchallenges objection. There being none, the apostle, then, in the name\nand by the authority of Christ, proclaims the doors of salvation thrown\nopen to the world. He \u201cin the name of the Lord Jesus, commanded them to\nbe baptized;\u201d and afterward vindicated the action by the demand, \u201cWhat\nwas I, that I should withstand God.\u201d\u2014Acts xi, 17.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n In Dale, Christic Baptism, p. 205.\n\n_Epi_, in this connection, has the general meaning of, because of,\u2014on\naccount of,\u2014with reference to,\u2014_for_; and the phrase as thus constructed\nmeans, \u201cfor the sake of.\u201d Thus, \u201cWhoso shall receive one such little\nchild (_epi \u2018onomati mou_), _for my name\u2019s sake_.\u201d\u2014Matt. xviii, 5; Mark\nix, 37. \u201cThey called him Zacharias (_epi_), _for the sake of_ his\nfather\u2019s name.\u201d\u2014Luke i, 59. \u201cThat repentance and remission of sins\nshould be preached (_epi_) _for his name\u2019s sake_.\u201d\u2014Luke xxiv, 47. \u201cThat\nthey speak henceforth to no man (_epi_) _for the sake of_ the\nname.\u201d\u2014Acts iv, 17. From these illustrations, it will be seen that in\nconnection with baptism, the rendering, of _epi_,\u2014\u201c_in_ the\nname,\u201d\u2014altogether misses the idea of the sacred writer. It occurs but\nonce. On the day of Pentecost, Peter, in reply to the cry,\u2014\u201cWhat shall\nwe do?\u201d answered,\u2014\u201cRepent and be baptized every one of you (_epi_), _for\nthe sake of_ the name of Jesus Christ (_eis_), _unto_ the remission of\nsins.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 38. Jesus had said, \u201cHe that believeth and is baptized,\nshall be saved.\u201d Peter, therefore, tells the multitude, \u201cRepent and be\nbaptized. Do this, in honor of the Lord Jesus; and unto the remission of\nsins; since repentance, and obedience shown by receiving baptism, are\npledges of remission.\u201d\n\nIn the text of Matthew, which stands at the head of this section, the\nword is, _eis_,\u2014\u201cBaptizing them (_eis_), _into_ the name of the Father\nand of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d This is the preposition\nordinarily used with relation to baptism, both real and ritual. In\nconnection with the baptism of the Spirit, its signification is so fully\nexplained and illustrated as to admit of no doubt or question. They that\nare \u201cbaptized (_eis_) _into_ Christ\u201d (Gal. iii, 27; Rom. vi, 3), are\nunited to him,\u2014\u201cby one Spirit baptized (_eis_) _into_ one body,\u201d \u201cthe\nbody of Christ.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xii, 13, 27. Those who are \u201cbaptized (_eis_)\n_into_ his death,\u201d are thereby \u201cdead with him.\u201d\u2014Rom. vi, 3, 8. So, it is\nsaid of the children of Israel that they were \u201cbaptized (_eis_) _into_\nMoses, in the cloud and in the sea,\u201d as the passage of the Red Sea, the\ndestruction of the Egyptians and the deliverance of Israel by the hand\nof Moses released them finally and forever from the Egyptian yoke, and\nunited them to Moses in subordination to his mediatorial authority.\n\u201cThey believed the Lord and his servant Moses.\u201d\u2014Ex. xiv, 31. This is\nviewed by the apostle as a figure of the work of grace by which the\npeople of Christ are released from Satan\u2019s bondage and brought under his\nsaving scepter; and he, therefore, uses the same form of expression,\n\u201cBaptized _into_ Christ,\u201d \u201cBaptized _into_ Moses.\u201d\n\nThe style in which the real baptism is thus spoken of is a key to the\nmeaning of the Lord Jesus, in his language concerning the ritual\nordinance. The visible church is the representative and type of that\ninvisible body of Christ, the members of which are incorporated therein\nby the baptism of the Spirit. Baptism with water is a symbol, merely, of\nthat spiritual grace. The recipient may be truly united to the Lord\nJesus. But such union is not produced by the ritual ordinance. The\neffect can ascend no higher than the cause. A symbolic baptism can\naccomplish no more than a symbolic union, a union in outward semblance\nand name. Its ground is _profession_ of the name of Christ, and the\ncharacteristic designation of those who have received it is,\u2014that they\n\u201chave _named the name_ of Christ\u201d\u2014(2 Tim. ii, 19), that is, they have\nprofessed to take hold of his covenant, and have thereupon had his name\nnamed upon them. They are Christ\u2019s. If, therefore, baptism \u201c_into\nChrist_,\u201d by the Spirit, means spiritual union with Christ, and with his\ninvisible body, then, manifestly, baptism with water \u201c_into the name of\nChrist_,\u201d can mean nothing else but ritual identification with his name,\nand with that visible body which is known by his name, and embraced by\nprofession in the bonds of his covenant. To effect such union is all\nthat Christ\u2019s ministers can do. It is what they are commissioned to do.\nThe rest remains with the Great Baptizer himself. Intimately related to\nthis subject is that remarkable word of God which instructed Aaron and\nhis sons to bless Israel with that threefold benediction which is\nbelieved to refer to the doctrine of the glorious Trinity. \u201cThe Lord\nbless thee and keep thee. The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be\ngracious unto thee. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give\nthee peace,\u201d\u2014and then adds,\u2014\u201cAnd _they_ shall _put my name_ upon the\nchildren of Israel, and _I_ will bless them.\u201d\u2014Num. vi, 23-27.\n\nThe form of expression used by the Lord Jesus,\u2014\u201cbaptizing them into the\nname,\u201d is a perpetual rebuke of every doctrine or pretense which would\nattribute to the rite, in itself, any higher or other efficacy than that\nof changing the outward and professed relation of the baptized to Christ\nand the Godhead. The view here presented is further involved in the\nrelation between baptism and discipleship, intimated in the words of\nJesus,\u2014\u201cDisciple all nations, baptizing them into the name.\u201d Christ came\nas the revealer of the Godhead, the Prophet of Israel, as well as her\nroyal Priest. The preaching of the gospel is the fulfillment of his\nprophetic function, and those whether Jews or Gentiles, who accept it\nare to be enrolled as disciples of Christ, by being baptized into the\nname or profession of the faith of the triune Godhead, as revealed by\nhim, in the gospel. It will thus be seen that the translation invariably\ngiven to the phrase in question, in our common English version, entirely\nfails of exhibiting a true idea of the meaning of the original. See\nMatt, xxviii, 19; Acts viii, 16; xix, 5; 1 Cor. i, 13, 15. Baptizing\n\u201c_in_ the name,\u201d can only mean, dispensing the rite by the authority of\nthe Persons named. The command is, to \u201cbaptize _into_ the name.\u201d\n\n2. \u201cThe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d In\nother places, baptism is said to be \u201cinto the name of the Lord\nJesus.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 38; viii, 16; xix, 5. Nor are the other Persons of the\nGodhead ever mentioned in such connection with the real baptism. That is\nalways described as being into Jesus Christ. Rom. vi, 3; 1 Cor. xii, 13,\n27; Gal. iii, 27. How is this diversity of expression to be explained?\nIt is abundantly plain, as respects the real baptism. In it, each Person\nis signally present, in appropriate relation. In it, Christ, the Royal\nAdministrator, by whom the Spirit is poured out, is also the Head into\nwhich by that one Spirit all are baptized as members. The Spirit appears\nas the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the Renewer and Sanctifier. And\nas to the Father, \u201cYe are all the children of God, by faith in Christ\nJesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on\nChrist.\u201d\u2014Gal. iii, 26, 27. \u201cAs many as received him to them gave he\npower to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his\nname.\u201d\u2014Joh. i, 12. In a word, thus is fulfilled the petition of Jesus.\n\u201cAs thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in\n_us_.... _I_ in them and _thou_ in me, that they may be made perfect in\none.\u201d\u2014John xvii, 21, 23. By the real baptism, therefore, the believer is\nunited to each Person of the Godhead,\u2014a fact, nevertheless, expressed by\nbaptism into one, Jesus Christ.\n\nThe same principle governs the forms of expression used with reference\nto ritual baptism. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and can not be truly\napprehended except in that relation. \u201cNo man hath seen God at any time.\nThe only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath\ndeclared Him.\u201d\u2014John i, 18. He came to make known the Father. He returned\nto impart the Spirit. And, as he was thus apprehended by the apostles, a\nbaptism into his name was a baptism into the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Spirit. It only ceases to be so, when Jesus ceases\nto be appreciated as him in whom \u201cdwelleth all the fullness of the\nGodhead bodily.\u201d\u2014Col. ii, 9.\n\nIt is an illustration of the essential deficiency of the theory of\nimmersion that it has no explanation for the diversity of expression\nhere considered.\n\n\n SECTION XCI.\u2014\u201c_He that believeth and is baptized._\u201d\n\nIn the great commission, as recorded by Mark, Jesus said to his\ndisciples, \u201cGo ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every\ncreature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\u201d\u2014Mark xvi, 15, 16. Dr. Dale denies that\nritual baptism is here referred to.\u2014\u201cWe accept the real baptism by the\nHoly Spirit as the sole baptism directly contemplated by the passage; in\ngeneral, because it meets in the most absolute and unlimited manner, _as\na condition of salvation_, the obvious requirement on the face of the\npassage, having the same breadth with belief, and universally present in\nevery case of salvation.\u201d[122] To this view the objections are obvious\nand conclusive. (1.) The clause which the author has emphasized with\nItalics, is inaccurate. The baptism with the Holy Ghost is not \u201c_a\ncondition of salvation_;\u201d but is the very salvation itself. It is the\ncasket in which are bestowed repentance, faith, remission of sins,\njustification, adoption, sanctification, the resurrection and eternal\nlife. (2.) The interpretation would not only make this baptism a\ncondition of salvation, but puts it in the position of a co-ordinate but\nsecondary condition with faith.\u2014\u201cHe that _believeth_ and is _baptized_.\u201d\nWhereas faith, as just remarked, is one of the immediate phenomena of\nthis baptism. (3.) The text as thus explained represents the Lord Jesus\nas commissioning his ministers to offer salvation to sinners _upon\nconditions_ one of which is to be performed by them; but the other\nbelongs to his own peculiar prerogative, to which, in no circumstances,\ncan they assume an efficient relation. It interprets the message to be\npreached thus: \u201cWhoever believeth shall be saved; _provided_ I, Jesus,\nshall see fit to baptize him!\u201d\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n Christic Baptism, p. 393.\n\nThe text is a statement to the apostles, and through them to the\nministry in all ages, of their duties and the results of their labors.\nWith baptism as a ritual ordinance of the gospel they had been familiar\nfrom the beginning of John\u2019s ministry, and of Christ\u2019s in coincidence\nwith it. They had been fully instructed, as to the baptism of the\nSpirit, which Christ was about to dispense, and which they were to\nawait; and as to the typical relation to it which the ritual ordinance\nsustained. They are now commanded to go forth and preach that gospel;\nnot, as heretofore, to Israel, only, but to every creature, in all the\nworld; and whereas, until now, none could be baptized,\u2014none could\nreceive the token of the covenant, except those who were, by\ncircumcision, identified with Israel after the flesh,\u2014he indicates the\nremoval of that restriction,\u2014\u201cGo teach all nations, baptizing them.\u201d\nBaptizing them with water, which, only, they could administer; and in\ntoken of that _profession_ of faith, of which only they could take\ncognizance. It is in view of these things, that the declaration is made,\n\u201cHe that _believeth_ and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\u201d The repetition shows that the emphasis\nof the passage rests on believing. \u201cYou are to preach, and baptize those\nwho _profess_ to believe. But let all, both preachers and hearers,\nbeware of trusting in the baptismal shadow. He that _believeth_ and is\nbaptized, shall be saved. But he that believeth not,\u2014his baptism will\nnot avail,\u2014He shall be damned.\u201d Assuredly, had the Lord Jesus been\nstating conditions of salvation, as concerning baptism, he knew how to\nset it on both sides of the alternative.\n\n\n SECTION XCII.\u2014_The Formula of Baptism._\n\nIt is proper and necessary that such words be used in the administration\nof Baptism, as shall give an intelligent announcement of the nature and\nintent of the ordinance. For this purpose nothing can be more\nappropriate than the formula in universal use, in all the churches. But\nthe question arises whether the words thus employed were given to be\nuttered as a formula necessary to the rite.\n\n1. There is nothing whatever in the language of the Lord Jesus, on the\nsubject, to give countenance to the suggestion in question. \u201cGo ye, and\n_disciple_ all nations, _baptizing_ them into the name of the Father,\nand of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; _teaching_ them to observe all\nthings whatsoever I have commanded you.\u201d We have already seen that\n\u201cbaptizing into the name\u201d means, not the utterance in the baptism of any\nwords or formula; but instruction and consecration to the faith and\nservice of the Triune God, identified with the baptismal rite and\nsignified by it. But if such be the meaning of our Savior\u2019s words, it\nexcludes the idea in question. \u201cBaptizing them into the name,\u201d then,\nmeans something very different from \u201cuttering the name.\u201d In fact, the\nmore carefully the language in question is examined, in itself, in its\nimmediate connection, and in its relation to the general scope of the\ngospel and its history, the more evident will it appear that it was not\n_words_ that were present to the mind of Jesus, or by him put into the\nmouths of his ministry, but the great doctrine of baptism, in which the\nwhole gospel is summed,\u2014that doctrine which was heralded by the baptist,\nand expounded by the Lord Jesus in his discourse and prayer at the\nsupper. One who should teach that the Holy Spirit is not a coequal\nPerson of the Godhead, or that the Lord Jesus is not the eternal and\ncoequal Son, might administer the rite, in the use of the formula. Yet\nwould it not be baptism in the intent of Jesus as here set forth.