^ PRINCETON, N. J. 9^. Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Ag.new Coll. on Baptism, No. "W)) ^/ -Jy^-^'J^' ^^4-j [!.-*" ^"^' •;.fj L''V '-, 1, r^; 4 " ; t?i-j. I^pv Studies on Baptism.] [FilOiSTlSPIKCB. p. 292. BAPTISTERY IN THE CATACOMB OF ST. PONTIANUS. STUDIES ON The Baptismal Question; INCLITDING A KETIBW Off m. DALE'S "INQUIEY INTO THE USAGE OE BAPTIZO." BY REV. DAVID B. FORD. BOSTON: H. A. YOUNG & CO., 13 BROMFIELD STREET. NEW YOEK: "WARD & DRUMMOND, 116 NASSAU STREET. 1879. stereotyped and printed by Rand, Avery, and Company, 117 Franklin Street, Boston. PEEFAOE. This Treatise on the Baptismal Question, a portion of which originally appeared in the columns of " The Watchman," embraces among its studies, and as a part of the same, a Review of Dr. Dale's "Inquiry into the Usage of Baptizo," — the first extended examination of that wonderful work which has yet appeared. While we have aimed in these pages to be irenic and conciliatory, rather than polemic, we have yet endeavored to set forth the truth, let it favor or impugn whom it might. Any notice of misrepresenta- tions or mistakes occurring in this volume will be most thanlrfuUy received by the author. By the disuse of Greek type, and by frequent translation of Latin quo- tations, we have sought to furnish a treatise which our intelligent laymen could, for the most part, easily understand; while, at the same time, we have designed to make it a thesaurus on the whole subject, which should be so complete and reliable, that students and preachers in general may find in it all which they will really need. And now this our work, with whatever of merit it may have (for which we are indebted to many libraries and to many friends), and with whatever of imperfection, is given to the public with the hope and prayer that it may further the cause of truth and of Christ, and be promotive of true charity and Christian union among " all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." DAVID B. FOED. Hanover, Mass. OOI^TTEl^TS. CHAPTER I. GENERAL CHAEACTERI8TICS OF DR. DALE'S "WORK AND THEORY (pp. 5-12). Hugeness of the work, 5; extensive consideration of synonymes, 5; dip versus baptizo and immerse, 6; "tlie theory" of Baptists (?), 6; spirit of the work, grateful acknowledgments and courtly gibes, 7; the work essentially baptistic, 7; haptizo demands " intusposition," 8; baptizo makes demand for " condition," 9; alleged secondary meaning, 9; purifying influence of Wil- liams, Beech er, and Godwin, 10; Dale's controlling influence without intus- position, 10; Dr. Whitsitt's application of the influence theory, 10; several "final" definitions, 11; "a myriad-sided word," 12; too indefinite for Christ's law to His church, 12. CHAPTER n. COMPLIMENTART TESTIMONIALS (pp. 13-15). Dr. Dale's virtual Quakerism, 13; indorsed by Pedobaptists generally, 13; extravagant commendations, 13; a dissenting voice in " The New-Englander," 13, 14; sabsequjent authors depending on Dr. Dale, 14, 15. CHAPTER in. A DALE (J. W.) OVERWHELMED (pp. 16-18). Baptismal intusposition and ine\dtable drowning, 16; "a dipping kills nobody," 17; hopes of emergence succeeded by despair, 17; baptizo summoned to the rescue, 18. CHAPTER IV. WATER-BAPTISM NOT A DROWNING- (pp. 19-22). Remarks of Drs. Kendrick and Carson, 19; advocates of a drowning bap- tism, 19; no fatal suffocation in Naaman's sevenfold baptism, 20; ship-sinking baptisms, 20; Conant's baptizein, 20; divers classic examples versus inevita- ble drowning, 21, 22. V vi CONTENTS. CHAPTER Y. WATEPv-BAPTISM MORE THAN A WETTTN'G (pp. 23-27). " The Congregationalist," 23; Professor G. B. Jewett, 23; pouring and sprin- kling " not tlie most natural servitors " of baptizo, 23; patristic and classic exam- ples versus partial wettings, 24; testimony of Casaubon, Turretin, and Witsius, 24; partial immersions, 25; Dr. Brenner's baptizein, 25; baptism of Carmel's altar by pouring, — Origen, 26; immersion by sprinkling, — "Walter Scott, 26; Carson's " dip, and nothing but dip," surrendered, 27; his "immerse, and nothing else," adopted, 27; Beecher's and Dale's definitions of baptizo primary accepted, 27. CHAPTER VI. CLASSIC FIGURATIVE BAPTISMS. — ATTEMPTS AT DEFINITION (pp. 28-37). " Fifteen different meanings," 28; patristic names for baptism, 28; " all the lexicographers " versus Carson, 28; Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, 28; tropical significations, 29; immersion or submergence their one ground meaning, 29; immerse treated like baptizo, 29; a controlling-influence baptism should be grounded on a " mersive influence," 30; concession of Professor Anthon, 30; whelming baptisms, 31; Doddridge on Christ's baptism of suffering, 31; attempts at definition, — immerse, dij), plunge, whelm, 32; Conant's seven defining terms justified, 33; pouring regarded as the "causative," not the "constitutive," act of a pouring baptism, 34; Dale's antagonistic specific defi- nitions, 34; Professor Kendrick on Dale's "bewilderment," 35; radical and essential meanings becoming strangely obsolete, 36; baptizing a river, 36; how the verb " to name " may denote a baptism of influence, 37. CHAPTER VH. JUDAIC PURIFTING BAPTISMS (pp. 38-44). Septuagint and Apocrypha, 38; baptisms of pollution, 38; "diverse bap- tisms" of Judaism, 38; baptizings of pots, cups, &c., 39; baptisms in Philo and in Josephus, 39, 40; immersion as symbolic of purification, 41, 42; conces- sions of Eev. J. Chrystal and Dr. Wall, 41, 42; a receptive element may exert a purifying agent influence, 43; immersion as best symbolizing the purifying idea of baptism, 43, 44. CHAPTER VIH. PURLFTING BAPTISM IN SIRACH, — ECCLUS. XXXIV. 25 (pp. 45-48). Purification of a corps-3-defiled man, 45; completed by a baptismal loutron, or bathing, 45; this text as used by Cyprian and the Donatists, 45; meaning of rdhats and touo, 45; Campbell and Carson on Zowo, 46; loutron in the Septua- gint and New Testament, 46; Delitzsch on the Judaic " diverse baptisms," 46; CONTENTS. Vii S. Fuller's " loutron, or water-baptism," 46; the Jewish loutron, 47; testimony of Rabbi Wise, 47; Barclay's Talmud, 48; the design of haptizo not expressed in the word itself. 48. CHAPTER IX. JOSEPirUS' BAPTISM OF HEIFER-ASHES (pp. 49-53). Whiston's translation, 49; Bekker's amended text, 49; translations of Co nant and others, 49; specimens of Dale's elucidation of the original text, 50 ; bis rendering versus Hudson's and Dindorf's, 51; not sustained by Cyril of Alexandria, 52; no such thing as " baptism by the sprinkling of heifer-ashes," 62, 53. CHAPTER X. JUDITH'S BAPTISM AT THE FOUNTAIN" (pp. 54-59). The story of Judith, 54; her baptism in the camp at the fountain, 55, 56; the "mode" was immersion and emersion, 57; Carson misrepresented by Hutchings, 57; other instances of females bathing at a fountain, 58; St. Patrick's baptism of Ethna and Fethlema at the Fountain Clebach, 58; the fondness of haptizo for rivers, pools, &c., 58; St. Patrick's baptizing in rivers, 59. CHAPTER XI. XNTOXrCATINQ- BAPTISMS (pp. 60-66). Many examples in the classics, 60; the mode of such baptisms was by "drinking," 60; baptized with wine, or wine-soaked, 61; inebriating influence conceived as baptismal element, 61 ; C. Taylor's marvellous explanation of a drunken baptism, 61; Latin words signifying to wet, soak, &c., often applied to the inebriate, 61 ; so the Greek brecJio and hiipohrecho,&1; have all these words acquired the meaning of controlling influence ? 62 ; quotation from Dale on intoxicating baptisms, 63; patristic baptism of blood and of tears, 63; Thebe's baptism of Alexander with " much wine " at Pherje, illustrative of John's baptism at ^non, (54; Christ's baptism of penal suffering effected by His drinking of the " cup " ? 65; baptism by drinking at the Fountain of SUenus, 65; will drinking pure or " sanctified " water baptize ? 65, QQ. CHAPTER XII. ALLEGED CHANGE OF MEAISTNG IN" BAPTO (pp. 67-82). Bapto and 6apii20 formerly treated as one word, 67; their resemblance and differences, 67; hapitizo often equivalent to bapto, 67; analogical reasoning from a change of 'meaning in bapto to a change of meaning in baptizo, 68; words en- tirely lose their primary, essential meanings ? 68, 69; alleged instances of bapto thus losing its primary meaning, 70; Nebuchadnezzar's dew-dipping, 70; exam- ples from the classics, 70; Hippocrates' usage as regards bapto, 71; Carson's dii CONTENTS. unfortunate use of the term "mode," 71, 72; Aristotle's sea^coast baptism, 72; lake-dipping in the blood of a frog, 73; change of syntax as proving a change of meaning, 74; Milton's and Cowper's color-dippings, 74; has our " dip " lost its radical meaning ? 