\n\n2. The silence of all of the evangelists except Matthew as to the words\nin question, is wholly inconsistent with the supposition that they were\ngiven as a formula. The importance of the rite is of common agreement.\nAnd resting as it does as an obligation on every soul that hears the\ngospel, it is the first and foremost of all the practical duties of\nthose who receive it. If, therefore, the formula was now given as an\nelement in the administration of the ordinance, it is of the first and\nuniversal moment. How then is it possible for three of the evangelists\nto have ignored it, in their several versions of the gospel. Evidently\nthey attached to it no such significance as obtains with those who hold\nit as of the essence of baptism.\n\n3. The fact that it is not once used or alluded to, in the whole\nsubsequent history and epistles, is conclusive. Those records are a\ntestimony;\u2014as much by silence, often, as by utterance. But, on this\nsubject, they are not silent. On the day of Pentecost, Peter calls upon\nthe inquirers to be baptized \u201c(_epi_) for the name\u2019s sake of Jesus\nChrist.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 38. The Samaritans and the twelve disciples of John at\nEphesus were baptized \u201cinto the name of the Lord Jesus.\u201d\u2014Acts viii, 16;\nxix, 5. And Paul distinctly implies that the Corinthians were baptized\ninto the same name. \u201cIs Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or,\nwere ye baptized into the name of Paul?\u201d\u20141 Cor. i, 13. How these facts\nare consistent with obedience to Christ\u2019s command we have already seen.\nThe only interpretation which will harmonize the record is deduced from\nthat doctrine of baptism which has been unfolded in these pages. He that\nis spiritually baptized into Jesus Christ, thereby receives the Spirit\nand is united in Christ to the Father. He is baptized into the Three.\n\nHere, the doctrine of immersion is radically defective. The form may be\nadministered with the utterance of the names of the Trinity. But its\ndoctrine contains no testimony to the Triune, nor recognition of any\nPerson of the Godhead. It relates altogether to the humanity of Christ,\nwhose burial it represents.\n\n\n SECTION XCIII.\u2014_The Administration on Pentecost._\n\nOn the day of Pentecost, in reply to the cry of the repentant\nmultitude,\u2014\u201cWhat shall we do?\u201d Peter said, \u201cRepent and be baptized every\none of you (_epi to \u2018onomati_), _for the name\u2019s sake_ of Jesus Christ\n(_eis_) _unto_ the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of\nthe Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to\nall that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call....\nThen, they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day\nthere were added unto them about three thousand souls.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 37-41.\nDr. Dale denies this baptism to have been ritual, and demands,\u2014\u201cWas\nthere a visible Christian church in existence at Pentecost? Was there\nany one competent to organize a Christian church before Pentecost? Did\nnot the divine Head of the church himself furnish the materials for a\nchurch organization, officers, and members, \u2018that day?\u2019 Was there a\nChristian organization effected, as well as a tri-millenary baptism\nadministered \u2018that day?\u2019 Were they organized and then baptized, or\nbaptized and then organized?\u201d[123] These questions, coming with the\nauthority of the learned writer, are entitled to respectful\nconsideration. And although they have, in effect, been answered,\nalready, a few words will here be added, in direct response. The Jewish\nchurch, as organized, according to the law of Moses, under the ministry\nof the elders, was the Christian church, on the day of Pentecost. But as\nthat church had become largely corrupt and apostate, and its rulers had\nbetrayed and crucified the Lord Jesus, her King, a separation had become\nnecessary, and the preaching and baptism of the apostles was the means\nappointed by Him for eliminating the apostate elements. The one hundred\nand twenty who remained together in Jerusalem after the ascension were\nbut a small part of believing Israel, even then; for the Lord Jesus was\nseen of above five hundred brethren at once, after his resurrection. (1\nCor. xv, 6.) But they, or the apostles alone, or one of them, would have\nbeen abundantly sufficient as a center for gathering the believing from\namong the apostate. They stood precisely as did Moses in the midst of\nthe congregation of Israel, at the time of the apostasy of the golden\ncalf, saying,\u2014\u201cWho is on the Lord\u2019s side? Let him come unto me.\u201d\u2014Ex.\nxxxii, 26. Hence the style in which the historian of the Acts writes of\nthe converts of Pentecost. \u201cThen they that gladly received his word,\nwere baptized; and the same day there were added about three thousand\nsouls.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 41. They are not said to have been \u201cadded to the\nchurch;\u201d for they were the church, obeying the call of her Head,\u2014\u201cCome\nout from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not\nthe unclean thing.\u201d\u20142 Cor. vi, 17. They are, therefore, said to have\nbeen \u201cadded (to them),\u201d\u2014that is, to the apostles; or more literally\n\u201cassociated together,\u201d\u2014joined in one body. By that act, they stood\nforth, the church of Jerusalem, divested of the unbelieving elements.\nAccordingly, we read, immediately after, that \u201cthe Lord added to the\n_church_ daily such as should be saved.\u201d\u2014Vs. 47. For all the purposes of\nthe occasion, on the day of Pentecost, there was no farther organization\nnecessary than that which existed in the sanhedrim of the apostles, men\ninspired of the Holy Ghost, and endowed by the Lord Jesus with authority\nfor presiding over his church in this transition period of her history.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n Dale\u2019s Christic Baptism, p. 162.\n\nThe baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost has been already\nillustrated fully. That there was also a ritual baptism, with water, I\nventure to regard as equally certain. (1.) We have just seen that the\napostolic commission contained a command to baptize the disciples.\nPeter, therefore, in inviting his hearers to repent and be baptized, was\nsimply following the literal terms of his instructions. And had he\nomitted baptism,\u2014that ritual baptism which alone the apostles could\nadminister\u2014he would have been acting in direct violation of his\ncommission. (2.) In his exhortation, the baptism is secondary to\nrepentance. This is the proper order of ritual baptism, which is\npredicated on profession of repentance. But it is the reverse as to the\nreal baptism, which precedes repentance and is its cause. (3.) The\nlanguage used in describing the result of the exhortation is\nconclusive.\u2014\u201cThen they that gladly received his word were baptized.\u201d The\nglad reception of the word is stated as the antecedent ground of\nreceiving the baptism; the reverse, again, of the order in real baptism.\n(4.) In the case of Cornelius and his house, Peter based their baptizing\nwith water upon the fact that the spiritual phenomena were identical\nwith those of the day of Pentecost. \u201cThe Holy Ghost fell on them as on\nus at the beginning.\u201d\u2014\u201cCan any man forbid the water, that these should\nnot be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as\nwe?\u201d\u2014Acts x, 47; xi, 15. This argument would have been wholly\ninappropriate had there been no water baptism on Pentecost.\n\nBut Dr. Dale urges another objection.\u2014\u201cWhile the reception of these\nthousands that day into the church by dipping into water, is improbable\nto absurdity, for reasons both moral and physical, their reception by\nany ritual form whatever, is, for moral considerations mainly, not\nwithout embarrassment. These thousands were all personally strangers to\nthe apostles, mostly from foreign lands, Parthians, Medes, Elamites,\nMesopotamians, Cretes, Arabians, etc. An hour before, they were mockers\nof the work of the Holy Ghost, and declared the apostles to be drunk.\nNow, is there moral fitness in the reception of such men into the\nchurch, by a rite without any personal intercourse, to learn their moral\ncondition? But the passage states that the baptism was grounded in the\n\u2018glad reception of the word\u2019 preached. If the baptism was the work of\nthe apostles, then this knowledge must also be the knowledge of the\napostles; and if so, then it must have been obtained, either by divine\nillumination, or by personal intercourse touching repentance and faith,\nthe knowledge of Christ and the duty of baptism; then, how could the\naddition of three thousand be made \u2018that day?\u2019\u201d[124] The theory that,\nthe baptism here in question was spiritual and not ritual, is, here,\nself-condemned, by the statement which truly represents it to have been\n\u201cgrounded in the glad reception of the word preached.\u201d That word was,\n\u201cRepent and be baptized.\u201d Its glad reception, therefore is equivalent to\nthe exercise of repentance, which is the immediate fruit of the\nspiritual baptism, and therefore of necessity follows, but can not\nprecede it. The baptism, therefore, which was \u201cgrounded in the glad\nreception of the word,\u201d can have been no other than ritual baptism. The\nfundamental fallacy of the argument lies in the assumption, which we\nhave before noticed, that the Pentecostal transactions were incident to\nthe organizing of a new church; instead of being, as we have shown, the\nseparating of the existing church from the corrupt and ungodly elements\nwhich had taken possession of it.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n \u201cChristic Baptism,\u201d p. 158.\n\nIt is asserted respecting the three thousand that, \u201can hour before, they\nwere mockers of the work of the Holy Spirit.\u201d A kindred statement is\nfrequently heard, in illustration of the fickleness of the\nmultitude,\u2014that those who yesterday filled the air with shouts of\n\u201cHosanna!\u201d to-day cry, \u201cAway with him.\u201d Both representations are\nerroneous, and tend to obscure the true state of the case. In the\nPentecostal scene, there were \u201csome\u201d mockers, and possibly, nay,\nprobably some of these were made trophies of grace that day. But to\nrepresent the assembly as characteristically of that class, involves an\nutter misconception of the case as expressly stated by the sacred\nhistorian. He represents them as \u201cJews, _devout men_, out of every\nnation under heaven.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 5. It was they, who came thronging to the\nassembly of the apostles. It was characteristically they who gladly\nreceived the word and were baptized. Nor is the language of Peter to\nthem incongruous to this view. \u201cHim ye have taken, and by wicked hands,\nhave crucified and slain.\u201d\u2014v. 23. Their rulers had done it, and the\nwhole people were responsible and polluted with the crime of his blood,\nuntil they purged themselves, by separation and baptism. So, the\nmultitude who cried, \u201cHosanna!\u201d were \u201cthe multitude of the disciples,\u201d\nfrom Galilee. (Luke xix, 37; compare Ib. xxii, 59.) For fear of the\npeople, the conspirators seized Jesus by betrayal, by night; and the cry\nagainst him was uttered, at the instigation of the rulers and priests,\nby their retainers and dependents. (Mark xv, 11.) \u201cIt was early,\u201d when\nthey brought Jesus before Pilate. (John xviii, 28.) And it is probable\nthat the sentence was already passed and Jesus in the hands of the\nexecutioners, before the Galileans who were accustomed, at the feasts,\nto encamp on Olivet, had any knowledge of the fearful tragedy of that\nday. These facts are all of importance, in order to a just conception of\nthe real nature of the separation which began in Jerusalem on the day of\nPentecost, and ultimately extended throughout Judea, Galilee, and\nSamaria, and to all parts of the world, where a synagogue of the Jews\nwas to be found. We do no service to the truth, by underestimating the\nnumber of those who in that day, were waiting for the consolation of\nIsrael, and \u201cgladly received the word\u201d of the rising of the Sun of\nrighteousness, in the person of the Lord Jesus.\n\nFrom the foregoing considerations, we conclude it to be certain that the\nthree thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were baptized with\nwater. The order of occurrences, as it appears from the record was this:\nThe preaching of Peter was accompanied with the promised power, the\nbaptism of the Spirit being bestowed upon his hearers, by the Lord\nJesus. By that baptism was given to them repentance and remission of\nsins. (Acts v, 31.) Upon their correspondent profession, they were\nbaptized with water; and thereupon, they received the gifts of tongues\nand of prophecy, in fulfillment of the promise of Christ (Mark xvi, 17),\nand in accordance with the assurance given them by Peter;\u2014\u201cRepent and be\nbaptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the\npromise is to you and to your children,\u201d\u2014the promise, to wit, which he\nhad before quoted from Joel, in explanation of the Pentecostal signs.\n\n\n SECTION XCIV.\u2014_Symbolic Meaning of this Baptism._\n\nThe rite of immersion is inseparably identified with the theory that\nritual baptism is designed to symbolize the burial of the Lord Jesus. By\nthe advocates of this theory, the baptism administered to the converts\nof Pentecost is held to have been the original of the institution. By\nall, that baptism must be recognized as a most conspicuous and normal\nexemplification of the rite. We are perfectly willing to stake the whole\nissue upon the question of the symbolic meaning of the ordinance, as\ndetermined by the Scriptural statements concerning that baptism.\n\nIt has been shown that the Old Testament baptisms symbolized the gift\nfrom on high of the Spirit of life from God. We have seen that John\nadministered his baptism as an announcement and symbol of that which the\ncoming One should dispense,\u2014the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We have heard\nthe Lord Jesus appropriate to himself the testimonies of John, and\npromise their fulfillment, in terms by which the baptism to be\nadministered by him was distinctly identified as the antitype of that of\nJohn. \u201cJohn truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\u2014Acts i, 5. We have seen the promise fulfilled, and heard\nthe testimony of Peter, that therein was accomplished the prophecy of\nJoel,\u2014a prophecy in which and the kindred language of the other\nprophets, the baptisms of the Old Testament were so clearly interpreted.\nWe have seen that his baptizing office was the great end of Christ\u2019s\nexaltation, and the consummate function of his scepter,\u2014that by which he\nbegins, carries on, and accomplishes the salvation and the glory of his\npeople; and that this, his exaltation and saving power, were, on the day\nof Pentecost, preached as the express ground of the call to repent and\nbe baptized, for his name\u2019s sake. In view of these facts, how is it\npossible, by argument or by sophistry, to avoid the conclusion that the\nritual baptism to which Peter\u2019s hearers were thus called, was designed\nto signify that real baptism with which it was thus so closely\nidentified? But the evidence is more specific.\n\n1. The sum and substance of the preaching of John and of Jesus was the\nsame, and reported by the evangelists in the same words:\u2014\u201cRepent, for\nthe kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d\n\n2. In both cases, this preaching was accompanied with a ritual baptism,\nwhich was as identical as was the preaching. Else, have we a house\ndivided against itself,\u2014the one doctrine, attested by two rival rites,\nwhich, under one and the same name, competed for acceptance with the\nJews!\n\n3. Of this baptism, Paul says, that \u201cJohn verily baptized with the\nbaptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe\non Him which should come after, that is on Christ Jesus.\u201d\u2014Acts xix, 4.\nOf it, Mark and Luke state that \u201cJohn did baptize in the wilderness and\npreach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.\u201d\u2014Mark i, 4;\nLuke iii, 3. And John himself declares,\u2014\u201cI indeed baptize you with\nwater, unto repentance: but He ... shall baptize you with the Holy\nGhost, and with fire.\u201d\u2014Matt, iii, 11. It thus appears that this baptism\nwas identified with a doctrine the cardinal elements of which are (1)\nrepentance, and (2) faith in the Lord Jesus; as the conditions\nprecedent; and (3) the remission of sins, as the result. These were what\nthe ordinance meant. From them it took its name,\u2014\u201cThe baptism of\nrepentance for the remission of sins.\u201d\n\n4. On the day of Pentecost, this, precisely, was the preaching and\nbaptism of Peter. \u201cRepent, and be baptized every one of you, for the\nname\u2019s sake of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins.\u201d\u2014Acts ii, 38.\n\n5. Peter had already proclaimed that the Lord Jesus, \u201cbeing by the right\nhand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of\nthe Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.\u201d\u2014Ib.\n33. A few days afterward, he explained more precisely to the rulers, the\nsignificance of this great fact.\u2014\u201cHim hath God exalted with his right\nhand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for _to give_ to Israel _repentance_\nand (_aphesin hamarti\u014dn_) _remission of sins_.\u201d\u2014Ib. v, 31.\n\nFrom these things it irrefragably follows, (1) that whereas, Christ\u2019s\nbaptizing office is fulfilled by shedding down his Spirit upon his\npeople, the baptisms of John and the disciples prior to the day of\nPentecost, as well as that administered by Peter and the twelve on that\nday, were all proclaimed symbols of this the great reality; (2) that,\nwhile the intent and end of Christ\u2019s baptism is, through the bestowal of\nthe Spirit, to give repentance, faith, and the remission of sins\u2014the\nother baptisms and conspicuously, that of the apostles on Pentecost,\nwere designed to signify and bear witness to that very thing. Not only\nare these conclusions manifest and incontrovertible; but by them and the\nfacts on which they rest the idea of the burial of Christ, as included\nin the symbolism of baptism, is not merely ignored, but utterly\nexcluded, as incongruous and unmeaning, in that connection.\n\nThis impregnable conclusion is further fortified by the fact already\nshown, that in this meaning of the rite and in it only can be reconciled\nthe two forms of expression, \u201cBaptizing into the name of the Father, and\nof the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;\u201d and,\u2014\u201cinto the name of the Lord\nJesus.\u201d Baptism shows forth the Triune Godhead united in the salvation\nof man, and uniting the saved with that blessed Godhead.\n\n\n SECTION XCV.\u2014_The Mode of the ritual Baptism on Pentecost._\n\nAs to the mode of the baptism of that day the evidence is not doubtful.\nThe assembled throng were \u201cJews, devout men out of every nation,\u201d\u2014men\nwhose cherished faith and hopes all centered on Moses and the covenant\nmade and sealed with their fathers at Sinai. The baptismal seal of that\ncovenant, perpetuated in the sprinkled water of separation, was familiar\nto them everywhere. They were conversant with the prophecies which\nassured them that in the latter days God would \u201csprinkle clean water\nupon them,\u201d\u2014that the Messiah would \u201csprinkle many nations,\u201d and \u201cpour\nout of his Spirit upon all flesh.\u201d They are now told by the apostles\nthat these prophecies are announcements of the baptizing office of the\nLord Jesus,\u2014that he, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having\nreceived of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, had, in the\nexercise of his baptizing office, shed forth this, which they saw and\nheard. And, in response to their penitent cry, they are required to be\n\u201cbaptized for the name\u2019s sake of the Lord Jesus.\u201d Is it possible to\navoid the conclusion that the baptism thus propounded was the sprinkled\nbaptism which was familiar to them all? Or, are we to accept the\nopposite assumption? Then must Peter have explained to the\nmultitude.\u2014\u201cOur fathers, at Sinai, were sealed to the covenant with the\nsprinkled blood and water. In all generations of our race, the same seal\nhas been familiar, in the same office; as it is, this day, to you. The\nprophets have explained the affusion of water as being a symbol of the\nofficial work of the Messiah. In that office and work, the reality of\nthe Sinai rite is to-day fulfilled. And now, ye are to be baptized into\nthe name of the Lord Jesus; but with another baptism,\u2014a baptism\ndislocated from all relation to the past,\u2014a baptism severed from all\nanalogy, even, or association of ideas with that of the Spirit, which is\nthis day dispensed by the Lord Jesus. He baptizes by outpouring; but ye\nmust be dipped. He baptizes by a pouring out of the Spirit, of which, in\nthe prophecies, and in the baptisms of our fathers, living water was the\nconstant symbol; but to you, dipped in that living water, it is to\nbecome the symbol of the sepulchre of Joseph, in which the body of Jesus\nwas laid. His baptism gives repentance and remission of sins; and the\nbaptism to be received by you might seem to mean this very thing; for it\nis conditioned upon repentance and is \u2018unto remission.\u2019 But it means not\nthat; but the burial of the dead body of Jesus.\u201d\n\nAnd now, where shall the water be found, for the immersion of these\nthousands? And by what miracle shall the rite be performed, \u201cdecently\nand in order,\u201d within the hours of that day? For, not only is the record\nspecific, which limits the time,\u2014but the supposition of a delay implies\nthe encumbrance of after time, of which each day had its own duties and\nlabors, its own converts and baptisms. It is demonstrably possible for\nthe twelve apostles to have baptized the entire multitude by sprinkling\nin the ordinary manner in which we administer the rite within four or\nfive hours. But such was not, as I conceive, the manner of the\nadministration. No mere rite could without disparagement endure such\nrepetition for hour after hour. The reiteration must obscure and\nobliterate the spiritual significance of the rite. The attention of the\nwitnesses would become exhausted and diverted, and the monotony of the\nform would inevitably become a weariness and an offense. By such a\nmanner of observance, the very intent of the ordinance would be lost,\nand this as much in one form, as in another.\n\nBut we are not reduced to the necessity of encountering these obvious\nembarrassments. We have seen the millions of Israel baptized by Moses,\nin the hours of one morning, they receiving the rite either collectively\nin one body, or by tribe-families or tribes. It is very probable that\nthis was the manner in which the rite was ordinarily administered by\nJohn to the throngs that attended on his ministry, and by the disciples\nof Christ, when he \u201cmade and baptized more disciples than John.\u201d The\nJews were familiar with the use of the hyssop bush as appointed in the\nlaw, for administering the rite. There was nothing in the nature of the\nordinance, nor in the circumstances of the occasion, to render\ninappropriate or improbable a resort to that mode. On the contrary,\nevery consideration, of convenience, of dignity, propriety and\nedification, united to commend it as the most suitable way, the water\nbeing sprinkled with a hyssop bush, and the recipients of the rite\npresenting themselves in companies of suitable size, by scores or by\nhundreds. Thus was set forth by a joint baptism the doctrine of Paul.\n\u201cBy one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xii, 13.\n\nSuch is the conclusion to which the analogy of the Scriptures points.\nSuch, I doubt not, was the form of administration that day. For the\npresent purpose, however, this much is clear and sufficient,\u2014that the\nrecord of Pentecost contains nothing incongruous to the previous history\nand doctrine of baptism,\u2014that on the contrary, the Spirit-baptism of\nthat day and all the circumstances, concur to the same conclusion which\nthe foregoing history indicates. \u201c_Not immersion; but affusion_\u201d\u2014is the\nunambiguous voice of Pentecost.\n\n\n SECTION XCVI.\u2014_Other Cases Illustrating the Mode._\n\nThe next case that illustrates the mode, is the baptism of the eunuch.\n\u201cAs they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the\neunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?...\nAnd he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both\ninto the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And\nwhen they were come up out of the water.\u201d\u2014Acts viii, 36-39. To what has\nbeen said already concerning this passage, one or two points only need\nbe added. Dr. Dale has pointed out the fact that the verb (_kateb\u0113san_),\n\u201cthey went down,\u201d has primary reference to the chariot, out of which\nthey descended. He refers to the Septuagint of Judges iv, 15, \u201cAnd\nSisera (_kateb\u0113_) _stepped down_ from his chariot;\u201d and to Matt. xiv,\n29,\u2014\u201cPeter (_katabas_) _stepping down_ from the boat walked on the\nwater, to go to Jesus.\u201d The essential point, however, is that the\ndescent was not the baptism,\u2014that, with the style of clothing, then as\nnow, worn in the east, nothing would have been more natural and\nconvenient than that they should have stepped into the water, as the\nmost convenient way of access, even though the baptism was to be\nperformed by sprinkling or pouring. \u201cThe place\u201d (_perioch\u0113_, the\nsection), which the eunuch was reading, begins with Isa. lii, 13, and\nincludes the whole of liii. It is a continuous prophecy of the Messiah,\nunder the designation of God\u2019s servant. In the fifty-third chapter, down\nto the eleventh verse the pronoun \u201c_he_\u201d is used to designate the\nsubject of the account. It refers back to lii, 13, to which we must look\nfor the theme of the prophecy. \u201cBehold _my servant_ shall deal\nprudently.\u201d When, therefore, the eunuch read liii, 7, 8,\u2014\u201cHe was led as\na sheep to the slaughter,\u201d and asked, \u201cOf whom speaketh the prophet\nthis?\u201d Philip must of necessity have turned back to the beginning of the\nsection, for the answer. In so doing, he finds this among the first\nthings said of the person described:\u2014\u201cAs many were astonied at thee, his\nvisage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons\nof men, ... so shall he _sprinkle_ many nations.\u201d\u2014lii, 14, 15. This\nprophecy, thus coinciding with that of Joel, which was the text of\nPeter\u2019s Pentecostal discourse, could not be overlooked by Philip, in his\ninstructions to the eunuch. The latter, although himself a Jew, was\nidentified with a Gentile nation. He was chamberlain, or treasurer, to\nCandace, the queen of Meroe, in upper Egypt.[125] The prophecy,\ntherefore, \u201cSo shall he _sprinkle many nations_,\u201d could not fail to\narrest his attention and elicit the story of Pentecost, as the beginning\nof redemption to the Gentiles. That, with Christ\u2019s baptizing office\nbrought thus into view, his ordinance concerning ritual baptism should\nbe announced, was not only a necessary result of the circumstances, but\nwas an essential part of that office which Philip was to perform.\n\u201cDisciple all nations, baptizing them.\u201d In favor of the hypothesis that\nthe eunuch was immersed, there is nothing but the fact that they went\ndown to, or into the water. On behalf of his being sprinkled, is the\nexplicit testimony of the prophet as to the manner of the real baptism,\nof which the ritual ordinance is the symbol.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi, 35) states this kingdom of which Meroe, on an\n island in the Nile, was the chief city, to have been \u201cnow for a long\n time,\u201d governed by queens, who transmitted to each other the name of\n Candace.\n\n2. The baptism of the apostle Paul next presents itself. Of it we have\ntwo brief accounts which are mutually supplementary. (Acts ix, 10-20;\nxxii, 12-16.) After his vision of Jesus, on the way, he had lain for\nthree days in the house of Judas, in Damascus, blind, fasting and\nprostrate. To him Ananias was sent and said to him\u2014\u201cAnd now, why\ntarriest thou?\u201d Why liest thou thus prostrate and desponding? \u201cArise,\nand be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the\nLord.\u201d\u2014Acts xxii, 16. Literally \u201c(_Anastas, baptisai, kai apolusai_),\n_Rising, be baptized, and let_ thy sins _be washed away_, calling upon\nthe name of the Lord.\u201d Says Alexander, \u201cBe baptized, is not a passive,\nas in ii, 38, but the middle voice of the same verb, strictly meaning,\n\u2018baptize thyself,\u2019 or, rather, \u2018cause thyself to be baptized,\u2019 or suffer\n(some one) to baptize thee. The form of the next verb [_apolusai_] is\nthe same, but can not be so easily expressed in English; as it has a\nnoun dependent on it. This peculiarity of form is only so far of\nimportance as it shows that Paul was to wash away his sins in the same\nsense that he was to baptize himself; _i. e._ by consenting to receive\nboth from another. As his body was to be baptized by man; so, his sins\nwere to be washed away by God. The identity, or even the inseparable\nunion, of the two effects, is so far from being here affirmed, that they\nare rather held apart, as things connected by the natural relation of\ntype and antitype, yet perfectly distinguishable in themselves, and\neasily separable in experience.