74, 75 ; secondary meanings as having a status independent of the primary, 75; cavilling at the " incongruities " of a metaphor, 75; different meanings of dip, 76; hapto never lost its primary meaning, 77; examples of Buch meaning in Hippocrates, the Septuagint, and New Testament, 77; tabal, to dip, found sixteen times in the Old Testament, and hapto eighteen times in the Septuagint, 77; different meanings of hapto, 78; a secondary mean- ing to hapto no proof that ftaptizo has one, 79; a ritual water-baptism has no concern with any secondary meaning, 79; illustrated by "circumcise" and " dip," 80; Dale's discussion as to the secondary use of words irrelevant to the baptismal controversy, 81, 82. CHAPTER Xin. LOOSE EEASONINGS (pp. 83-99). Samples of loose reasoning in general, 83 ; specimens not of the " logic of Chillingworth " In Dale's volumes, 84, 85; his explanation of the patristic, " momentary water-covering," 86; ignoring the distinction of act and effect, 87; Cyprian's divine compends of baptism, 87; the patristic perfusion a vir- tual immersion, 88; J. A. Alexander's defence of baptismal compends, 89; Chrystal on misinterpretation of Cyprian, 89; Dale's syllogism regarding Cyprian's sprinkling-baptism, 90; our compend observance of the Lord's Sup- per, 90 ; arguing from supposed significance of the rite, 91 ; patristic panegyrics on baptism, 91; patristic baptism "no mere dipping in water," 92; Dale's incursion among the " fathers," and his report of their views, 92; Dr. Hague versits reasoning from the " signification of the rite," 93; confounding of mode with act, 94; divers inconsistencies and contradictions, 95; ignoring of active and passive forms, 96; symbolizing baptism versus baptizing " symbolly," 96; the act of baptism, 97; looseness, in the explication of the meaning of words, 97; "eat" and "drink "thus explicated, 97, 98; weighty words of Professors Chase and Eipley, 99. CHAPTER XIV. THE rNTXITENCE THEORY US THE NEW TESTAMENT (pp. 100-112). Meaning of haptizo supposed to be changed by religious usage, 100; the enacting term in a law should be definite, 100; to a correspondent, 101; how immerse may be made to mean, not immerse, but sprinkle, 101; testimony of Professor Sophocles as to the unchanged meaning of haptizo, 102; what "baptize into " denotes, 102; the New Testament furnishes for haptizo "ideal elements," instead of water, 102; bajitisms of (effected by) doctrine, 103; "repentance baptizes," 103; commentators on Heb. vi. 2, 103; Scripture phraseology changed to suit the influence theory, 104; Dale's water-rite examples no ritual baptisms, 104; such examples recognized in the N^w Testament, 105; a double baptism by the Holy Ghost, 105; water-baptism mfluenced out of the New Testament, 106; " haiMzo has no control over water m the New Testament," 107; force of this acknowledgment, 107; what did CONTENTS. is. Philip do? 107; influence theory and the great commission, 108; "a ritual baptism by water was not instituted in the commission," 108; yet a water- late is insinuated into the discipling process, 108; how sprinkling into the name, &c., could be conserved for the infliience theory, 108; different methods of discipling, 109; a ritual baptism into the name of the Trinity declared to be impossible, 109; infants, as an "integral i)art of the nations," entitled to a water-rite, 110; questions for consideration. 111, 112; importance of the bap- tismal rite. 111 ; thoughtful words of Alf ord, 111, 112. CHAPTER XV. BAPTIZO AJSTD THE PEEPOSITIONS. — " IDEAL ELEMENTS" (pp. 113-131). Baptizo removed from all connection with its natural element by means of " ideal elements," 113; its natural affinity for water, 114; number of examples in the New Testament of baptizing in and into a commonly-supposed element, 114; Professor Abbot on Mark i. 8, 114; eis with so-called ideal elements, 115; baptism into repentance, 115; Alexander Campbell's baptizing into (to effect a) "reformation," 116; views of different writers, 116; references to different authors on John's baptism, 117; baptism into Moses, into the name of Paul, &c., 117; water " naturally designates the element," 117; incongru- ous phraseology, 117; baptizing into, in, and upon a name, 118; patristic usage, 118; Dr. Dale on eis with ideal elements versus Professor Cremer, 119, 120; baptizing into ideal elements leaves John with nothing to do, 119; alleged baptisms into ideal elements outside the Scriptures, 119, 120; John's baptizing "symbolly," and symbolizing baptism, 120; a superhuman task to influence men with water into repentance, 121 ; repentance by the influence theory is baptizer, element, and instrument, 121 ; meaning of baptism of re- pentance into remission, 122; Scripture connection of repentance and remis- sion, 122; force of baptisma, 122; Professor E,ipley and others on baptism and remission, 123; this remission in John's baptism present, or future? 124; no baptism of impenitent men into repentance, 124; immersion in water naturally symbolic of mersion into repentance, 125; ideal elements need not preclude a physical baptism, 125; a marvellous change wrought on the body by its "symbol baptism," 126; acknowledged ritual baptisms into ideal ele- ments, 126; both in and into used in the same baptism, 126; a twofold bap- tism corresponding to man's twofold nature, 127; a " symbol baptism of the body" allowed if effected with water, but not in water, 127; why John did not practise that water-rite which best symbolizes a baptism "into repent- ance," 128; " John was [not] commissioned to drown," &c., 128; meaning of eis in connection with ideal elements and baptismal formula, 128, 129; various authors cited, 128, 129; views of Drs. Carson, Ashmore, and Towersou, 130;. quotation from Professor Broadus, 131. CHAPTER XVI. BAPTIZO AND THE PREPOSITIONS. — "INTO THE JORDAN" (pp. 132-141). Baptize into affirmed to be an organic phrase, with three exceptions, 132; meaiung of eis in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, 133; the author of "New and X CONTENTS. Decisive Evidence" puzzled, 133; substituting sprinkling, pouring, &c., for iaptizo, throws every thing " out of kilter," 133; Carson on " making clear pas- sages dark," 133; his remarks on the three prepositions {eis, en, and ek) assum- ing together an unusual signification, 134; on purchasing "provisions" at Eome, 134; examples of words changing their meaning, 134; Professor St^iart in "a strait," 135; meaning of the phrase "into the Jordan," 136; uses of eis and ek, 137; no reason for departing from literal meaning, 138; why rivers ■were resorted to, 138; TertuUian's indifference to kinds of water, 138; satisfied with the prepositions as they are, 139; baptizo eis, whether into or at, de- mands intusposition, 139; quotation from the " Philosopher of Tuhbermore," 140, 141. CHAPTER XVn. BAPTIZO A17D THE PREPOSITIOXS. — " LS" " WATER, &c. (pp. 142-153). Prepositions connected with classic baptizo, 142; baptizo en, according to Dale, may express an unending mersion, 142 ; may put the baptizer in the water, rather than the candidate, 143; in the Jordan as meaning at or near, 144; baptizing in the wilderness creates no necessity for dipping in "waste lands," &c., 144; John's first (?) baptizing-iDlace in Bethany beyond the Jordan, 145; baptizing in ^non, 145; en as meaning not only at and near, but with, 145; Dr. Campbell on our authorized version, 146 ; en as used Hebraistically, 147 ; explaining clear pas- sages by dark ones, 147; C. Taylor on the drowning scarecrow, 148; baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, 148; fire-baptism referred to punishment, 148; fire as explanatory of the Spirit's efficacy, 149; the baptizer " being in the Holy Ghost and fire " iDurifies by the same, 149; yet not purifies, but punishes, the impeni- tent, 150; the Holy Spirit no quiescent element, 150; diverse baxrtisms in the Spirit, 150; no baptism of the Spirit, 151; the Pentecostal baptism, 151; out- pouring of the Spirit antecedent to the iromersion in it, 151; baptism in the. Spirit indicates overflowing abundance, 152, 153; views of ancient and modem authors, 152, 153. CHAPTER XVIH. BAPTIZO "WITHOUT THE PREPOSITIONS. — "WITH" WATER (pp. 154-162). John's water-baptism six times contrasted with the Spirit's baptism, 154; the word for water being four times in the nude " dative of instrument," a suj)- posed proof that baptism is not immersion, 154; De "Wette's and Winer's expla- nation, 155; the witJi does not exclude the ui, 155; immersion consistent with agency or instrument, 156; with and in are kindred to each other, 156; exam- ples of nude ablative not forbidding immersion, 157, 158; examples in the Greek fathers of simple dative with verbs demanding intusposition, 159-162; depress- ing the head in baptism, 160-162; supjposed baptisms by merely touching the head, 160-162. CHAPTER XIX. BAPTISM OF THE MULTITUDES BY JOKN" (pp. 163-173). Numbers supposed to have been baptized, 163; their immersion declared to be impossible, 164; one of Carson's canons, 165; John on the bank or in the CONTENTS. xi river? 