\u201d[126] The exhortation, \u201cLet thy sins be\nwashed away,\u201d is intimately dependent upon the next clause,\u2014\u201ccalling\nupon the name of the Lord.\u201d\u2014Calling not as a mere reverential\ninvocation; nor as a mere profession or act of faith. But \u201ccalling on\nhim to purge away thy sins with the washing of regeneration, and\nrenewing of the Holy Ghost; and accepting the baptism of water as the\nsymbol and pledge of the other.\u201d\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Alexander, _in loco_.\n\nIn the parallel account, it is stated that \u201che received sight forthwith\n(_kai anastas, ebaptisthe_) _and rising up, was baptized_.\u201d\u2014Acts ix, 18.\nThus, in both of these accounts, the same form of expression is used as\nto the manner of the baptism,\u2014a form which indicates that the\nadministration was immediate, upon his rising from his couch. \u201cRising\nup, be baptized.\u201d \u201cAnd he, rising up, was baptized.\u201d In the original,\nthe force of the expressions is even stronger, to the same effect. The\ncircumstances coincide with this interpretation. The prostration,\nresulting from the vision by the way, from the blindness, and the three\ndays in which he was \u201cwithout sight, and neither did eat nor drink\u201d\n(Acts ix, 9), must have been very great; and it was not until after his\nbaptism that \u201che received meat and was strengthened.\u201d\u2014Ib. 19. There is\nno intimation of leaving the place. There is no word of such preparation\nas an immersion would require. But the whole case stands in the\nexpression twice employed, from which but one meaning can be\ndeduced,\u2014that he was baptized immediately, in his chamber, as he rose\nfrom his couch, and stood before Ananias. Whatever the mode, it can not\nhave been immersion.\n\nIt has been asserted that Paul\u2019s baptism was not ritual but spiritual.\nThe supposition is encumbered with the same difficulties which attend\nthe like idea respecting the baptism of Pentecost. The occasion of\nAnanias being sent to him was the fact attested by the Lord\nJesus,\u2014\u201cBehold he prayeth.\u201d\u2014Prayer so attested lacked neither repentance\nnor faith. He had, therefore, already received the baptism of the\nSpirit,\u2014that is his renewing grace; although not his miraculous gifts.\nMoreover, the baptism which he received in his chamber was something to\nwhich the ministry of Ananias was requisite, and for which his rising\nfrom his couch was preparatory. None of these things harmonize with the\nidea that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Nor was it implied in\nthe language of Ananias,\u2014\u201cThat thou mightest receive thy sight and be\nfilled with the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Acts ix, 17. With this is to be compared\nthe previous statement concerning him, made in vision by Jesus to\nAnanias, \u201cHe hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming and\n_putting his hand upon him_, that he might receive his sight.\u201d\u2014Ib. 12.\nIt was through the laying on of the hands of Ananias that Paul\u2019s sight\nwas restored and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred upon\nhim. Such was the ordinary manner, as we have already seen, of the\nimparting of those gifts; which was undoubtedly the nature of the\npresent endowment of Saul of Tarsus.\n\n3. The baptism of the house of Cornelius is equally unfavorable to the\nidea of immersion. (Acts x, 44-48.) The words of Peter admit of but one\nconstruction. \u201cCan any man forbid (_to ud\u014dr_) _the water_; that these\nshould not be baptized.\u201d\u2014Acts x, 47. We have already pointed out that\nthis language means that the water, as an instrument, was to be brought\nto the place, in order to the baptism. Moreover, the baptism of this\ncompany, thus, with water, was by Peter expressly predicated upon the\nfact that they had been already baptized with the Holy Ghost, by his\noutpouring upon them. \u201cThe Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard.\u201d\n\u201cOn the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.\u201d \u201cCan\nany man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have\nreceived the Holy Ghost as well as we?\u201d\u2014Acts x, 44, 45, 47. And lest\nthere should be any possible doubt about the meaning of all this, Peter\nexplains himself to the church in Jerusalem,\u2014\u201cThen remembered I the word\nof the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye\nshall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Ib. xi, 16. Here again the facts\nare decisive in favor of affusion.\n\n4. The Philippian jailer and his family are the only remaining instance\nin which illustrative circumstances are recorded. (Acts xvi, 25-34.) As\nbearing upon the mode, these are, that at midnight, in the jail, upon\nhis professed repentance and faith, the jailer was baptized, \u201che and all\nhis straightway.\u201d\u2014Acts xvi, 33. This too was before he had taken Paul\nand Silas out of the jail proper, into his own apartments. The\nimpossibility of the rite, administered in such circumstances, having\nbeen immersion, would seem evident. Nor is it admissible, as proposed by\nBaptist writers, to suppose that the jailer and his family with the\nprisoners went out to the river and were there immersed. The suggestion\nis not only contradicted by the record, which describes the baptism as\nhaving been (_parachr\u0113ma_) \u201cstraightway,\u201d with neither time nor action\nintervening. But it would have been an act of official dereliction,\ninvolving peril to the jailer\u2019s life, and rendering the message of Paul\nto the magistrates, the next day, an impudent pretence. They sent the\nsergeants to the jailer, saying, \u201cLet these men go.\u201d \u201cBut Paul said unto\nthem, They have beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have\ncast us into prison. And now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily,\nbut let them come themselves and fetch us out.\u201d\u2014Ib. 37. Is this the\nlanguage of men who had already stolen out of the prison, by night?\n\nWe have thus passed in review every instance of Christian baptism\nmentioned in the New Testament, in which any particulars are given. The\nonly other cases named are the Samaritans (Acts viii, 12, 13, 15), Lydia\n(Ib. xvi, 15), the Corinthians (Ib. xviii, 8; 1 Cor. i, 14-17), and the\ntwelve disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts xix, 1-5). Of them we are only\ninformed that they were baptized. As to the cases which we have examined\nit is certainly remarkable and significant that with the exception of\nthe eunuch, they each present physical difficulties in the way of\nimmersion, serious if not insurmountable; and that in the excepted case,\nthe utmost that can be said is, that nothing appears to render immersion\nphysically impossible; while the connection of the occasion points\ndistinctly to a sprinkled baptism.\n\nThe cumulative argument arising out of these baptisms is overwhelming.\nThey can not have been by immersion.\n\n\n SECTION XCVII.\u2014\u201c_Baptized into Moses._\u201d\n\nThe baptism of Israel into Moses, is pertinent here, as illustrating the\napostolic style of conception and language on the subject. \u201cAll our\nfathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were\nall baptized (_eis_) _into_ Moses, (_en_) _by_ the cloud and (_en_) _by_\nthe sea.\u201d\u20141 Cor. x, 1, 2.\n\nWe have already seen the typical relation which Moses and Israel, and\nthe covenant with them sustained to the Lord Jesus and the true Israel,\nand the better covenant, as expounded by Paul to the Hebrews. The\nlanguage here cited from the same apostle derives its form from the same\nconception. Israel in the bondage of Egypt,\u2014Moses sent to them as a\ndeliverer,\u2014the passage out of the land of bondage, through the Red\nSea,\u2014the destruction of Pharaoh in the sea and the cutting off thus of\nIsrael from all dependence or subjection to him,\u2014their consequent faith\nin Moses and submission to his authority,\u2014the covenant made with them\nthrough him as Mediator,\u2014their nourishment in the wilderness on the\nbread of heaven, and the water from the Rock,\u2014and their final passage\nthrough the Jordan and entrance into the promised land,\u2014are the elements\nof a typical system the antitypes of which are to be sought, not in the\nvisible church and its ritual ordinances, but in Christ and his body,\nthe invisible church, and the spiritual and heavenly realities which it\nenjoys. According to this conception, the \u201cbaptism into Moses\u201d finds its\nantitype in the baptism into Christ, by which his people are emancipated\nfrom the bondage of Satan and brought under the yoke of Christ. And as\nthat baptism is instrumentally accomplished by the Spirit, whereby they\nall are baptized into one body of which Christ is the Head, so the\nbaptism of Israel was instrumentally effected \u201c_by_ the cloud and _by_\nthe sea;\u201d they being by the cloud protected from the Egyptians and\ndirected through the receding sea; while \u201cthe Lord looked unto the host\nof the Egyptians, through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and\ntroubled the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels,\u201d and the\nreturning sea swallowed them up.\u2014Ex. xiv, 23-28. Here was an immersion.\nBut it was of the Egyptians. Here was a baptism,\u2014of the children of\nIsrael,\u2014into Moses,\u2014not into water,\u2014not into cloud, or sea or both\ntogether. There were not two baptisms, but one, and in order to make it\nan immersion \u201cin the cloud and in the sea,\u201d the baptism \u201cinto Moses\u201d\nmust be obliterated. The Baptist figment which we have seen stated by\nDr. Kendrick, of the \u201cdouble wall of water rolled up on each side, and\nthe column of fiery cloud stretching its enshrouding folds above them,\u201d\nis not merely an idle imagination. But it is an imagination in direct\nand palpable contradiction to the record of Moses. The Israelites were\nindeed under the cloud. But it was _before_ they entered the sea, and\nnot during their march through it. \u201cThe Angel of God which went before\nthe camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the\ncloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came\nbetween the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a\ncloud and darkness to them; but it gave light by night to these; so that\nthe one came not near the other all the night. And Moses stretched out\nhis hand over the sea ... and the waters were divided. And the children\nof Israel went into the midst of the sea.\u201d\u2014Ex. xiv, 19-22. Thus, before\nthe sea was divided, Israel were \u201cunder the cloud,\u201d as it passed back\nfrom their front, to become an intercepting barrier between them and the\npursuing host. But, during the march through the sea, the cloud was\n_between_ the two hosts, and not \u201censhrouding\u201d Israel above. Thus, as by\nthe touch of Ithuriel\u2019s spear, the figment of immersion vanishes in the\npresence of the word of truth, and in its stead appear the ransomed\ntribes marching upon the sands between walls of water, miles apart, the\nopen heavens above them and the cloud moving as a protecting curtain, in\ntheir rear. The attempt to find immersion here, is futile.\n\nThat the preposition, _en_, is rightly here translated, _by_, as\nindicating the instrumental cause, in the baptism, is illustrated by an\nexample a little farther on in the same epistle. \u201c_By_ one Spirit, are\nwe all baptized _into_ one body.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xii, 13. Here, Christ is the\nBaptizer, the Spirit is the instrument, and union with Christ and his\nbody the result. So, of Israel, Jehovah was the Baptizer, the cloud and\nthe sea were the instruments, and union with Moses the result. Just\nbefore, they had been in a state of open mutiny. (Ex. xiv, 11, 12.) But\nnow, says the record, \u201cthe Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of\nthe Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. And\nIsrael saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians, and\nthe people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant\nMoses.\u201d\u2014Ib. 30, 31. Their changed state of mind was attested by the song\nof their triumph which rang out over the unconscious and now peaceful\nwaters. \u201cSing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the\nhorse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.\u201d\u2014Ib. xv, 1-21. Thus\nhave we a signal example of such a change of state or experience as even\nDr. Conant admits to have been designated by the word, _baptizo_. From\nunder the power and fear of Pharaoh, they came into the trust and\nobedience of Moses. They were \u201cbaptized into Moses.\u201d The only intimation\nof instrumental mode in this baptism, to be found in the Scriptures,\noccurs in the Psalmist\u2019s vivid description of the scene. \u201cThe clouds\npoured out water, the skies sent out a sound, thine arrows also went\nabroad.\u201d\u2014Ps. lxxvii, 17.\n\n\n\n\n\n PART XVI.\n THE FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN.\n\n\n SECTION XCVIII.\u2014_Christ and the Children._\n\nAt this stage of our inquiry, we note the following points which have\nimportant bearings upon the relation of the children to the church. (1.)\nWe have seen that, in the establishing of the covenant with Abraham,\u2014the\npromises of which were blessings to the natural offspring of the\npatriarch, and through them, salvation to the world,\u2014its seal was set\nupon all the males of his household,\u2014through whom the descent was to be\ncounted,\u2014at the age of eight days. (2.) We have seen that in the Sinai\ncovenant, by which in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, the church\nwas constituted in the family of Israel, the same fundamental principles\nof family unity and parental headship were recognized and incorporated\nin the constitution of the church; and that in accordance therewith, the\nchildren and bondservants, both male and female, were included in its\nterms, with the family head; endowed with all its rights and privileges;\nbound under its responsibilities; and sealed with its baptismal seal.