165; multitudes sent away unlDaptized, 16(5; comparative numlDer of John's and Jesus' baptized disciples, 166; Jolm continuously baptizing, 167; why iEnon was selected, 167; Jesus did not select watering-i)laces for the multitudes who followed Him, 168; women and children excluded from John's baptism, 168; Palestine a land of brooks and fountains, 168, 169; disrobing and enrobing, 169; Stanley on pilgrim bathing, 170; Dean Alford on John's baptism and proselyte baptism, 170; Dr. Wall, E. G. Bengel, and others, on proselyte baptism, 171; Lieut. Lynch' s description of pilgrim bath- ing, 172, 173. CHAPTER XX. BAPTISM OF COUCHES (pp. 174-178). Carson on objection from difficulties not involving impossibility, 174 ; view of Professors Shedd and Alexander, 174; Professor Abbot and others on the original text and its translation, 174; what were these klinai, how defiled, and how purified, 175; Clement's baptizing " upon bed," 176; clinic baptisms, 177; Dean Stanley on the original form of baptism, 177; " credulity sorely taxed," 178; Carson again aspersed by Hutchings, 178. CHAPTER XXI. BAPTISM OF THE "THREE THOUSAND" (pp. 179-192). "Water-resources in Jerusalem, 179; Hutchings' and Dale's insuperable dif- ficulties, 180; difficulties of attendance at the ancient festivals, 180; statements of Josephus, 181; alack both of wood and water around Jerusalem, 182, 183; many ablutionary purifications required, 182, 183; C. Taylor on self-immersion prior to the baptismal laouring, 183; the Jews not likely to favor the Chris- tians with facilities of immersion, 184; immersion of the three thousand by the apostles declared to be impossible, 184, 185; how many were baptized? 186; did the apostles ever iiersonally administer baptism? 186; the administra- tors of baptism in the New Testament, 187; time required for "any reverent application of water," 187; the Sandwich-Island compendious mode of baptism, 188 ; the three thousand may not all have been bajitized in one day, 188 ; native Greeks have ever recognized baptism as immersion, 189; immersion of other three thousands in one day, 189; baptism of Northiimbrians by Paulinus, 189; baptism of Clovis and more than three thousand of his army, 190; and of " aboiit three thousand" in Constantinople by Chrysostom's presbyters, 190- 192; references to works of Dr. Cathcart and Eev. H. S. Burrage, 192. CHAPTER XXH. BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH (pp. 193-200). Specimen of Dale's interpretative capacities, 193; Dr. Thomson on the lo- cality of the eunuch's baptism, 194; the going-down of kaiabaino allows no second step ? 194 ; Professor Stuart on katabaino cis, 194 ; entering tlic water "even to the loins" for the sake of sprinkling, 195; Heaton's suggested im- xii CONTENTS. provements of Luke's phraseology, 195 ; Tcatabaino eis will not only take one into, hut will even cover with, water, 196 ; the eunuch's long journey, attend- ants, and supplies, 197; Doddridge on the unnaturalness of going down to the water for a mere hand-pouring, 198; the servant of Jehovah sprinkling many nations, 198; the Septuagint version silent as to any sprinkling, 199; opinions of commentators, 199, 200. CHAPTER XXni. BAPTISMAL BUEIAL (pp. 201-221). Carson on the meaning and value of Eom. vi. 3, 4, 201 ; most " commentators of note " see in this passage a reference to immersion, 201; Stuart and Beecher on the practice of the church fathers, 202; quotations from the fathers, 202- 205; testimony of Dr. "Wall, 206, 207; what Dale thinks of the patristic "mo- mentary covering in water," 208; he sees in Eom. vi. 3, 4, no reference to exter- nal rite, 208; Meyer on baptizo eis, and on the meaning of this passage, 209; views of Matthies and Canon Lightfoot, 210; haptism a symbol of death and resurrection, 210; commentators on Col. ii. 12, and on Peter's assertion that haptism saves " through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," 211; how much of the apostle's representation is literal, and how much figurative, 211, 212 ; further testimony of the fathers, 213; views of Dr. Towerson, Eev. J. Owen, and Pres- sense, 214; Beecher's three positions, and Dale's " legitimate argument," 215; into name, into death, &c., not proper baptismal elements, 215; a baptism into ideal elements allowed if done by sprinkling, 216; eternity of condition sym- bolized by immersion quite as well as by sprinkling, 217 ; immersion as natu- rally symbolizing death and burial, 217; the word (immerse), which by its in- tusposition creates thorough influence, should be used to express that influence, 218; objection that the performance of an external rite cannot prove deadness to sin, 218; all the baptized, sanctified, and justified Christians of Rome, Cor- inth, and Galatia, actually free from sin ? 219; views of commentators and the fathers, 220, 221. CHAPTER XXIY. BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AKD SEA, AND AS TYPIFIED BY THE FLOOD (pp. 222-228). Paul's use of the prepositions not satisfactory to our opponents, 222 ; why Paul speaks of a Mosaic baptism, 223; Meyer's remarks concerning cloud and sea, 223; De Wette on the dry-ground immersion, 223; meaning of baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 224; concessions of Professor Stuart and other Pedobaptists, 224; the cloud and sea baptism as effected by rain- drops and spray, 225 ; the Israelites by the miracle of cloud and sea were in- duced to intuspose themselves into Moses, 225; this figurative intusposition imparted a Mosaic influence which led them to become subject to Moses for an indefinite period, 225; this period was, in reality, very brief, 226 ; with the fathers, the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts signified the drowning of the devil and one's sins in baptism, 226 ; the patristic symbology of the Noachian flood-baptism, 226; interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21, 226; views of commentators CONTENTS. xiii on tlie eperotema (" answer ") of a good conscience, 227; Luther's reference to the baptism of the flood and of the Red Sea in his " Form for the Baptism of Infants," 228. CHAPTER XXV. BAPTISMAL BATHTN-G (pp. 229-238). Diverse views as to the common way of Greek bathing, 229; the common- ness of bodily ablution in the ancient East, 230; rahats, louo, and lavo, 230; Noel on Naaman's baptismal bathing in the Jordan, 230 ; loutron in the New Testa- ment, 231; contrast between louo and nipto, baptizo and nipto, in the New Testa- ment, 231; commentators on the after-market baptizing of Mark vii. 4, 232; Jewish and Egyptian bathings, 232, 233; our Saviour's contact with a crowd deemed equivalent to a market exposure (Luke xi. 38), 233 ; views of commen- tators on this passage, 234; the Abyssinian Kemmont, 234; frequency of bath- ing among the Greeks and Romans, 234; bathing as represented on some an- cient vases, 235; the haptisteria of Pliny large enough to swim in, 235; descrip- tion of baths and bathing among the ancients, 236; nothing unusual to the early Christians in the practice or form of immersion, 237; something of "form" in trine inunersion, 237; this practice spoken of as a tradition, 238. CHAPTER XXVI. rNFANT-BAPTISM (pp. 239-260). Testimony of Pedobaptists who yet deny any express Scripture precept or example for infant-baptism, 239-241; how the duty of infant-baptism could have been made plain, 242; the New-Testament Scriptures testify against infant-baptism, 242; " men and women," but no infants, baptized at Samaria, 243; divers contradictory grounds for infant-baptism, 243; the practice not justified by the Saviour's blessing little children, 244-246 ; views of commenta- tors, 244-246; not justified by Peter's reference to the " promise" (Acts ii. 39), nor by the asserted " holiness " of children who have pious parentage (1 Cor. vii. 14), 247; views of different writers, 248; not justified on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision, 249; contrast between the law of cir- cumcision and of Christian baptism, 250, 251; circumcision a fleshly ordinance, determining nothing as to one's faith or piety, 252; the Jewish national theocracy not a pattern for the Christian Church, 252; the different covenants made with Abraham, and their differing promises, 253, 254 ; the visible church declared to be "identical under both dispensations," 255; argument from grafting into the good olive-tree, 255; Christian governments wholly derelict touching the obligation of the Abrahamic covenant, 256; feeble utterances respecting the duty of infant-baptism in the articles of the Protestant and Reformed Episcoi:5al churches, 256; the churches of Christ should not invite the enemy within to sow "tares," 257; remarks of Professor Stuart and Dr. Sears, 257; what advantage hath the Jew? 257, 258; a resemblance ac- knowledged between circumcision and baptism, 258; the apostles and elders declared circumcision abolished, and never spoke of baptism as a substitute, 259, 260. 2dv CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXVII. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS (pp. 261-272). Difference between household baptism and circumcision baptism, 261; unre- generate adults of the family to be baptized, 262; Dr. Dale on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, 262 ; the kingdom of God as embracing, not the state or national, but only the family constitution, 262; the actual workings of this constitution of Christ's kingdom, 263 ; this household scheme as supported by the blood-sprinkling which saved the first-born, 264, and by the co-baptism of a half-million parents and children into Moses, 265; number of believing and of baptized households in the New Testament, 266 ; meaning of the expres- sion " forbid the water," 266; earliest utterances of post-apostolic history respecting the "mode," 267; scriptural and baptistic methods of reporting baptisms, 268; members of the three baptized households all believers, 269; the household of Stephanas, 269; the Philippian jailer's household, 270; the household of Lydia, 271; C. Taylor's distinction between oikos and oikia, 271; Heaton's " moral certainty " based on a slim conjecture, 272; views of MattMea and Professor Plumptre, 272. CHAPTER XXVni. rNFAlirT-BAPTISM AND THE "COMMISSION." — nTFANT-COMMUNION (pp. 273-285). Dr. Wall finds infants among the " nations " which were to be baptized, and entered as scholars, 273; Drs. "Woods and "Wardlaw make the commission in- clude infants by inserting the words " proselyte," or " circumcise," 274; accord- ing to the commission, either no infants, or else all infants, should be baptized, 275 ; are the nations to be discii3led by baptizing and teaching ? 275 ; testimony of the fathers, 276; this discipling process necessarily excludes infants and unbelievers, 277; discipling not necessarily effected by baptizing, 278; no refer- ence to infants in the commission, 279; Calvin's negative argument refuted by himself, 280; infant-communion in the early church, 280; grounds for infant- communion, 281; Jeremy Taylor's argument for infant-communion, 282,283; views of other writers, 284, 285. CHAPTER XXIX. BAPTISMAL MONUMENTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH (pp. 286-308). Meaning of the term baptisteries, 286 ; their origin and magnificence, 286 size and capacity of their fonts, 287, 288; the baptismal font at Tyre, 289, 290 the so-called baptismal font of Ephesus, 290, 291; fonts in Palestine, 291, 292 picture-baptism in the cemetery of St. Pontianus, 292-295; other picture-bap- tisms in the catacombs, 296, 297; no sign of hand-pouring, 298; all the newly- baptized were called infants, 298; imposition of hands in baptism, 299; in- scriptions in the catacombs making mention of the baptism of children, 300, 301 ; ]3icture-baptisms outside of the catacombs, 302 ; pictures in which John holds a shell in his hand, 303-305; pictures of compend(?) baptisms, 306-308. CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER XXX. DTFANT-BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH (pp. 309-333) . A " thorny " controversy, 309; infant-'baptism cannot be shown to have pre- vailed during the first two centuries after Christ, 309 ; utterances of Hermas, Justin, and Clement, have no reference to the baptism of infants, 310; Irenseus' assertion that infants, &c., are regenerated by Christ, 310; views of German Pedobaptist scholars, and of Professor Chase, 311; Tertullian the first who plainly speaks of the baptism of little ones, — only, however, to oppose it, 312 ; further patristic panegyrics on baptism, 312; only in and through baptism were men to be born of the Spirit, 313; decision of a council at Carthage on the questioning of Fidus, 314; baptism with the fathers a synonyme of salva- tion, 315; they assign unbaptized infants to eternal condemnation, 316; a supposed history of the gradual introduction of infant-baptism, 316; long- continued and persistent opposition to its practice, 317; evidence of its neglect or non-existence, 318, 319; a deep-felt conviction of the necessity of a volun- tary profession in baptism, 320; views regarding Tertullian's opposition to pedobaptism, 321-324; Origen on parvuli baptism, 325, 326; the little worth of alleged apostolic tradition, 327, 328 ; age of Tertullian's and Origen's baptized little ones, 329; quotation from Bunsen and others, 330-332; references on this general subject, 333. CHAPTER XXXI. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND REMISSION (pp. 334-365). Views of the fathers and of the Pelagians touching the phrase "born of water," &c., 334, 335; Pusey's "Nicodemus question," 336; water and Spirit, 337; the bath of regeneration in Tit. iii. 5, 338-341; baptizing for repentance and for remission, 338-341; bath of the water in the word (Eph. v. 26), 342; Peter's assertion that baptism saves, 342, 343; baptism as connected with re- mission and salvation, 344, 345; what can be said of baptism "in all its com- pleteness," 346; views of the fathers and of the Anglican di^anes, 347; Pusey on baptismal regeneration, 348; Paul's sins washed away in baptism, 348; the preposition eis (for) as used in a telle sense and otherwise, 349, 350; views of Puseyites, 351; Hovey on 1 Cor. i. 13, seq,, 352, 353; Puseyism and Campbellism, 354, 355 ; baptism in the Scriptures always preceded by the fruits of the Spirit, 356; Calvin on John iii. 5, 357, 358; baptismal regeneration and indefectible grace, 359; interior facts of baptism, 360; baptism as a prerequisite to salvation, 361; the kingdom of God considered as Christ's earthly kingdom, 362; views of different writers, 363; quotation from Dr. Ripley, 364, 365. CHAPTER XXXII. A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW.— "CHRISTIAN UNION" (pp. 366-382). The writer's aim and method, 366; Dale's treatise essentially baptistic, 367, 368; three chief points in his work, 367, 368; Pedobaptists' concessions, 369, xvi CONTENTS. 370; Professor Bipley and other representative Baptists on Christian nnion and close comnmnion, 371-375; "a story about baptism" and Baptists, 375, S76; restricted communion practised and justified by Pedobaptists, 377; the order of baptism and the Supper, 378; open communion not a cure-all, 379; means of promoting Christian union, 380; churches authorized to " modify a form and rite" of Christ? 380; views of De Pressense and Professor L. L. Paine, 381, 382. APPENDIX. Note I. — Baptism in the Episcopaij Pbateb-Book and est English HisTOET, p. 385. Note II. — Sitpposed sites of -^non, p. 389. Note III. — Water-supply of Jerusalem, p. 393. Note rV. — Nudeness in patristic baptisms, p. 402. Note V. — Locality of the eunuch's baptism, p. 410. Note VI. — Baptism and sponsors, p. 412. NAMES OF PEESONS AND WORKS CITEDr ^s*** Abbot, E. Abbott, L. Abelard, P. Achilles, Tatius. Africanus, Julius. Agnew, S. Albofleda. Alciphron. Alcuin. Alexander, J. A. Alexander of Pherse. Alford, H. Ambrose. Andrews, E. A. Angelo, M. Ante-Nicene Christian Li- brary. Anthon, C. Antony, St. Apocrypha. Apostolical Constitutions. Aquinas, T. Aratus. Argilulfus. Aringhi, P. Aristobulus. Aristophanes. Aristotle. Armstrong, G. D. Arnold, A. N. Arnoldi. Ashmore, W. Athanasius. Augusti, J. C. W. Augustine. Babington, G. Balsamon, T. Bannermann, J. " Baptist Missionary Maga- zine." " Baptist Quarterly." " Baptist Review." Baptismal Tracts for the Times. " Baptist "Weekly." *' Baptizein." Barclay, J. Barclay, J. T. Barnabas. Barnes, A. Baronius, C. Basil. Basnage, J. Baumgarten, Professor. Baxter, R. Beckwith, J. A. Bede, the Venerable. Bedell, W. Beecher, B. Bekker, I. Bellarmine, R. Bengel, E. G. Bengal, J. A. Bertoli, P. Beveridge, "W. Beza, T. " Bible Union " Version. " Bibliotheca Sacra." Bickersteth, E. Billroth, G. Bindseil, H. E. Bingham, J. Blackstone, W. Blair, H. Blake, T. Bleek, P. Bliss, G. R. Bloomfield, S. T. Bohringer, P. Boldetti, M. A. Boniface, Bishop. Book of Common Prayer. Booth, A. Bossuet, J. B. Bottari, G. G. Brenner, F. Broadus, J. A. Brown, D. Brownlow, W. R. Bucer, M. Buckingham, J. S. Buckley, T. A. Buddeus, J. P. Bugatl, G. BuUinger, H. Bunsen, C. C. J. Burgess, A. Burrage, H. S. Bushnell, H. Caldwell, S. L. Calmet, A. Calov, A. Calvin, J. Campbell, A. Campbell, G. Carson, A. Casaubon, I. Castel. Cathcart, W. Cave, W. Celsus. Charles II, Chase, I. Chillitigworth, "W. " Christian Review." Chrysostom, J. Chrystal, J. Ciampini, J. J. Cicero. Clarence, Duke of. Clark, K. G. Clark, P. Clarke, C. Clemens, Romanus. Clement of Alexandria. Clough, J. E. Clevis. Colby, H. P. Coleman, L. Conant, T. J. Conder, C. R. Congregational Publishing Society. " Congregationalist." Constantine, Emperor. Conybeare, W. J. Cooke, P. Cote, W. N". Court, J. Cowley, A. Cowper, W. Cranmer, T. Cra]3S, J. Cremer, H. Crosby, A. Crosby, T. Cusack, M. P. Cutting, S. S. Cjrprian. Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril of Jerusalem. Dagg, J. L. D'Agincourt, S. Damasus, Pope. D'AndiUy, Dante. Davidson, S. De la Rue, 0. De Rossi, G. B. De Wettc, W. M. L. Dindorf, W. Dionysius, Pseudo. xvU XVUl NAMES OF PERSONS AND WOBKS CITED. Doddridge, P. DoUinger, J. J. I. "Dr. G-rahgim." Dryden, J. Duncker, J. Q-. L. Duns Scotus, J. Dupin, L. E. Eadie, J. Ebrard, J. H. A. Edward VI. Edwin, King. Elizabeth, Queen. Ellicott, C. J. Emmons, K. Ephraem, Syrus. EpiphaniuB. Erasmus, D. Ernesti, J. A. Esclienburg, J. J. Eusebius, P. Ewald, G. H. A. Ewing, G. Eairbairn, P. EaircMld, A. G. Earnam, J. E. Fee, J. G. Fergusson, J. Fidus. Fish, H. 0. Fisher, G. P. Frederic, I. Fritzsche, C. F. A. Fuller, S. Fulgentlus. Gale, J. Garrucci, R. Gear, H. L. Gelenius, 8. Gemara, the. Gesenius, W. Gill, J. Gloag, P. J. " G. M. S." Godet, F. Godwin, J. H. Goode, W. Gordon, A. J. Gregory of Antioch. Gregory the Great. Gregory the Monk. Gregory Nazianzen. Gregory Nyssa. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Gregory of Tours. Griffin, E. D. Grimm, C. L. W. Grotius, H. Guericke, H. E. F. Guise, W. Gunning, J. H. Hackett, H. B. Hagenbach, K. R. Hague, W. Hahn, A. Hall, E. Hall, R. Halley, R. Hammond, H. Hampden, R. D. Harrison, G. Harvey, H. Hatfield, R. G. Heaton, I. E. Henderson, E. Hengstenberg, E. Wt Henry Vm. Hermann, Archbishop. Hermas. Herodotus. Hibbard, P. G. Hincmar. Hippocrates. Hippolytus. Hitzig, F. Hoadly, B. Hobart, J. H. Hodges, W. Hofling, J. W. F. Hoffman, J. C. K. Homer. Hook, W. F. Hooker, R. Hopkins, E. Horsey, J. Hort, F. J. A. Hovey, A. Howson, J. S. Hudson, J. Hutchings, 8. Huther, J. E. lamblichus. Ignatius. Ingham, R. Innocent, Pope. Irenseus. James I. Jennings, D. Jerome. Jeter, J. B. Jewett, G. B. Jewett, M. P. John of Damascus. John of Liittich. Johnson, F. Johnson, 8. Josephus, F. " Journal and Messenger." Judson, A. Julian, the Pelagian. Juvenal. Kahnis, K. F. A. Keil, C. F. Kendrick, A. C. Eaepert, H. Kip, W. I. Kitto, J. Knapp, G. C Kuincel, C. G. Lachmann, C. Lange, L. Lange, J. P. Langhorne, J. Lanneau, Rev. Mr. Lasher, G. W. Layard, A. H. Lawrence, St. Lee, A. Leo the Great. Leo, Rabbi. Leverett, P. P. L'Estrange. Liddell and 8cott. Lightfoot, J. Lightfoot, J. B. Lincoln, H. Lingard, J. Livy. Lodge, T. Loos, C. L. Lucke, G. C. F. Lundy, J. P. Liinemann, G. Luthardt, C. E. Luther, M. Lynch, W. F. Mabillon, J. McCoskry, 8. A. Macknight, J. Madison- Avenue Lectures. Magnus. Maimonides, M. Malcom, H. Manly, B. Manning, S. Marchi, J. Mark of Ephesng. Marriott, W. B. Martyr, P. Matthies, C. 8. MaundreU, H. Maynard, G. H. Melmoth, W. Merrill, 8. M. Meyer, H. A. W. Miller, 8. Mihnan, H. H. Milton, J. Mishna, the. Monica. " Monthly Review." Mozley, J. B. MUller, J. Nast, "W. Neander, A. Nepos. ' ' New American Cyclopedia." " New-Englander." Noel, B. W. Norma. Northcote, J. S. Norton, A. Novatian. Noyes, G. R. Olshausen, H. Origen. Otto. Owen, Dr. J. Owen, Rev. J. Owen, J. J. Overall, J. Paciaudus. Paine, L. L. Palladius. Pahner, T. R. Parmly, E. Pascal, B. Patrick, 8. Patrick, 8t. Paulinus of England. Paulinus of Milan. Paulinus of Tyre. Peck, J. M. Pendleton, J. M, Pengilly, R. Pepper, G. D. B. Perowne, T. T. Perret, L. Persius. Perthes, F. M. Peters, A. Philip of Macedon. Philo, J. Pindar. Plato. Pliny. NAMES OF PEBSONS AND WOBKS CITED. Tnx Plumptre, E. H. Plutarch. Polycarp. Poole, M. Pope, A. Popular Commentaiy. Portable Commentary. Potter, J. Pressens^, E. de. Procter, F. Pusey, E. B. Quintilla. Redepenning, E. R. Reiche, J. G. Reland, H. Religious Tract Society. Remigius. Reuss, E. Rice, ISr. L. Riddle, M. B. Ripley, H. J. Ritter, C. Robertson, P. W. Robinson, E. Robinson, E. G. Robinson, R. Romanus. Rosenmiiller, E. F. C. Rosenmiiller, J. Or. Rotherham, J. B. Rowland, A. J. Riickert, L. J. Ruflnus. Salmasius, C. Samson, G. "W. Sarum Manual. Schaff, P. Schneckenburger, M. Schleiermacher, F. Schott, D. A. Scott, T. Scott, W. " Scribner's Monthly." Seabury, S. Sears, B. Selden, J. Semisch, C. Sepp, J. N. Septuagint, the. SewelI,W. Shakspeare, W. Shedd, W. G. T. Sibylline Oracles. Simpson, F. Smith, H. B. Smith, J. P. Smith, J. T. Smith, J. W. Smith's Christian Antiquities. Smith's Christian Biography. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. Smith's Greek and Roman Antiquities. Society, American Baptist Publication. Sophocles, E. A. Spurgeon, C. H. Speaker's Commentary. Stacey, J. St. Celsus. " Stanley, Rev. Charlea." Stanley, A. P. Stanley, H. M. Starck, J. A. Stearns, J. G. D. Stephen, Pope. Stier, R. StilUngfleet, E. Stone, J. S. Stourdza, Alexander de. Strabo, the geographer. Strabo Walafrid. Strong, A. H. Stuart, M. Suicer, J. K. Summers, T. O. Sylvester, Pope. Tacitus. Talmud, the. Taylor, C. Taylor, J. TertuUian. Thayer, J. H. Thelwall, S. " Theodore." Theodoret. "Theodosia Ernest." Theophylaet. Tholuck, A. Thomasius, G. Thomson, W. M. Thorn, W. Tillotson, J. Tischendorf, L. F. C. Titus, the emperor. " T. J. M." Towerson, G. Towne, J. H. Toy, C. H. Tregelles, S. P. Trench, R. C. Turner, S. H. Turretin, F. Tyndale, W. Usher, J. Usteri, L. Van Ess, L. Van Lennep, H. J. Venema, H. Virgil. Volkmar, G. Von Raumer, K. Vossius, G. J. Vulgate, The. Wall, W. Wardlaw, R. Warren, C. " Watchman." " Watchman and Reflector." Waterland, D. Webster's Dictionary. Weiss, B. Wesley, J. Westcott, B. P. Wetstein, J. J. Whately, R. Whiston, W. Whitby, D. White, W. Whitsitt, W. H. Wiberg, A. Wiesinger, A. Wilberforce, R. I. William in. Williams, E. Williams, G. Williams, N. M. Willmarth, J. W. Wilson, C. W. Wilson, Bishop D. Wilson, J. Wilson, Professor B. Wilson, W. Winer, G. B. Wise, Rabbi. Withrow, W. H. Witsius, H. Wolcott, 8. Wolff, P. Wood, J. T. Woods, L. Wordsworth, O. Wright, G. F. Zeno, Bishop. Zenophon. Zonaras. Zwingle, XJ. ^^=*^^-<4^,^ STUDIES ON THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION. CHAPTER I. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DR. DALE's "WORK AND "THEORY." JAMES W. DALE, D.D., a Presbj-terian clergyman of Penn- sylvania, and once a fellow-student at Andover with Professor Milo P. Jewett and the late lamented Professor H. B. Hackett, has written four "tremendous" volumes, as "The Congregation- alist " styles them, on " The Usage ot Baptizo," respectively enti- tled "Classic," "Judaic," "Johannic," "Christie and Patristic Baptism," numbering, in all, some eighteen hundred octavo pages, and foi-ming, without doubt, the hugest work that has ever ap- peared on this subject. The writings of Dr. Dale betray a good deal of originalit}*, in- genuity, intellectual acuteness, and a happ}^ art of " putting " and suppressing things, so useful in an advocate. They show, too, an almost unwearied diligence, and a vast amount of research, not alwaj's thorough and critical, as we shall see. He possesses also, as one may conjecture, the faculty of iteration to a marvellous degree, "proving," according to one of his complimentary^ testi- monials, " a point ninety-nine times " (or asseverating its proof), " and still jDroving it the hundredth, lest some one should fancy the work not otherwise quite complete." A considerable part of his first volume is devoted to the consideration of certain synony- mous words in the different languages, commonl}'' supposed to be related in meaning to haptizo; such as " dip," "plunge," "bmy," "whelm," "immerse," &c., in English. He finds "dip" (hke hapto) to be a "feeble word," of "trivial import," denoting but 6 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. a "superficial entrance and momentar}^ continuance;" and thus puts it in meaning world-wide, yea, even " heaven- wide," asunder from baptizo and "immerse ; " which latter words " never take out what they put in." In speaking of the baptisms of cups, pots, &c., mentioned in Mark vii. 4, he says, that, if these utensils were put into the water by baptizo (or immerse) , " no pro\ision is made for taking tjiem out; " and, on the truth of this supposition, he leaves us to infer that there they are in the water to this day, and there they wUl remain forever. Surely no one will dare to immerse his hand, or even a finger, in water, after this ! In his view, we are dippers, or diptists, but not immersionists. We bapt, or dip, the head and shoulders, but do not baptize, or immerse, the whole person (which would be "death bj^ drowning "), or any part of it. Yet the blending together of dip and immerse, we are told, is a "Baptist postulate," and a necessity of "the theory." ^ But, if Baptists have erred in this matter, they have had abundant company ; for not a Pedobaptist lexicographer or author can be named who has not regarded and treated these words as substan- tial equivalents. Yet this fact is almost wholly ignored bj^ Dr. Dale, and "Baptist writers" alone are perpetually charged with thus "confounding things which differ." There is no excuse henceforth for their doing this ; and we hope they will refrain, not only from confounding them, but even from mentioning them in the same connection ! This large discussion of synonjones may be useful as an intellectual study or diversion ; but it has no direct and decisive bearing on the point in question. Our author writes with general good humor, and a fairly Chris- tian spirit, but indulges, it must be confessed, in considerable unnecessar}" and disagi-eeable gibing. "You rarel}^ meet," says Professor J. A. Broadus (in "Baptist Quarterly" ^for 1875, p. 1 If what our author states is true, — that " Baptist writers have neither unity nor consistency in their interpretations, whether we have regard to their relations one to another, to themselves, or to the principles of lan- guage," — what becomes of ''the theory" of Baptists, and of the "Bap- tist postulates " ? One chief point in Dr. Dale's works is to pit Baptist authors against each other, and to show up their inconsistencies and dis- agreements. No Baptist writer, that we are aware of, has written up all the disagreements and contradictions of Pedobaptist authors on the mode and subjects of baptism; yet a few of the "variations" of Pedobaptism may be found in Ingham's Hand-Book on Baptism, and Subjects of Baptism. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 7 245), " with any thing like outbursts of honest indignation at sup- posed perversions of truth, or lamentations of Christian love over the errors of Christian brethren ; but you find abundance of skilfully refined satire, of taunts and courtly gibes, till you are reminded, not of a deep-souled German, or a downright English- man, seeking for truth, but of a French writer, discussing a theory of art or literature, and gracefully mocking at his adversaries." Still, while he ridicules, and, as his friends say, "riddles," our Baptist arguments and "figures" (while Jiis ba2Jtizo is about all " figm'e"), and is pretty hard on some of our writers, especially Dr. Carson, " the philosopher of Tubbermore "as he names him, (with special emphasis, doubtless, on the antepenult!) he yet, in the main, manifests a kindly spirit, and several of his denomina- tional opponents he praises in very high terms. He speaks with enthusiasm, especially, of the eminent Christian character and scholarship of m}^ revered Newton teachers, the lamented Profess- ors Ripley and Hackett ; and acknowledges without stint the superior abilit}'' of Dr. Conant, and his great indebtedness to the labors of this learned author. The work of Dr. Dale we regard as, on the vfhole, essentially and strongly- Baptistic ; and we are glad (in one sense) that he Jias written these volumes. In his apology for undertaking this "7w- quiry into the Usage of Baptize," he says, " The treatment of the subject, as heretofore conducted, left the merits of the case, in some respects at least, clouded with uncertainty, and embarrassed with perplexity." If Dr. Dale has not " overthrown the Baptist (?) theory " (of " dif)ping "), and " taken the city of waters," it is not his fault. If he has not successfully defended his somewhat novel and peculiar " theorj-," neither is he to be blamed. He can saj, with Hector, " Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent." He offers the world his theorj' or ours (in sub- stance), and gives no other choice. Near the close of his fourth volume he says, "An object wholly within loater, without limitation of mode in effecting such condition, or of time in abiding in such condition, has been insisted upon throughout this Inquiry as a ph3'S- ical baptism." And again he says, " This word (haptizo) prima- ril}' makes demand for the intusposition of its object within a fluid element by any competent act, moving indifferently the object or the element, without limitation of time as to the continuance in 8 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. such intusposition," &c. "Its import is vitally dependent upon and governed by the idea of intusposition within a closely-investing element." "The demand of baptizo is for intusposition." The writings of this author, as also those of President Beecher, are bringing things to a definite point and issue. Not much longer shall we hear of sprinlding and pouring as definitions of baptizo. The Boston "Congregationalist," indeed, has recently defined bap- tism as '■'■any application of water;" and Christian baptism, as " any reverent application of water in the name of the Trinity." Of course, then, we can speak of baptizing water on any one, as we do of pouring water or sprinlding water. But this as never done, and never can be done ; nor can an instance be shown on any classic or Scripture page where baptism was performed by the digital application of ivater. And so we are not surprised that both the writers just named utterly discard sprinkling and pouring as specific and proper definitions of baptizo. That baptizo cannot primarily and properly import to pour, sprinkle, or, as Beecher would have it, to " purif}^," is evident, from the fact, that, in its regimen, it is not necessarily, though it is generally, connected with water. In accordance with classical usage, one can baptize a thing in a permeable solid as well as in a liquid, or can baptize in filth and pollution as well as in pure water. Besides, the preposi- tions 071 or upon, which naturally follow the verbs " sprinkle" and " pour," can never, in connection with element, accompany' baptizo. Some one, to show that words of such diverse specific import as " dip," " pour," and " sprinkle," can never be used interchange- ably, and that one word (baptizo) can never represent them all, has given to Lev. iv. 6, 7, this rendering : " And the priest shall pour [dip] his finger in the blood, and shall dip [sprinkle] of the blood seven times before the Lord, and shall sprinkle [pour] all the blood at the bottom of the altar." No one, we think, will contend that all these words, through religious usage, have changed their origi- nal meanings, or lost all reference to mode. " If baptism," says Dr. Sears ("Defender of the Faith," in "Christian Review," vol. iii. 1838, p. 98), "means ^ any application of water,' it would indeed have puzzled a Greek to find out what it meant, when used, as it often is, of a ship. How could he divine whether it meant that a vessel was wet by launching ; or that it was washed extQrnally by the waves, or internally by the crew ; or that it STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 9 sprung a leak, and loet the cargo ; or that a rain wet the sails and rigging and deck ; or that a surge swept the deck? " The owner of a baptized vessel would doubtless have been verj- glad to think that only its figure-head had been sprinkled by a slight dash of the spray ! President Beecher, as we have intimated, discards sprin- kling, and gives us, in the meanings of baj)tizo, our choice between immerse, in secular use, and ^^piirify," regardless of mode, in rehgious usage. Dr. Dale defines baptism, as its ground-meaning, to be an " intusposition " (a within-putting or enveloping) "for an indefinite period in some enveloping fluid or closely-investing medium." " Baptizo demands intusposition," " withinness ; " and " the forms of action " (involved in sprinkling and pouring) " are not its most natural servitors." "A condition of envelopment was original!}' its grand, sole characteristic." " Intusposition within, a closety-investing medium [is] essential to the primarj- use."' " To make baptizo mean to pour or sprinkle is an error," &c. la. his endeavor to find an equivalent word in English, such terms as. "whelm," "sink," and ^''droion" (!) are mentioned as having special claim ; while to " inn " or to " deep," if we had such verbs,, "would serve well as duplicates." He, however, selects the un- English term " merse" as the best representative for baptizo, and as most accordant with its fundamental meaning ; and this word, with an occasional prefix, he invariably uses in his translation of more than one hundred classic examples. "What astonishment one must feel, who has alv^ays been taught that baptizo means tO' sprinkle, when he scans Dr. Dale's " Classic Baptism," and finds "whelm," and "sink," and "drown," and "merse" (Anglice, " immerse ") staring him full in the face, on almost ever}- page as it were, as the chosen representatives of baptizo! But while the primar}^ import of baptizo, and so of " immerse," is " to intuspose (i.e., envelop on all sides by, ordinarily, a fluid element) without limitation as to depth of position, time of con- tinuance, force in execution, or mode of accomplishment," or, more briefly, " to merse, and specificallj- to droion" (at the same time expressing, in our author's view, no specific act, but "con- dition" only or chieflj'), a secondary and very diflTerent meaning, has been discovered by Dr. Dale ; and this secondary meauiug, we are told, has wholly displaced the primary; so that, "if, in the development of language, any word ever lost an element (in this. 10 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. case, the condition of envelopment) which was originally its grand, sole characteristic, such a word is bajotizo." How, now, shall we get out of this intusposition and envelopment? Well, President Beecher, as we have above intimated, and more recently Pro- fessor J. H. Godwin of London, and Dr. Edward Wilhams long before either of them, have extracted the spiritual essence of baptizo, and sublimated the word into a purifying influence. And so Dr. Dale, working on the same line, has volatilized it to a still higher degree, even into a general controlling influence. And surely the powers of man in etherealizing this word can no farther go. The history of this change is given : First (which might be last)., haptizo denoted intusposition without influence (e.g., a stone put within water is unchanged) ; second, intusposition with influence ; third, intusposition for influence ; and, fourth, influ- ence WITHOUT intusposition.