\n(3.) We have seen that it was into this church, as thus constituted and\nexisting, and without change in its constitutional principles, or form\nof organization, that through the ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles\nwere graffed; thus fulfilling the promise to Abraham, that in his seed\nshould all families of the earth be blessed; a promise fulfilled not\nonly in salvation accomplished through the promised Seed of Abraham, but\nin the reception thus of the Gentiles into the bosom of the church of\nIsrael.\n\nIt now remains to be ascertained whether there is any thing in the\nprinciples of the gospel, as set forth in the New Testament, in the\npractical rules therein recorded, or in the facts of its history, to\nrequire or justify the extruding of the children from the place and\nprivileges hitherto enjoyed;\u2014whether there is any thing to lead us to\nthe conclusion that the coming of Christ has straitened the grace of\nGod, and withdrawn from the babes of us Gentiles that privilege of\nacceptance which was enjoyed by the little ones of Israel, from the day\nof the covenant at Sinai.\n\n1. As the place of the children was originally conferred and secured by\nexpress statute and repeated enactments of confirmation, we have a right\nto expect the abrogation of the privileges thus established to be\naccomplished in terms as specific and imperative as were the laws by\nwhich they were conferred. But no one has ever pretended to produce such\na statute of abrogation. Confessedly the New Testament is absolutely\nsilent as to such an act,\u2014a silence fatal to the theories which deny a\nplace to the babes in the family of God.\n\n2. The facts and principles set forth in the New Testament supply no\nargument for the exclusion of the children. First, is that touching\nincident which is recorded with more or less fullness in each of the\nsynoptical gospels. In reply to the question who of the apostles\nshould be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, being in a house\nin Capernaum,\u2014probably in the house of one of them, several of whom\nlived there,\u2014he \u201ccalled a little child unto him and set him in the\nmidst of them,\u201d\u2014\u201cand (_enagkalisamenos_) _having folded it in his\narms_, he said unto them,\u201d \u201cVerily I say unto you, Except ye be\nconverted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the\nkingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this\nlittle child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso\nshall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.\u201d\u2014Matt.\nxviii, 1-5; Mark ix, 36; Luke ix, 46-48. With this is to be connected\nthat kindred fact which occurred a few days afterward, and is also\nrecorded in each of the three synoptical gospels. \u201cThen were there\nbrought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them\nand pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer\nlittle children and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is\nthe kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed\nthence.\u201d\u2014Matt. xix, 13-15. Mark and Luke add that he said, \u201cVerily I\nsay unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a\nlittle child, he shall not enter therein. And (_enagkalisamenos_)\n_folding them in his arms_, he put his hands upon them, and blessed\nthem.\u201d\u2014Mark x, 13-16; Luke xviii, 15-17. Of these little children,\nLuke tells us that they were (_breph\u0113_) _babes_. That these incidents\nin the life of our Savior were of special significance is indicated by\nthe fact that they are both given by each of the evangelists, Matthew,\nMark, and Luke. As to their meaning,\u2014(1.) These children all were, at\nthe time, actual members of that visible kingdom of God the church of\nIsrael, in the bosom of which Jesus himself lived and died. (2.) That\nchurch was the type and representative of the invisible church and\nkingdom. (3.) Of all members of the visible church, Jesus selects the\nlittle child of the first incident and the babes of the second, as the\nfittest types or representatives of the temper and spirit which will\nhave admittance and honor in the heavenly kingdom. (4.) He was much\ndispleased, that his disciples should attempt to prevent their being\nbrought, in their unconsciousness and helplessness, into his personal\npresence, for recognition and a blessing from him. (5.) Both the child\nin the house, and the babes brought to him, he folded in his arms, and\nupon the latter he laid his hands and blessed them. He was the great\nShepherd, as himself testifies,\u2014\u201cI am the good Shepherd.\u201d\u2014John x, 11.\nOf him the prophet wrote,\u2014\u201cHe shall gather the lambs with his arm, and\ncarry them in his bosom.\u201d\u2014Isa. xl, 11. And we ask,\u2014Can any one venture\nto deny that, by these acts, so distinctly referring to the prophecy,\nJesus designed to recognize and claim the babes as lambs of his fold?\nAs before remarked, these babes were undeniably members of the church,\nat the time of these occurrences. If the Lord Jesus designed to leave\nthem in undisturbed possession of the rights and privileges heretofore\nenjoyed, with his benediction added thereto, all this is clear and\nintelligible. But, if they were to be deprived and excluded, how are\nthese things to be reconciled?\n\nAnother incident, in circumstances even more significant, presents\nitself. After his resurrection, Jesus met with his disciples at the Sea\nof Galilee. \u201cWhen they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son\nof Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;\nthou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.\u201d\u2014John\nxxi, 15. Peter was present in the house in Capernaum, when Jesus took\nthe child in his arms. Nay, it is not improbable that it was Peter\u2019s\nhouse, and Peter\u2019s child. He was present when the babes were brought for\nblessing, and saw and heard all that then occurred. He was a Hebrew of\nthe Hebrews,\u2014the chief apostle of the circumcision. When he received\nthis charge from the Master, in which were commended to his love and\ncare, _first_, the lambs, and afterward the sheep; and when he pondered\nthis charge and legacy, in the light of the fifteen centuries during\nwhich the place of the children had been unquestioned and\nunquestionable, and in remembrance of those demonstrative facts which he\nhad seen and heard,\u2014would he understand it as implying a command to\npurge and renovate the fold, by the exclusion of the lambs? And when, a\nfew days after, or, possibly on this very same occasion, he as the\napostle through whom the doors of the gospel were to be opened to the\nGentiles, with the rest, received that great command,\u2014\u201cGo disciple all\nnations, baptizing them,\u201d\u2014are we to conceive it possible that he\nunderstood it to mean that he must be very tender of the Jewish lambs,\nbringing them into the fold and school of Christ, but must drive out the\nchildren of the Gentiles as unclean?\n\n3. Under the ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles were called and\ngraffed into the church of Israel. In the church, thus constituted as\nalready shown, some congregations were composed of Jews alone, some, of\nGentiles, and some, of the two classes associated together; but in them\nall Jewish influences were pervasive and paramount. Now, is it to be\nimagined that without a word of command from Christ or the apostles, the\nJewish believers would unanimously, gratuitously, and in silence,\nsurrender the place of their children in the church, just at the moment\nwhen the privileges thereto incident had become so much more manifest,\nby the coming of Christ, and the brightness, by his rising, shed upon\nthe gospel day? And even if such a thing could be imagined possible,\nwhat else would it have been but a wicked apostasy and rejection of the\ngrace given them? But, that no such apostasy did take place, is\nassuredly testified by the silence of the record, and by all the\ncircumstances. That, in the churches of the circumcision, and among\nJewish believers everywhere, the children occupied their old status is\nbeyond controversy or question. Of this, their circumcision is of itself\nconclusive proof. And as, from the days of Abraham, that rite certified\nthem seed of the patriarch and heirs of the promises,\u2014and at Sinai they\nwere introduced, by baptism, into the pale of the church and the\nprivileges of that covenant,\u2014so their continued enjoyment alike of the\nprivileges and the seals must stand forever certain, till some prophet\nshall arise to tell us when, and how, and for what cause, they were\ndivested of rights once bestowed by Him whose \u201cgifts and callings are\nwithout repentance.\u201d\n\nAnd if, by a special clause in the very covenant of Sinai itself, grace\nto the Gentiles was reserved, in harmony with abundant grace to Israel,\nthe baptism of Israel\u2019s babes into the fold of that covenant, that day,\nwas a foretokening and pledge of the same grace to the children of the\nGentiles, when the times of the Gentiles shall have come. They are not\nthe seed of Abraham, and therefore receive not the seal of his covenant\nin their flesh. But baptism is theirs,\u2014the seal of the Sinai covenant,\nin which, now, the rights of the Gentiles are equal. \u201cFor there is no\ndifference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is\nrich unto all that call upon him.\u201d\u2014Rom. x, 12.\n\n\nSECTION XCIX.\u2014\u201c_Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy._\u201d\n\nWe have the express testimony of inspiration, to the children\u2019s right\nwithin the pale of the church. Says Paul to the Corinthians,\u2014\u201cThe\nunbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife\nis sanctified by the husband. Else were your children _unclean_; but now\nare they _holy_.\u201d\u20141 Cor. vii, 14. The significance of this declaration,\nas concerning the children, depends upon the meaning of the words,\n_unclean_ (_akathartoi_), and _holy_ (_hagioi_). Both of them come into\nthe New Testament, from the Septuagint version of the Old. In the Greek\nof that version, the word (_akathartos_) does not appear in the books of\nMoses until we come to the laws of ritual uncleanness and purifying,\nwhich have been so largely discussed in these pages. Then, beginning\nwith the fifth chapter of Leviticus, it occurs in that book in about\neighty-seven places, in all of which it designates the ritually unclean;\nbeing applied alike to things and persons. In Numbers and Deuteronomy,\nit appears about thirty times, in the same sense. In the entire Old\nTestament, the word is used about one hundred and forty times; and with\nthe exception of half a dozen passages in which it indicates the moral\noffensiveness of sin, it is invariably employed in one and the same\nsense,\u2014to designate persons and things that by virtue of ritual\ndefilements were excluded from the pale of the covenant and the\nsanctuary. If we add to this the related noun (_akatharsia_) the force\nof these considerations is greatly increased. It, in like manner, first\noccurs in Leviticus, as the designation of the _uncleannesses_ which\nwere described by the adjective (_akathartos_), _unclean_. It occurs\nabout fifty times, and with a few exceptions in which it describes the\nvileness of sin, is constantly used in the ritual sense.\n\nThe other word (_hagios_) _holy_, has a history and meaning, equally\nclear and well defined. It has primary reference to the sum of the\ndivine perfections, in view of which God is designated, the _holy_ One.\nThence, it is transferred to designate those moral attributes in men\nwhich are after the likeness of God\u2019s holiness; as, in the admonition\nwhich is often repeated in the books of Moses, \u201cBe ye holy, for I am\nholy.\u201d Again, it is used to denote the relation sustained to God by\nthings devoted to his use or service. Thus, the tabernacle and all its\nparts and furniture were holy. In this sense, the word was used in the\ncovenant with Israel. \u201cYe shall be unto me a _holy nation_ (_ethnos\nhagion_.\u201d)\u2014Ex. xix, 6. The acceptance of this covenant, and the seal of\nbaptism by which it was confirmed established Israel as \u201choly\u201d unto the\nLord. Prior to that covenant the word had never been applied to men. But\nfrom that transaction forward Israel was recognized in that character.\nThus, alluding to the covenant, Moses says to them,\u2014\u201cThou art a holy\npeople unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a\nspecial people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of\nthe earth.\u201d\u2014Deut. vii, 6. Upon this title and the covenant ground of it,\nMoses insists with great emphasis, recurring to the theme again and\nagain. (See Deut. xiv, 2, 21; xxvi, 19; xxviii, 9.) It is in view of\nthis covenant provision that the distinctive appellation of Israel in\nthe prophets is, \u201cthe holy people;\u201d and to the same source is to be\nreferred the familiar designation of \u201csaints,\u201d that is, holy ones, which\nis constantly employed, especially in the Psalms. Thus, the Lord says in\nPs. 1, 5,\u2014\u201cGather my saints together unto me; those that have made a\ncovenant with me by sacrifice.\u201d Here, not only is the title used, but\nthe ground of it is stated. It is that public profession and covenant of\nwhich sacrifice was essential as a seal, and incorporated as such in the\nbaptismal rite.\n\nSuch is the testimony of the Old Testament, respecting these words. The\nchurch of Corinth was composed largely of Jews, who as we have seen\nstill maintained the ordinances of the synagogue after as well as before\ntheir conversion to Christ. In those assemblies, James declares that\n\u201cMoses of old time hath in every city, them that preach him, being read\nin the synagogues every Sabbath day.\u201d\u2014Acts xv, 21. The Corinthian\ndisciples, therefore, never attended those services without hearing the\nwords in question used; and used in this continual sense of ritual\nuncleanness and ritual purity.\n\nIn the New Testament, the words in question are employed in strict\naccordance with the Old Testament usage. But as the ritual law here\nsinks into comparative obscurity, _akathartos_, more frequently means\nthe loathsomeness of sin. Of the twenty-eight places in which it is\nfound, it in twenty, describes \u201c_unclean_ spirits,\u201d or demons. But when\nthe question arises of the right of the Gentiles to a part with Israel,\nin the covenant and the church, the ritual meaning of the word, again\ncomes forward. Peter in his vision pleads that he had \u201cnever eaten any\nthing common, or _unclean_.\u201d\u2014Acts x, 14. The lesson which that vision\ntaught him was, that he \u201cshould not call any man common or\n_unclean_.\u201d\u2014Ib. 28. And he afterward said of the house of Cornelius that\nGod \u201cput no difference between us and them, (_katharisas_) _cleansing_\ntheir hearts by faith.\u201d\u2014Ib. xv, 9. Except the place in question, in\nwhich the relation of the children to the church is in view, and that of\nPeter, concerning the like relation of believing Gentiles, the word is\ninvariably used in the New Testament to designate that moral character\nof which ritual uncleanness was the figure.\n\nSo, too, as to (_hagioi_) \u201c_holy_,\u201d or \u201csaints\u201d\u2014it is the peculiar and\ndistinctive appellation in the New Testament, as in the Old, for those\nwhom we would call \u201cmembers of the church.\u201d In the Acts of the Apostles,\nsome half a dozen times, the title of \u201cdisciples,\u201d is used; once, Peter\nemploys the name of \u201cChristian\u201d (1 Pet. iv, 16); and Paul once speaks of\n\u201cthe believers.\u201d (1 Tim. iv, 12.) But, with these exceptions, the\nappellation universally used is (_hagioi_) \u201csaints.\u201d It thus occurs\nabout fifty-six times, of which forty are in the epistles of Paul, the\nauthor of the passage in question. In fact, this is the designation\nwhich he uniformly employs in this very epistle and his second to the\nsame church to designate the members of the church. \u201cDare any of you,\nhaving a matter against another, go to law before the unjust and not\nbefore the _saints_?\u201d\u20141 Cor. vi, 1. \u201cAs in all the churches of the\n_saints_.\u201d (Ib. xiv, 33.) \u201cPaul ... unto the church of God which is in\nCorinth, with all the _saints_ which are in all Achaia.\u201d\u20142 Cor. i, 1.\nThe source of this title, moreover, as derived from the Sinai covenant,\nis indicated by Peter, who quotes the terms of that covenant and applies\nthem to the New Testament church. \u201cYe are a chosen generation, a royal\npriesthood, a _holy nation_ (_ethnos hagion_), a peculiar people.\u201d\u20141\nPeter ii, 9. As in the Old Testament, so in the New, the word, _hagios_,\ninvariably means, either, that holiness which is essential in God, and\nwhich, in his creatures is a bond of consecration to him; or, the\ncharacteristic of persons and things separated by a peculiar dedication\nand appropriation to his use and service.\n\nThe alternative to which the facts reduce us, is this:\u2014that Paul, master\nas he was of the Mosaic system and of the language in which it is\nrecorded,\u2014in his reference to the children, used the words,\n_akathartoi_, and, _hagioi_, in their familiar ritual signification; or\nthat he meant to deceive his readers. For, that the heirs of the\ncovenant were in fact a holy people to God, was an express and\nfundamental specification in the covenant. And that the children were\ncomprehended in this provision was no more questionable than was the\nexistence of the covenant itself. Whatever therefore the meaning of\nPaul, his readers could not possibly understand his language in any but\none way:\u2014\u201c_Else were your children excluded from the pale of the\ncovenant; but now are they embraced in it._\u201d\n\nThe attempt is made to evade the overwhelming force of the facts, on\nthis point, by a most extraordinary interpretation. It is asserted that\nPaul means,\u2014\u201cElse were your children illegitimate, but now are they\nlegitimate.\u201d The doctrine thus attributed to the apostle, is in the\nfirst place, false and abominable in morals. It is an assertion that no\nchild is legitimate, unless one or other of its parents be a Christian.\nIn the second place, it is an interpretation false to the whole\ntestimony of the Scriptures as to the meaning of the words. In all the\nmultitude of places in which they are to be found, there is not one to\ngive the slightest color of sanction to it. It is nothing less than a\ndesperate and unscrupulous attempt to silence the voice of God\u2019s\ntestimony because it is in terms of grace to our children.\n\nPaul\u2019s language is, in fact, an application to the children, of the same\ngeneral principle of divine grace, which governed him in the\ncircumcision of Timothy. The Hebrew blood of Timothy\u2019s mother was held\nto entitle him to part in the Abrahamic covenant, although his father\nwas a Greek. So, Paul pronounces the children of believers, Gentiles and\nJews, to be _clean_, as comprehended in the Sinai covenant, and the\ngospel church, even though one parent should be an unbeliever.\n\nIt is only to be farther considered, that as those only who are baptized\nof the Spirit are spiritually clean, so the Scriptures know nothing of\nritual cleanness, except by baptism with water; and that the command,\n\u201cGo, disciple all nations, baptizing them,\u201d makes the baptizing\nco-extensive with the discipleship,\u2014that is, with admission to the\nschool of Christ, and pale of the covenant.\n\n\n SECTION C.\u2014_Household Baptisms._\n\nWe have seen the grace of God expressed toward the children of his\npeople, under the Mosaic economy, by their being embraced with their\nparents in the terms of the covenant. We have seen their admission\nthereto announced and confirmed by the seal of baptism. We have seen no\ntoken of the withdrawal of that grace by the Lord Jesus when in person\non earth. We have heard, on the contrary, his confirmation of it in\nterms as strong as language can furnish. We have seen that same\ncovenant, its terms unchanged, and its seal the same, thrown open,\nthrough the ministry of the apostles, to the Gentiles, and heard the\ntestimony of the apostle, that our children are not unclean,\u2014offensive\nto God, but holy,\u2014acceptable before him. We now proceed to consider the\nfacts and principles involved in the household baptisms, which are\ndescribed in the New Testament. First, however, it is proper to make an\nimportant correction in the aspect in which the subject is commonly\nviewed and discussed. The principle which the Scriptures set forth and\nestablish is not that of the baptism and membership of _infants_, as\nsuch. The fundamental element of the visible church, as conceived and\nset forth, in Scripture, is not the individual, but the family. As God\nplanted the earth in families, so in the covenant with Abraham he laid\ndown the family society as the foundation stone, on which, at Sinai, the\nchurch was builded; and hence the organization of the church of Israel\nupon the family principle, and its government by the eldership, the\nrepresentatives of its families. Under this constitution, the infants,\nwere of course included. But the designation and discussion of the\nsubject, under their name, as if it were a question of _infant_ baptism\nand _infant_ membership, distinctively, does injustice to the subject,\nas it leaves out of sight and practically excludes the fundamental\nprinciple involved. That principle is, parental headship, and the\nconsequent grace of God bestowed on the _families_ of his people,\u2014their\nchildren and bond servants,\u2014as identified in and represented by them.\n\n1. The first case of household baptism mentioned is that of\nLydia,\u2014\u201cwhose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things\nwhich were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household,\nshe besought us saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord,\ncome into my house and abide there.\u201d\u2014Acts xvi, 14, 15. Here, the\nessential facts are, (1.) that the house of Lydia were by the inspired\nhistorian, recognized in no other capacity than as being (_oikos aut\u0113s_)\n_her house_. Their number, their names, their ages, their distinctive\nrelation to her, whether as children or servants, their several or joint\nsentiments toward the gospel,\u2014on all these points he is silent. The one\nsingle fact to which he directs our attention is Lydia\u2019s property in\nthem. (2.) Of Lydia alone it is said that the Lord opened her heart; and\nupon this fact exclusively is predicated her baptism and that of her\nhouse. Should any surmise that her house also believed, we do not\nobject, provided the surmise is not to be made an essential part of the\nrecord. If it be insisted that they believed and therefore were\nbaptized, we reply that had such been the conception of the sacred\nwriter, it would have been as easy, and far more important for him to\nhave stated their faith, as he has recorded their baptism. The\nsupposition that they did in fact believe, only renders his silence on\nthat point the more significant. (3.) These facts occurred in the\nministry of that same Paul whom we have just seen to testify that the\nchildren of believers are holy. In a word Luke states the fact of the\nbaptism, and the ground of it. Lydia believed, and she was baptized and\nher house. Because of her faith, to her and to her house the old, the\neverlasting, covenant was fulfilled,\u2014\u201cto be a God to thee and to thy\nseed after thee.\u201d\n\n2. The baptism, which soon followed, of the jailer and his house is\nequally explicit on this point. He said to Paul and Silas, \u201cSirs, what\nmust I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,\nand thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word\nof the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the\nsame hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he\nand all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he\nset meat before them, and (_\u0113galliasato panoiki, pepisteuk\u014ds t\u014d The\u014d_,)\nrejoiced with his house, he believing in God.\u201d\u2014Acts xvi, 30-34. Here,\nagain, we have a construction which remarkably ignores the question\nwhether his house, as well as he, believed. It may he assumed that they\nwere all of an age to hear and understand the gospel. It may be assumed\nthat they, so understanding, believed also. But it may not be assumed\nthat such knowledge and faith were the ground of their baptism, because\nthe sacred writer puts it upon a different ground. It was as identified\nwith him\u2014as belonging to him, that they were included in the rite. \u201cHe\nwas baptized,\u2014he and all _his_.\u201d Thus their relation to him is the\ndefining term. \u201cHe and _all_ that were his.\u201d\u2014He and _none but_ his; and\nthey _because_ they were his. Such is the force of the expression as it\nstands. In the same direction looks the closing expression. \u201cHe rejoiced\nwith all his house,\u2014he believing.\u201d That his house did not believe we\nneither assert nor deny. The point of importance is, that their faith is\nno element of the case, as stated on the record, upon which was grounded\ntheir baptism. The alternative is clear and inevitable. Either he, only,\nof all his house did in fact believe; or, if his household shared in his\nfaith, the remarkable manner in which, in the narrative, they are\nassociated with him in his baptism and joy, but omitted from the\nstatement which describes him alone, as believing, was an express and\ndesigned intimation that his personal faith was the controlling element\nin the case, according to the terms of the everlasting covenant,\u2014\u201cto be\na God to thee, and to _thy seed_ after thee,\u201d and the assurance given\nhim by Paul,\u2014\u201cBelieve, ... and thou shalt be saved and thy house.\u201d He\nwas recognized and dealt with as the head of his house, precisely as was\nAbraham.\n\n3. Paul declares that he \u201cbaptized (_ton Stephana oikon_) the house of\nStephanas.\u201d\u20141 Cor. i, 16. Here, again, there is no discrimination of\nindividuals. The characteristic upon which he predicates the baptism is\nthe relation which he indicates. It was the house of Stephanas, as such,\nwhom he baptized.\n\nRespecting these cases, it may be admitted that if taken separately,\nthey would constitute no conclusive evidence to the present purpose. But\nsuch is not their position. They stand as one element in a series of\nfacts and principles which together present a cumulative argument\nconclusive and unanswerable. These begin with the Abrahamic covenant and\nthe family principle there established. They include the Sinai\nconstitution, in which the same principle was ineffaceably engraved.\nThey comprehend the opening of the doors of the church thereon founded,\nto the Gentile world, with this principle unimpaired. They reveal the\nlove of Christ to the babes, in the history and instructions of his\npersonal ministry, and in his parting commission to Peter. They hold up\nthe testimony of Paul, that the babes of believers are \u201csaints.\u201d It is\nin the presence of these great facts, inscribed in letters of light upon\nthe records of fifteen hundred years; and in the absence of any thing\nwhatever to contravene their testimonies, or to set aside the\nconclusions thence following, that the household baptisms in question\nare to be considered. The children and household were once\nunquestionably embraced in God\u2019s covenant with his church.\n\u201c_Everlasting_,\u201d was by His finger written on the face of that covenant.\n(Gen. xvii, 7.) In its terms, as announced at Sinai, place for the\nGentiles was expressly reserved; and upon their ultimate admission, no\ntrace of change, in these respects, appears in the record. On the\ncontrary, in the cases just examined, we have the most conclusive\nevidence, in view of the foregoing facts, that the position of the\nfamily has not been changed by the coming of Christ, and the giving of\nthe gospel to the Gentiles. It still continues a unit under the parental\nhead; and the same grace which blessed the seed of Abraham because of\nhis faith,\u2014the same which, at Sinai, embraced the children with their\nparents, in the covenant and the fold, still extends those privileges to\nthe children of Gentiles who believe. They are holy.\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION.\n\n\nAnd now, at the goal, we turn to survey the broad field of our\nexplorations, and to note the accumulated results. From this vantage\npoint, many things appear in a light of peculiar instructiveness and\nbeauty. But one feature stands out in proportions of loftiness, and\nglory, which cast all else into the shade of insignificance. As with\nrapt spirits, we gaze, the high throne is revealed where sits the Son of\nman,\u2014his human form robed in the Father\u2019s glory,\u2014his countenance\nblending the infinite majesty of God, with the fullness of grace and\ntruth,\u2014his brow adorned with a diadem of many crowns, and all power in\nheaven and earth, in his hand. The heavens are astonished at the\npresence of his glory, and the adoring angels, prostrate, await his\nbidding. The fullness of the Spirit is his; and his office thus exalted\nit is, to baptize us sinners with that Spirit,\u2014to give us thus,\nrepentance and remission of sins and sanctifying grace, and to raise us\nup from the dead and make us sit with him in the heavenly places where\nhe reigns. This is the central sun of the system which we have explored.\nFrom this baptism of the Spirit all the ordinances here examined, derive\ntheir instructive light and beauty. It is the original,\u2014the heavenly\npattern whence their form and office were divinely transcribed. It is,\ntherefore, the rule and standard to which all baptismal rites and\ndoctrines must be brought.