^ It will hence be seen that new 1 Dr. Whittsitt, in Ms review of Dale's Classic Baptism, in the Baptist Quarterly for April, 1877v shows how conveniently this " influence theory" may be applied to the common affairs of life. It seems that Richard Eoe has given a note to John Doe, promising to pay him a thousand dollars, value received. Richard is troubled about the inconvenient word "pay;" "but he adopts the Dale process, cuts off the active voice of the verb, and :says, "Now, 'pay' is a verb of condition exclusively, and may be defined in these terms : ' Pay, in primary use, expresses condition characterized by comiilete satisfaction, without expressing, and with absolute indifference to, the form of the act by which such satisfaction may be effected, as also with- out other limitations.' Thereupon Richard Roe makes a visit to his cred- itor John Doe, and insists upon the return of his note, because the creditor .John Doe is now in a state of satisfaction. Doe, on the contrary, objects that he is not in the state of satisfaction, and that he cannot be brought into the state of satisfaction, until Roe performs the act of satisfaction, which will consist in paying the money down; but he assures Richai-d, at the same time, that he does not care any thing about the ' form ' or ' mode ' of the act, isince a check or order would be quite as agreeable to him as the currency. " On hearing this, Richard Roe enters once again into communion with his spirit, and passes a time muttering such words as ' satisfaction without influence,' 'satisfaction with influence,' 'satisfaction for influence;' until finally, arriving at ' influence without satisfaction,' he finds he has caught an idea which will relieve him of all his troubles ; that he has grasped the ■* master-key ' of the situation. Accordingly, engaging the best band in the city, he goes and serenades Mr. Doe, veiy greatly to the delight of Doe and his entire family. But next morning he takes the earliest opportunity tc inform his long-suffering creditor that the act of satisfaction is not, as that gentleman supposes, essential to the condition of satisfaction; that the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 11 definitions, and such as have been unknown to the lexicons, are now necessarj''. And, Jirst, " baptizo expresses any complete change of condition, by whatever agency effected, or in whatsoever way applied." A second definition is, "Whatever exercises a con- trolling influence over its object baptizes that object by trans- ferring it from one state or condition to another." As amplified on the closing page of the first volume it read thus : ' ' Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object, and, by such change of character, state, or condition, does in fact baptize it." After such a lucid definition, we need not be surprised when assured that " one drop of prussic acid is as thoroughly competent to effect a baptism secondary (perhaps the more common form of baptism expressed by the Greeks) as is an ocean to effect a baptism primary," Aristotle speaks of the tides as baptizing the sea- coasts ; but Dr. Dale, we suppose, would make the moon baptize, that is, " controlUngly influence," the tides. According to our author, Christ in the wilderness, being himself in the H0I3" Spirit, did so far control the Evil One by the same Spirit, that we may with proprietj' sa^^ that " Christ did baptize Satan in the Holy Ghost." Indeed, in accordance with the above definitions. Dr. Dale, in rendering English into Greek, would express every possi- ble instance of thorough change, control, or influence, by baptizo. If he did so, he would use this word very much oftener than the Greeks themselves ever did. But, after the publication of " Classic Baptism," it was found that even the revised and "final" defini- tion was too inexact. There were found to be radical changes constantly going on, in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in the ocean, in the fire, in the stomach (!), by the tongue, pen, and hand of man, and in other ways too numerous for man to conceive. In fact, our little globe was in danger of latest authorities affiiin that the word ' pay ' in the note of hand for one thousand dollars expresses 'influence loithout saiisfaction; ' that, by his handsome serenade, he has already produced an ' influence ' on the highly susceptible spirit of Doe; and that he, as a matter of course, demands the surrender of his note. Mr. Doe speaks of an appeal to the courts of justice: but Roe coolly informs him that there is no hope of redress from that quar- ter; for all the courts have adopted the new Dale process, — the same which he has himself just employed with such signal advantage." 12 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. being deluged by these " baptisms of influence." And so, in the succeeding Yolume, our author gives us in extenso a full and final (?) definition: " Whatever ac^ is capable of thoroughlj^ changing the character, state, or condition of any object, by placing it in a state of physical intusposition," (the Italics are the author's; but what becomes of the cases of intusposition vnthov.t influence?) " is capable of baptizing that object ; and " (Dr. Dale might have said or; but he is opposed to shifting from one word and meaning to another, and is exceedingly perturbed when our writers define haptizo with two or more words, as witness his frowns on Dr. Carson's "dip or immerse," and Professor Conant's "whelm," "imbathe," "plunge," &c., although he himself denies that any one word like "dip, and nothing but dip," can fully express its meaning, and employs, indeed, quite as many defining terms as all our writers put together) ' ' whatever influence is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, hy pervading it, and making it subject to its own characteristics, is capable of baptizing that object ; and by such changes of character, state, or condition, these acts and influences do, in fact, baptize their objects." Truly " baptism is a mj'riad-sided word," and "has a legion of servitors." "The seven wise men of Greece could not declare the nature or mode of any given baptism by the naked help of baptizo." It is as indefinite in act (so one of Dr. Dale's followers writes to me) as is the word " scare." What a word for our Saviour to put into the great Commission, — His law for the church in aU ages ! — a word whose act will drown any living man in the waters (for "no baptism is self-ending," "a baptism has no outcome to it "), or whose controlling and assimi- lating influence will perform an}' one of "ten thousand" diflerent things in as many difi'erent ways, but exactly which, or what, or how, the Omniscient One alone can tell. Is not this enough to condemn utterly and forever the novel " theory" of Dr. Dale? " Ingenuit}^," says Carson, " may put a false system plausibly together ; but no ingenuity can give it the sohdity and life of the tnith." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 13 CHAPTER II. COMPLIMENTART TESTIMONIALS. ON finishing the reading of " Classic Baptism," our first thought was this : Why, this entu'ely does away with the gi'eat initial ordinance of the gospel of Christ, and lands us into Quakerism ! For what can effect a completer change, or exert a more powerfully " controlling influence," than the gospel of faith, believed, and received into the heart? Surely the " discipling all nations" will of itself baptize those disciples. Our second thought was this : that, if Dr. Dale introduces a baptismal water- rite into the New Testament, such water-rite must be, on Ms show- ing, a needless thing, if not altogether an impertinence. We shall see hereafter what he has done. And here we would stop and ask if it is for such a method of getting rid of a proper water-baptism, and if it is for this result, that the most prominent scholars and writers, erudite professors, and renowned clerg3TQen of the Pedobaptist denominations, have seemingly exhausted the resources of the English language to find words adequate to express their admiration of this ' ' wonder- ful," "extraordinary," "marvellous," "masterly," " scholarty," "exhaustive," "decisive," "incomparable," "overwhelming," " irrefutable," " unanswerable " work, " this standard of reference for all time," this " Blucher at Waterloo," this "bomb-shell in the Baptist camp." ^ If Dr. Dale's views are accepted, and car- 1 Not all the Pedobaptist scholars, however, are so eulogistic over this work. A reviewer of Dale's Classic Baptism (in the New-Englander for 1867, p. 151, seq.), while praising two or three points in his work, severely criticises the spirit of the book, and utterly condemns his " controlling influ- ence " theory. The cfitic avers that the author, in the treatment of his subject, is "too. intensely controversial;" that "he has his antagonist always before him ; and, like Homer's hei-oes, Avhen he gives a good blow or thrust he 14 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ried out in practice, it will be found that other theories than that of the Baptists will be " overthrown," and " riddled through and through ; ' ' that many another ' ' bottom ' ' than that of ' ' the Bap- tist tub " will be " knocked out ; " and that basin, as well as bap- tistery, will he overturned and demoUshed. Still this "unique" and really ingenious and important work will be a standard for curious reference