\n\nTried by this rule, the figment of baptismal regeneration stands exposed\nin naked falsehood and dishonor; arrogating to men a share of the\nsovereign prerogatives of our glorious Baptizer; subordinating the\nfunctions of his grace to their will and wisdom, their fidelity and\nzeal.\n\nThe rite of immersion too,\u2014already discountenanced by the united voice\nof the Scriptures,\u2014when brought to this supreme and final test, is\nutterly wanting.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the transaction at Sinai, in which the church\nwas separated out of the world and consecrated to God by a baptism of\nsprinkled water and blood.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the rites which certified and sealed the\nrestoration of the healed leper to the communion of Israel.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the water of purifying with which the Levites\nwere sprinkled, in their consecration to the service of God\u2019s sanctuary.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the ordinance which appointed the water of\nseparation, to be sprinkled as the ordinary and perpetuated form of the\nSinai baptism, for sealing admission to the benefits of the Sinai\ncovenant.\n\nIt is excluded by the declaration of the son of Sirach that the\nsprinkling of the unclean with the water of separation was a baptizing.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the sprinkled baptism of the thirty-two\nthousand infants and youths of Midian, whereby they were received into\nthe fold of the covenant and the church.\n\nIt is condemned by every voice in the Psalms and the prophets which\nbreathes a sense of the sinner\u2019s need, or anticipates the blessings of\nMessiah\u2019s grace, in the language of these ordinances.\n\nIt is excluded by the explicit testimony of the apostle Paul, that these\nordinances were baptisms.\n\nIt is condemned by the implacable war which it of necessity wages\nagainst the identity of the church from the day of the assembly at\nSinai,\u2014by its repudiation of the Old Testament church\u2014the church of\nMoses and the prophets, which was for fifteen centuries a lone beacon\nlight among the nations, God\u2019s only witness amid the gloom of thick\ndarkness which enshrouded the world.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the voice of John\u2019s baptism which heralded and\nsymbolized the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost; and is excluded by\nall the circumstances of his ministry, which show that he could not have\nimmersed his disciples, and that he would not have done it, though he\ncould.\n\nIt is discountenanced by the whole style of the evangelists and\napostles, who speak of baptism and its relations in the language of the\nOld Testament, and recognize it as a symbol of the outpouring of\nPentecost.\n\nIt is excluded by the records of Christian baptisms as given by Luke,\nwhich, beginning with the three thousand of Pentecost and ending with\nthe jailer of Philippi and his house, present an array of difficulties\nin the way of immersion, which are severally inexplicable, and together\noverwhelming.\n\nIt is condemned by its association with the kindred denial of the place\nwhich God has assigned to the family and the children in his fold and\nhis covenant; and by all the facts which demonstrate their God-given and\ninalienable rights therein.\n\nIt is utterly condemned by the fact that it maims the symmetry and\ncompleteness of the sacramental system of the Christian church. Whilst\nthe Old Testament sacraments exhibit in just proportions every part and\nfeature of the plan of grace, and whilst the genuine ordinances of the\nNew Testament, in like proportions, abbreviate the whole, exhibiting in\nthe holy supper the sacrament of Christ\u2019s humiliation and sacrifice, and\nin baptism that of his exaltation and glory, his power and grace,\u2014the\nsystem in question, recognizes indeed, with us, in the Lord\u2019s supper,\nthe memorial of Christ\u2019s suffering and death, but in baptism can see\nnothing but the symbol of his burial, and so leaves him and all our\nhopes shut up and sealed in the sepulchre of Joseph.\n\nIt is signally discountenanced by the remarkable fact that in every rite\nand every figure in which the Scriptures represent the active exercise\nby the Messiah of his official functions, the form of action is\naffusion, whether it be with the blood of atonement at the sanctuary of\nIsrael,\u2014the water, mingled with ashes or blood, which sprinkled the\nunclean,\u2014the anointing oil poured upon the head; or the fires of justice\nrained down from heaven.\n\nBut why dwell upon minor particulars! The rite in question is condemned\nand excluded by the whole tenor of the Scriptures, which demonstrate\nthat _baptizo_ as there used _does not_ mean, to immerse, and which\nreveal no vestige of other testimony in behalf of the rite, but\neverywhere show evidence abundant and conclusive against it.\n\nBut the capital and paramount consideration still remains, in the fact\nthat this rite will not assimilate with, nor recognize the baptism which\nChrist dispenses from his throne. It ignores the exaltation whence that\nbaptism descends, and refuses to testify of its outpouring of grace. And\nhence, although administered with the use of the words, it is not in the\nsense intended by the Lord Jesus, baptism \u201cinto the name of the Father\nand of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;\u201d for its doctrine has no relation\nto those blessed Persons, nor to our union with them. It is wholly\noccupied with another theme. Whilst the true baptism exultingly points\nupward to the throne of Christ\u2019s glory, this rite looks downward ever to\nthe grave.\n\nTo our readers we leave the question,\u2014What one trait or characteristic\nof Scriptural baptism is traceable in this rite of immersion, in\ndoctrine, or in form?\n\nIn entire consistency with a spirit of true Christian love and\nfellowship toward our brethren of the Baptist churches, we can not but\nrealize an indignant revolt against this rite, so imperious in its\nclaims, so devoid of evidence, so hostile to the true baptism of the\nChristian church, so efficient in creating division therein,\u2014this rite\nin the zeal of which, those who reject it have been denied any part in\nthe church of God, or place at his table, or portion in his covenant.\nNot such the ordinance which her glorious Head has bestowed upon his\nchurch, nor such the principles which he has taught her to cherish;\u2014an\nordinance in which is shown forth and celebrated the glory of his\nexaltation and his grace,\u2014an ordinance which baptizes us into his name\nand that of the blessed Godhead, by setting forth the doctrine of that\nGodhead and of our union with it in Christ by the Spirit,\u2014an ordinance\nwhich seals upon the brows of our babes that same blessing which they\nreceived in His own arms and from His own hands, in the days of his\nflesh;\u2014and principles which teach us to recognize and embrace in the\nbonds of love and the fellowship of the covenant and of the church all\nthose who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,\nboth their Lord and ours, even though they may grievously err respecting\noutward rites and forms.\n\nNow to Him, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be\nhonor and glory, for ever. Amen.\n\n SCRIPTURES\n ILLUSTRATED IN THE FOREGOING PAGES.\n\n GENESIS.\n \u2014 i, 26, p. 268;\n \u2014 ii, 10, p. 32;\n \u2014 iii, 15, p. 41;\n \u2014 xii, 1-3, p. 37;\n \u2014 xv, 1+, p. 38;\n \u2014 xvii, 1-21, p. 39;\n \u2014 xvii, 7, p. 59;\n \u2014 xxii, 16-18, p. 41;\n \u2014 xxxvii, 31, p. 158.\n\n EXODUS.\n \u2014 vi, 2-8, p. 42;\n \u2014 xix, 3-5, p. 43;\n \u2014 xix, 3-21, p. 27, 43, 45;\n \u2014 xix, 5, p. 45;\n \u2014 xix, 6, p. 46;\n \u2014 xx, 24, p. 164;\n \u2014 xxiv, 5, 8, p. 26, 29;\n \u2014 xxv, 21, p. 54;\n \u2014 xxv, 40, p. 128;\n \u2014 xl, 12, p. 131, 133.\n\n LEVITICUS.\n \u2014 i, 9, p. 134;\n \u2014 xiii, 45, 46, p. 63;\n \u2014 xiv, 7-9, p. 66;\n \u2014 xiv, 8, 9, p. 114;\n \u2014 xxiii, 36, p. 148.\n\n NUMBERS.\n \u2014 vi, 9, p. 114;\n \u2014 vi, 18, p. 115;\n \u2014 viii, 7, p. 114;\n \u2014 xix, 1-22, p. 96;\n \u2014 xix, 2-19, p. 68, 73, 96;\n \u2014 xix, 12, 13, 19, p. 168;\n \u2014 xxix, 12-38, p. 144;\n \u2014 xxxi, 19-24, p. 82;\n \u2014 xxxi, 23, p. 138.\n\n DEUTERONOMY.\n \u2014 iv, 10, p. 51;\n \u2014 xvi, 13-15, p. 148;\n \u2014 xxi, 3-9, p. 123;\n \u2014 xxi, 12, p. 114.\n\n 2 KINGS.\n \u2014 iii, 11, p. 123;\n \u2014 v, 10, 14, p. 157.\n\n JOB.\n \u2014 ix, 30, 31, p. 111, 158.\n\n PSALM.\n \u2014 viii, 4-8, p. 269;\n \u2014 li, 2-10, p. 61.\n\n ISAIAH.\n \u2014 i, 16,17, p. 116;\n \u2014 vi, 5-7, p. 64;\n \u2014 xix, 19, p. 154;\n \u2014 xxi, 4, p. 295;\n \u2014 lii, 15, p. 140.\n\n EZEKIEL.\n \u2014 xvi, 8, 9, p. 74;\n \u2014 xxii, 24, p. 89;\n \u2014 xxxvii, 1-14, p. 301;\n \u2014 xxxvii, 12-15, p. 94;\n \u2014 xlvii, 1-12, p. 32, 33.\n\n HAGGAI.\n \u2014 ii, 11, 14, p. 227.\n\n ZECHARIAH.\n \u2014 xiv, 8, p. 34, 148, 151.\n\n MALACHI.\n \u2014 iii, 2, 3, p. 287;\n \u2014 iv, 1-4, p. 291;\n \u2014 iv, 4, p. 243.\n\n MATTHEW.\n \u2014 iii, 5, 6, p. 233;\n \u2014 iii, 11, p. 241, 284;\n \u2014 iii, 13-15, p. 247;\n \u2014 xvii, 3, p. 230;\n \u2014 xviii, 1-5, p. 462;\n \u2014 xix, 13-15, p. 463;\n \u2014 xx, 20-23, p. 258;\n \u2014 xxvi, 28, p. 225;\n \u2014 xxvii, 24, p. 123;\n \u2014 xxviii, 19, 20, p. 380, 424, 431, 435, 439.\n\n MARK.\n \u2014 i, 4, p. 318;\n \u2014 vii, 1-4, p. 210, 216;\n \u2014 vii, 3, 4, p. 21, 210;\n \u2014 ix, 4, p. 230;\n \u2014 ix, 36, p. 462;\n \u2014 x, 13-16, p. 463;\n \u2014 xvi, 15, 16, p. 380, 424, 437.\n\n LUKE.\n \u2014 i, 17, p. 228;\n \u2014 ii, 22, p. 85;\n \u2014 iii, 16, p. 284;\n \u2014 iii, 21, 22, p. 254;\n \u2014 vii, 37, 38, 44, p. 124, 125;\n \u2014 ix, 31, p. 230;\n \u2014 ix, 46-48, p. 462;\n \u2014 xi, 29, p. 214;\n \u2014 xi, 38, p. 21, 209, 214;\n \u2014 xii, 49-53, p. 265;\n \u2014 xviii, 15-17, p. 463;\n \u2014 xxiv, 44-46, p. 100.\n\n JOHN.\n \u2014 i, 33, p. 280;\n \u2014 ii, 18-22, p. 101;\n \u2014 iii, 5, p. 384;\n \u2014 iii, 23, p. 360;\n \u2014 iv, 14, p. 308;\n \u2014 vii, 37, 38, p. 308;\n \u2014 ix, 4, p. 109;\n \u2014 xi, 25, 26, p. 92, 95;\n \u2014 xiv, 16,17, 25, 26, p. 277;\n \u2014 xv, 26, p. 277, 281;\n \u2014 xvi, 7-15, p. 277;\n \u2014 xvii, 22, p. 320;\n \u2014 xx, 17, p. 272.\n\n ACTS.\n \u2014 ii, 2, p. 299;\n \u2014 ii, 3, p. 310;\n \u2014 ii, 4, p. 313;\n \u2014 ii, 38, p. 433;\n \u2014 viii, 36-39, p. 451;\n \u2014 ix, 18, p. 454;\n \u2014 x, 47, p. 455;\n \u2014 xv, 10, p. 406;\n \u2014 xvi, 14, 15, p. 472;\n \u2014 xvi, 30-34, p. 473;\n \u2014 xvi, 33, p. 456;\n \u2014 xviii, 18, p. 399;\n \u2014 xix, 1-7, p. 429;\n \u2014 xix, 2, p. 315;\n \u2014 xix, 4, p. 318, 447;\n \u2014 xxii, 16, p. 453.\n\n ROMANS.\n \u2014 vi, 1-11, p. 364;\n \u2014 vi, 4, p. 320;\n \u2014 xi, 17-24, p. 418, 422.\n\n 1 CORINTHIANS.\n \u2014 i, 16, p. 474;\n \u2014 vii, 14, p. 466;\n \u2014 x, 1, 2, p. 453;\n \u2014 xii, 13, p. 357;\n \u2014 xv, 4, p. 100;\n \u2014 xv, 25-27, p. 269;\n \u2014 xv, 29, p. 170.\n\n 2 CORINTHIANS.\n \u2014 iii, 2, 3, 6, p. 382.\n\n EPHESIANS.\n \u2014 iv, 3-16, p. 330;\n \u2014 iv, 5, p. 333;\n \u2014 v, 25-27, p. 390.\n\n COLOSSIANS.\n \u2014 ii, 9-13, p. 371.\n\n TITUS.\n \u2014 iii, 4-7, p. 323.\n\n HEBREWS.\n \u2014 ii, 5-8, p. 269;\n \u2014 iv, 4-9, p. 65;\n \u2014 vi, 7-9, p. 35;\n \u2014 vi, 17-20, p. 41;\n \u2014 ix, 8, 9, p. 103;\n \u2014 xiii, 11-13, p. 97.\n\n 1 PETER.\n \u2014 ii, 9, p. 469;\n \u2014 iii, 17-22, p. 333.\n\n 1 JOHN.\n \u2014 v, 18, 19, p. 110.\n\n REVELATION.\n \u2014 i, 12, 13, p. 311;\n \u2014 xxii, 1, 2, p. 32.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX.\n\n\n Ablution, Mode of domestic, page 119.\n Abrahamic covenant, p. 37.\n \u201cMy covenant,\u201d p. 43.\n Everlasting, p. 40, 43.\n Circumcision, its seal, p. 40, 58.\n An adumbration of the covenant of grace, p. 40.\n Administration of the great Baptizer, p. 338.\n _Agora_,\u2014the market, p. 214.\n Akiva, Rabbi, p. 213.\n Alexander, Dr. Addison, quoted, p. 287, 301, 310, 453.\n Ambrose on Levitical baptism, p. 194.\n Angel of his presence, p. 223.\n Anointing of Christ, p. 254.\n Apocrypha, their value, p. 153.\n Aristophanes quoted, p. 186, 325.\n Armstrong quoted, p. 259.\n Ashes of the red heifer, p. 68, 98.\n Ashes of calves, at Rome, p. 185.\n Assembly, Day of the, p. 51.\n Athenaeus quoted, p. 325.\n Augustine quoted, p. 303.\n Aztec baptism of Infants, p. 191.\n\n\n Babylonian Gemara, p. 78.\n Babylonian rabbinic schools, p. 78, 81.\n Baptism\u2014Argument from the real, p. 343.\n And circumcision, p. 58.\n Originated in the Old Testament, p. 21.\n Of Israel, p. 25, 29.\n Levitical, p. 25.\n Of Naaman, p. 157.\n History of Christian, p. 424.\n On Pentecost, p. 440.\n Its symbolic meaning, p. 92, 446.\n Baptism of fire, p. 284.\n Baptism of the Holy Ghost, p. 273, 277, 299, 322, 331.\n Baptism of Repentance and remission, p. 318, 331, 447.\n Baptism of Jesus by John, p. 247.\n \u201cBaptism that I am baptized with,\u201d p. 257.\n _Baptisma_ and _Baptismos_, p. 156.\n Baptisms, Divers, imposed on Israel, p. 22, 103.\n Baptisms of things, p. 136, 219.\n Baptismal formula. There is none, p. 438.\n Baptismal regeneration, p. 377.\n \u201cBaptized for the dead,\u201d p. 170.\n \u201cBaptized from the dead,\u201d p. 169.\n Baptized into Christ, p. 321, 332, 368.\n Baptized into one body, p. 357.\n Baptized into Moses, p. 350, 457.\n Baptizing administration of Christ, p. 338.\n Baptizing office of Christ, p. 273.\n _Baptizo_, p. 153.\n Conant\u2019s definitions, p. 155, 347.\n Kendrick\u2019s admissions, p. 349.\n It sounds best! p. 352.\n It knows not the resurrection, p. 347.\n _Baptiz\u014dntai_ and _rantiz\u014dntai_, p. 216.\n Barthelemi, Abbe, quoted, p. 184.\n \u201cBelieveth and is baptized,\u201d p. 437.\n Blood of Sprinkling, p. 30.\n Blood and water, and blood alone, p. 97.\n \u201cBorn of water and of the Spirit,\u201d p. 384.\n Brahminism the source of ritual immersion, p. 80.\n Breath of Christ\u2014the Spirit, p. 299.\n Bryant\u2019s Odyssey quoted, p. 127.\n \u201cBuried by baptism,\u201d p. 364.\n \u201cBuried in baptism,\u201d p. 371.\n\n\n Calvin on the baptizing commission, p. 424.\n Canaan, Office of the land of, p. 48.\n Candlestick, Seven-branched, p. 311.\n Carson quoted, p. 23, 89, 205, 368.\n Charter of the church, p. 53.\n Childbirth uncleanness, p. 62.\n Children and Christ, p. 461.\n Children clean, holy, p. 466.\n Children of Midian baptized, p. 81.\n Christ did not institute baptism, p. 428.\n Christ and the children, p. 461.\n Christian baptism one with John\u2019s, p. 424.\n Christian fathers on Levitical baptism, p. 192.\n Christ\u2019s baptism by John, p. 247.\n It sealed him Surety of the covenant, p. 252.\n Christ\u2019s \u201cbaptism that I am baptized with,\u201d p. 257.\n Christ\u2019s baptizing office, p. 273.\n Its two functions, p. 274, 284, 297.\n His administration, p. 338.\n Church defined, p. 49.\n Origin of its name, p. 51.\n Its charter, p. 53.\n Church and children, p. 461, 466.\n Church of Israel, p. 49, 411, 441.\n The Gentiles graffed in, p. 418.\n Circe, Ulysses\u2019 bath in her palace, p. 127.\n Circumcision. Its office, p. 24, 58, 373.\n Circumcision and Baptism, p. 58.\n Common Prayer Book on baptism, p. 354.\n Conant on _baptizo_, p. 155, 347.\n Converts of Pentecost. Their character, p. 444.\n Were baptized with water, p. 440.\n Cornelius\u2019 baptism, p. 432, 455.\n Council, of Ephesus, p. 281;\n of Jerusalem, p. 394;\n of Nice, p. 281;\n of Trent, p. 431.\n Covenant, Abrahamic, p. 37;\n of Sinai, p. 42.\n Its champions, Elijah and Elisha, p. 166;\n John, p. 230.\n It was the marriage, p. 37, 49.\n It and the better covenant, p. 224.\n The Messenger of the covenant, p. 223.\n Cyril of Alexandria, on Levitical baptism, p. 195.\n\n\n Dr. Dale quoted, p. 279, 441, 443, 451.\n \u201cDay of the assembly,\u201d p. 51.\n A day, a symbol of a lifetime, p. 109.\n Dead. Defilement by, p. 62.\n The rites of cleansing, p. 68.\n The meaning, p. 96.\n Dead Sea, as a type, p. 32, 34.\n Didymus Alexandrinus, p. 378.\n Divers baptisms imposed on Israel, p. 22.\n What were they? p. 103.\n\n\n Ebrard quoted, p. 294.\n _Eccl\u0113sia_. Origin of the name, p. 51.\n Egypt and Israel, p. 179.\n Egyptian bathing, p. 120.\n Egyptian baptism, p. 189.\n Elders. Their origin, p. 53.\n Eleusinian mysteries, p. 188.\n Elijah and Elisha, champions of the covenant, p. 166, 229.\n Elijah and John, p. 229.\n Ellicott (Bishop) on _loutron_, p. 323.\n End of the Baptist argument, p. 374.\n England, Church of\u2014Baptistic, p. 323, note; 354.\n Enon, The Springs, p. 360.\n Etheridge quoted, p. 78, 80, 169, 417, 418.\n Ethiopian eunuch, p. 451.\n Euripides quoted, p. 186, 187.\n Eusebius quoted, p. 417.\n Evidence of O. T. summed, p. 196.\n\n\n Family and the church, p. 53.\n Fathers of the church, on Levitical baptism, p. 192;\n on the old covenant and the new, p. 377.\n Feet. Their typical meaning, p. 134.\n Their washing, p. 124.\n Festival of pouring water, p. 143.\n It and the Eleusinia, p. 189.\n Figure of immersion not in the Old Testament, p. 23.\n Fire, The Baptism of, p. 284.\n The manner of it, p. 296.\n Formula of Baptism, p. 434, 438.\n Furniture and utensils baptized, p. 136, 219.\n\n\n Ganges. Immersion thence, p. 80.\n Gemara of Babylonia, p. 78;\n of Jerusalem, p. 78.\n Gentiles, place reserved in the Sinai covenant, p. 46.\n Israel\u2019s intercession for them, p. 47, 147.\n Graffed in, p. 418.\n Gentile purifyings, p. 8, 181, 189, 191.\n Godhead. Order of precedence, p. 274.\n Gospel in the Old Testament baptism, p. 95.\n Greek bath, p. 121, 127, 200, 207, 324.\n Their purifyings, p. 181.\n Grote, on Greek purifyings, p 181.\n\n\n Hair shaved, p. 102, 114, 399.\n Hakkodesh, Rabbi Judah, p. 78.\n Hebrew-Christian church, p. 411.\n Hellenistic Greek, p. 151.\n Herodotus on Greek purifyings, p. 182.\n Hillel and Shammai on proselyte baptism, p. 79.\n Homer quoted, p. 127, 325.\n Household and church, p. 53, 461.\n\n\n Imitations of baptism by the heathen, p. 8, 178, 189.\n Immersion. None in the Old Testament ritual, p. 23.\n None in its figures, p. 24.\n Not by the priests, p. 128.\n Nor by the people, p. 115, 116, 119, 134.\n Nor by the Pharisees, p. 208.\n The facilities unavailable, p. 126.\n Its incongruities, p. 202.\n Its origin, p. 80.\n India. Immersion thence, p. 80.\n Infant baptism,\n \u2014 in Israel, p. 81, 82,\n \u2014 among the Aztecs, p. 191,\n \u2014 among the Romans, p. 187,\n \u2014 in the Christian church, p. 461, 466, 471.\n \u201cInto Christ,\u201d and \u201cinto the name of Christ,\u201d p. 365, 434.\n \u201cInto the name,\u201d p. 431.\n \u201cInto the name of Christ,\u201d and, of the Three, p. 435.\n Israel a priest kingdom, p. 46.\n Israel at John\u2019s coming, p. 225.\n Israel compared with the Christian church, p. 305.\n Issues. Unclean by, p. 62.\n The cleansing, p. 69.\n\n\n Jailer of Philippi, p. 456.\n Jerome on Levitical baptism, p. 194.\n Jerusalem council, p. 394.\n Jerusalem Gemara, p. 78.\n Jesus, baptized by John, p. 247;\n his anointing, p. 254.\n \u201cThe baptism that I am baptized with,\u201d p. 257.\n The great baptizer, p. 267, 297.\n John and Elijah, p. 228.\n John\u2019s mission, p. 221.\n His baptism no novelty, p. 21.\n Its nature and end, p. 228.\n Identical with that of Christ, p. 425.\n Its mode, p. 237, 241.\n Josephus quoted, p. 156, 176, 178, 240, 250, 327.\n Judith\u2019s story and baptism, p. 172.\n\n\n Kabala, whence derived, p. 80.\n _K\u0101bas_ defined, p. 117.\n Kendrick on _baptizo_, p. 349, 458.\n Kingdom of heaven defined, p. 267.\n Christ\u2019s coronation, p. 273.\n Kingdom of priests, p. 46.\n Koran quoted, p. 174.\n\n\n \u201cLambs in his arms,\u201d p. 463.\n Laver of the Tabernacle, p. 129.\n Laver (_loutron_) of Paul, p. 323.\n Leprosy, unclean, p. 63, 161.\n Rites of cleansing, p. 66, 163.\n Levi, Rabbi, quoted, p. 147.\n Levites baptized, p. 85.\n Levitical baptisms all one, p. 86.\n Lewis\u2019 Origines Hebraeae quoted, p. 146, 149.\n Libation vase of Osor-Ur, p. 189.\n Life to the dead, meant by baptism, p. 92.\n Lightfoot quoted, p. 143, 146, 149.\n Living water. Its meaning, p. 31, 133, 387.\n Lord\u2019s supper is the passover, p. 408.\n Lynch, \u201cDead Sea Expedition\u201d quoted, p. 122, 125.\n\n\n Maimonides on proselyte baptism, p. 76.\n Malachi, and John, p. 291.\n Manuscripts of New Testament. Care in their transcription, p. 217.\n Maitland, \u201cChurch of the Catacombs,\u201d p. 124.\n Market. Baptism after, p. 214.\n Marriage feast, p. 209, 211.\n Messenger of the covenant, p. 223.\n Metaphor of water, p. 89, 386.\n Midianite children, baptism, p. 81.\n Mishna described, p. 78.\n Mission of John, p. 221.\n Missions. The new spirit imparted, p. 304.\n Mode implied in the meaning of self-washing, p. 115.\n Mohammedan washing before prayer, p. 174.\n Moore, T. V., on Malachi, p. 291.\n Mosheim quoted, p. 189, 418.\n \u201cMuch water there,\u201d p. 360.\n Murder, expiation, p. 123.\n Among the Greeks, p. 182, 184.\n\n\n Naaman\u2019s baptism, p. 157.\n New Testament Greek, p. 151.\n New Testament Church, how organized, p. 393, 411, 418.\n _Nidda_, Water of, p. 74.\n Noah saved by water, p. 333.\n\n\n Old Testament evidence summed p. 196.\n Onkelos, Targum of, p. 77.\n Order of precedence in the Godhead, p. 274.\n Mediatorial order, p. 275.\n Ordinances of testimony in Israel, p. 54.\n Osor-Ur. Libation vase, p. 189.\n Ovid on purifyings, p. 184.\n\n\n Palestine. Central position, p. 49, 178.\n Its geology and water, p. 120.\n Palestinian Gemara, p. 78.\n Passover described, p. 24, 410.\n Perpetuated in the supper, p. 408.\n Pentecost, p. 297.\n The Spirit baptism then given, p. 299, 304, 313, 318.\n The gifts imparted, p. 313, 318.\n The Spirit of missions then given, p. 304.\n Pharisees. The sect, p. 236, 412.\n Their purifyings, p. 209.\n Philip and the eunuch, p. 451.\n Philo Judaeus on the Levitical baptism, p. 77, 175, 187, 327.\n Ph\u0153nicia and Israel, p. 179, 183.\n Plato quoted, p. 181, 245.\n Pliny quoted, p. 452.\n Plutarch quoted, p. 326.\n Pool\u2019s Synopsis quoted, p. 149.\n Pouring of water. The festival, p. 143.\n Pouring water\u2014in ablutions, p. 119, 124.\n among the Greeks, p. 324.\n Pouring water in ritual washings of the hands, p. 123, 173.\n Prayer. Washings before, p. 173.\n In the Koran, p. 174.\n Priesthood of Aaron, His inauguration, p. 131, 248.\n It was no rule to Christ, p. 248.\n Age of office, p. 249.\n Priesthood of Christ not after Aaron\u2019s pattern, p. 250.\n Priest-kingdom, Israel, p. 46, 150.\n Priests\u2019 self-washings not immersions, p. 128.\n Pumbaditha rabbinic seminary, p. 78.\n Purifying of Jesus and Mary, p. 84.\n Purifyings of the Jews, p. 208.\n Purifyings of things, p. 102, 136, 219.\n\n\n Rabbi.\n Akiva, p. 213.\n Hillel, p. 79.\n Judah Hakkodesh, p. 78.\n Maimonides, p. 76, 79.\n Shammai, p. 79.\n Solomon, p. 149.\n Rabbinic baptism of Proselytes, p. 76, 81.\n Rabbinic Schools, p. 78.\n Rabbinic traditions of the red heifer, p. 142.\n _R\u0101hatz_, defined, p. 118.\n _Rantiz\u014dntai_ and _Baptiz\u014dntai_, p. 216.\n Rebaptism. Note on, p. 430.\n of John\u2019s disciples, p. 429.\n Red heifer. The ashes, p. 68, 69.\n In Philo, p. 175.\n in Josephus, p. 176.\n Rabbinic traditions, p. 142.\n Remission. Baptism of, p. 96, 244, 318.\n Resurrection symbolized by baptism, p. 92, 257, 265.\n Resurrection and _baptizo_, p. 347.\n Revised Version on _loutron_, p. 323.\n Revival at Sinai, p. 28.\n Baptism of the converts, p. 29.\n Revival under Hezekiah, p. 139.\n Purifying them, p. 139.\n Revival under John\u2019s ministry, p. 232.\n Revival of Pentecost, p. 297, 318.\n Ritual law. Its office, p. 54.\n Its relation to the Sinai covenant, p. 56.\n It had no immersions, p. 23, 115, 116, 119, 128, 134.\n It remains in force, p. 393.\n The Gentiles exempted, p. 395, 406.\n Paul kept and enforced it, p. 396, 402.\n Rushing mighty wind of Pentecost, p. 299.\n\n\n Sacraments of the Old Testament, p. 24;\n of the New, p. 408, 424.\n Sahagun quoted, p. 192.\n Sacrifice defined, p. 24.\n Sadducees. The sect, p. 412, 413.\n Saints. Origin of the title, p. 47, 469.\n Scrivener on the Greek MSS., p. 218.\n Sea of brass, p. 130.\n Sea water. Its meaning, p. 32.\n Idolatrous use of it, p. 187.\n Self-washings, p. 101, 108.\n Their relation to the sprinklings, p. 164, 105, 136.\n Separation. Water of, p. 68, 73.\n Septuagint. Its origin, p. 152.\n Seven candlesticks, p. 128, 311.\n Seven days uncleanness, p. 60, 64, 98.\n Seven sprinklings, p. 67, 98.\n Seventh day. Symbolic meaning, p. 64, 98.\n Shammai and Hillel on proselyte baptism, p. 79.\n Shasters, p. 80.\n _Sh\u0101taph_, defined, p. 117.\n Shaving off the hair, p, 114.\n By Paul, p. 399.\n Sinai. The scene, p. 27.\n The covenant, p. 42, 45.\n Relation of the Gentiles, p. 46, 53, 56.\n Place reserved for them, p. 46.\n Its conditions, p. 42.\n Its promises, p. 45.\n The revival there, p. 28.\n The baptism, p. 29.\n Smith\u2019s Dictionary quoted, p. 127, 184, 188, 247, 324, 363.\n Socrates and Phaedrus, p. 245.\n Solomon, Rabbi, quoted, p. 149.\n Son of man. His kingdom, p. 267.\n His administration, p. 338.\n Sophocles quoted, p. 325, 326.\n Sora rabbinic school, p. 78.\n Sprinkling represents rain, p. 35.\n Its meaning, p. 88, 99.\n State of the N. T. question, p. 201.\n Susannah\u2019s story, p. 122.\n\n\n _T\u0101bal._ Its meaning, p. 79, 157.\n Tabernacle. Its symbolic structure, p. 128.\n Tabernacles. The feast of, p. 144.\n Talmud described, p. 78.\n Talmudic baptism, p. 76.\n Targums described, p. 77.\n Ten commandments, the eternal law of the covenant, p. 43.\n Tertullian quoted, p. 193, 378.\n Theodosia Earnest quoted, p. 233, 236.\n Theophrastus quoted, p. 324.\n Things purified, p. 102, 136, 219.\n Third day. Its typical meaning, p. 100.\n Thomson. The Land and the Book, p. 34.\n Tiberias rabinnic school, p. 78.\n Tongues as of fire, p. 310.\n Tongues. Other, p. 313.\n Transcription of the N. T. Care in it, p. 217.\n Transfiguration of Jesus, p. 230.\n Trinity. Order of precedence, p. 274.\n Procession of the Spirit, p. 281.\n Typical structure of the tabernacle, p. 128.\n\n\n Ulysses\u2019 bath, p. 127.\n Unclean. Its meaning, p. 60, 466.\n Unclean seven days. The meaning, p. 60, 98.\n How cleansed, p. 65.\n Unclean till even. Two causes, p. 108.\n The meaning, p. 109.\n Union wrought by baptism, p. 322, 332.\n Utensils and furniture baptized, p. 136, 219.\n\n\n Various reading of Mark vii, 4, p. 216.\n Vedas, referred to, p. 80.\n Virgil quoted on purifyings, p. 186.\n\n\n Waldenses referred to, p. 49.\n Washing. Before prayer, p. 173.\n Mohammedan, p. 174.\n Washing, the hands, p. 111.\n the hands and feet, p. 111, 124.\n the garments, p. 112.\n the flesh, p. 113.\n Washings of the people. Domestic, p. 119.\n Ritual, p. 134, 210.\n Of the priests, p. 128.\n Before meals, p 210.\n \u201cWashing of water by the word,\u201d p. 390.\n Water, fresh and salt, p. 31, 32.\n Water, Metaphor of, p. 387.\n Water. Festival of outpouring, p. 143.\n Wilkinson\u2019s Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, p. 120.\n Wind, Rushing mighty,\u2014of Pentecost, p. 299.\n Witness. Israel\u2019s office, p. 47, 54.\n\n\n Zend Avesta, referred to, p. 80.\n Zion. Out of her the law, p. 420.\n Zoroaster referred to, p. 80.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nSpelling and punctuation, where printer or editorial errors were\nobvious, has been corrected.\n\nSome idiosyncracies should be noted. In several captions, there is a\nperiod following the word \u2018Sir\u2019, as \u2018Sir. Wm. Hamilton\u2019, implying an\nabbreviation. This also appears once in the text, and once without the\nperiod. All are given here as printed. The variant spellings \u2018sepulchre\u2019\nand \u2018sepulcher\u2019 are both used frequently, and are all retained.\n\nThe following table summarizes the resolution of any other errors.\nErrors in the formatting or punctuation of the index entries were\ncorrected with no further comment here.\n\n 95.34 But in order [?] adequate appreciation _sic_: missing\n word?\n\n 121.20 And, when they left Eg[py/yp]t Transposed.\n\n 130.31 about fifteen feet by seven and a half[,/.] Replaced.\n\n 172.20 they s[ie/ei]ze Transposed.\n\n 189.23 it may be, by tradit[i]on>, from the parents Added.\n of the race\n\n 192.7 [the goddess of water].[\u2019] Added.\n\n 211.24 it is interpreted, \u201cto the elbows,[\u201d] Added.\n\n 220.21 whilst Paul used the[ the] word Removed.\n\n 224.24 Heb. viii[i], 6. Removed.\n\n 226.35 or the favor of the rabble[,/.] Replaced.\n\n 235.5 that two years afterw[e/a]rd the evangelist Replaced.\n\n 263.4 I have kept the faith[?/!] Replaced.\n\n 276.19 to involve his government in[./,] chaos, God Replaced.\n in the mystery\n\n 326.16 [(](_loutra_) _libations_ Removed.\n\n 334.16 \u201cquickened as to the spirit[./,]\u201d Replaced.\n\n 340.12 and his rest shall be glorious.\u201d\u2014Isa. xi, [1, Removed.\n ]10.\n\n 344.27 So, the prop[eh/he]cy cited by Peter Transposed.\n\n 348.31 obscuring of[ of] the subject Removed.\n\n 365.5 [\u201c]Likewise reckon ye also yourselves Added.\n\n 354.9 That church had or[i]ginally incorporated Added.\n\n 392.27 I have spoken unto you.[\u201d] Added.\n\n 401.12 the apostle repeat[a/e]dly and unqualifiedly Replaced.\n asserted\n\n 410.16 and distributed a second cup[,/.] Replaced.\n\n 420.7 Let him not become uncircumcised[.] Added.\n\n 431.13 to observe all things whatso[e]ver Added.\n\n 436.13 that believed on his name.\u201d\u2014J[no/oh]. i, 12. Replaced.\n\n 464.12 signif[inif]icant Removed.\n\n 466.21 _unclean_ (_akathartoi_), and _holy_ Replaced.\n (_hagioi_[,/.])\n\n 474.24 They [in-]include the Sinai constitution Removed.\n\nCHECK ON 466.21 & 326.16 if the inline pm can be fixed.....","title":"A Bible History of Baptism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":165003}