in this controversy for many generations, or even a chiliad of j^ears, should the world and this controversy last so long. Since the publication of these volumes (the last in 1874), tJiree breaks out into loud triumph over the prostrate foe." "A mere elimination of the passages in which he triumphs over the inconsistencies and absurdi- ties of Baptist critics would go far to effect the desired reduction ' ' in the size of his work. But "the great defect" of the book, in the critic's opinion, is the author's "unnatui'al and arbitrary" treatment of the figura- tive uses of words; seeing, for example, in such phrases as "immersed in ignorance," "immersed by grief," &c., "no mersion either in fact or figni'e," thus completely destroj'ing the force and beauty of these expres- sions. " Very few," he thinks, " will agree with the author of this work in the extent to which he assumes a complete obliteration of primary mean- ings, and a consequent loss of figurative character." In noticing Dr. Dale's translation of the jugglers' command, Baptison seauton eis, &c. ("Merse thyself [going] to the sea"), he gives his opinion, that, even with this ren- dering, the word "merse" (or iromerse) should be taken in its "primary and ordinary sense," and complains that the author does not teU how the superstitious man was to influence himself at the sea, whether (without intusposition) by sprinlding, by washing of hands, by drinking sea-water, or by "sculling " and " clam-baking " ! He also thinks it woiild be an act of disobedience in a boy, if, when told to baptize or immerse a kitten to destroy her, he should, in order to produce a "controlling destructive influence," hack her to pieces, or roast her over a slow fire. And, in view of the fact that Dr. Dale makes bapiizo and " immerse" so nearly synonymous in their primary and secondary meanings, the reviewer fears " that the Baptist enemy may take advantage of this to murmur, with the little breath our author has left him, 'Baptizing, then, is immersing, and immersing is baptiz- ing !' " Yet ''thirty colleges, universities, and theological seminaries, say the Baptist theory is overthrovjn" ! And, from Rev. J. G. D. Stearns's later work on this subject, »we learn that the number of such institutions has been augmented to " forty;" and perhaps, at the time of this present writ- ing, it may have reached fifty. To us, the most interesting part of Dale's work were the complimentary notices or testimonials at the end of each volume; but we cannot help feeling that their interest would have been greatly augmented had his publisher quoted somewhat largely from the New-Englander. STUDIES OJV BAPTISM. 15 different authors, depending more or less on Dr. Dale's treatise, have akeady written on the same side of the question. Rev. Samuel Ilutchings of Orange, N.J. (in his "Mode of Christian Baptism ") , in illustrating the meaning of classic baptism, depends entirely on Dr. Dale. Rev. Isaac E. Heaton of Fremont, Neb., in his Uttle work entitled " New and Decisive Eiidence of the Mode of Baptism," (just as though Dr. Dale had not decided it !) does not enter upon any explanation of classic usage, but merely refers the reader to Dr. Dale and others on this subject. A third work, " The Meaning and Power of Baptism," just published by Rev. J. G. D. Stearns of Zumbrota, Minn., is, in the main, but an epitome of Dr. Dale's works. Our author, we believe, feels somewhat hurt, or at least surprised, that his works have not been more fully and extensivel}^ noticed by Baptist writers. While some have regarded our silence as arising from a conviction that his " theory " and arguments are indeed " irrefutable," that they have " taken the ground or rather the water from under us, and left us stranded," we therefore feel justified in subjecting this " theory " to still further examination (whether we shall " fatally brain " it or not depends somewhat upon the question of its having a brain) ; and there is no such "despair" on our part, as 3^et, that we " cannot logically continue the controvers3^ " 16 STUDIES ON BAPTISM, CHAPTER ni. A DALE (J. W.) OVERWHELMED. THIS is a case of se-baptism, — of self-overwhelming. Dr. Dale, burdening himself with baptizo, has gone down so deep, and has staid so long under water, that, to speak the truth, we have but little hope of his recover3\ And what adds to our regret is, that none of his denominational associates and friends have taken the least pains to rescue him from his watery ' ' intus- position ; " but they have rather rejoiced at his feat, declaring it wholly "unique," "wonderful," "exhaustive," and " over- "WHELMmG." In his first volumes he seems to have expressed some hope, or at least a possibilit}'', of his emerging again to our upper air and the light of the sun. He said, indeed, that " baptize wiU put a man into water, but it never did and never will take him out ; ' ' that it ' ' intusposes its object within a fluid element, without pro- viding for its removal, never taldng out what it puts in;" and that "immersion in water, of its own force, uninterfered with, [will] drown any li^dng man." "Immersion in water deprives of life any human being." But he puts in here and there a pro- viso, — an "if," or a "nevertheless;" and so, wliile he states that baptizo ' ' never contemplates the removal of its object from the condition in which it has placed it," he j-et declares that ' ' there is nothing in the word to prevent its object from being immediate^ taken out of the water." " Mersionis not necessarily of prolonged duration." " A person immersed in water need not of necessit}^ be drowned." " There is nothing in the nature of a mersion which requires that it should be protracted." It may be "most brief in its continuance." Help may come from foreign sources ; and in this way, or by some happy " accident," one may STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 17 be rescued from the deep baptismal waters. So we read, that, "in mersion, brevity of continuance is an accident not belong- ing to the state." The doctor evidently would not fear to enter the waters with the lighter word bapto ("to dip"), for this ' ' always ( ?) takes out promptly what it puts in ; " and in this case he would expect a speedy emersion.^ But "there is a sort of mersion connected with the modal act to dip," and there is sometimes an " accidental accord between a dipping and an in- tusposition " of brief duration. What a pity that our author, who has, to use Shakspeare's lan- guage, "a kind of alacrit}' in sinking," could not have imagined his baptismal mersion to partake, accidentally or otherwise, more largely of this more superficial and transient character ! For, turning now to Dr. Dale's fourth volume, we see that he has lost all hope of emergence. He hints at no foreign aid, no lucky accident, which can help. There seems to be neither plank nor straw to which he can reach up and cling. More than a score of times he explicitl}^ declares the fact of impending death, — " death b}'- drowning." And this is the verdict which he as coroner would render in every case of human immersion, — ^most assuredly in every case of proper ritual baptism ! Nevertheless, we stiU feel 1 Dr. Dale says that " a dipping kills nobody." " Men are not drowned by a dipping." We grant, of course, tliat dipping generally denotes a brief immersion, but consequently maintain that it does denote immersion, and is never accomplished without it. Accordingly, we hold, that, as immersion does not ordinarily prove fatal, so a "dipping" may sometimes be destruc- tive of life. If a man were dipped very deep in the water, he would not be likely to survive; certainly he could not survive a repetition of such dippings: and it would make but little difference with him whether he died through repeated baptisms, as Aristobulus (of whom Josephus makes mention) did, or through repeated dippings. So, too, if there were any means of wholly bapting, or dipping, a ship into and under water, it would probably be as surely lost as though it had been baptized. Is it a gross impropriety of speech to say that a man may dip a tjiing under water, and lose it, or leave it there ? Professor Kendrick, in his critique of Dale's Classic Baptism (in Baptist Quarterly for April, 1869), quotes this passage from the poe-t Aratus: "But if the sun should dip himself (baptoi), without clouds, into the western flood," &c. ; and thereon observes, "It {bapto) does not undertake to bring back the sun from his western ' dip.' It leaves him to find his way as well as he can around to his oriental emersion;" which is surely a case of long-protracted dipping. And what about the " dip" of the needle, and of rock strata ? 18 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. inclined to attempt Ms rescue, even witli the aid of baptizo; thougli now, for a few moments, we are compelled to leave him uttering the despairing yet determined cry (recorded, for correction, in some of our school-books), " I will be drowned, and nobody shall help me!" STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 19 CHAPTER IV. WATER-BAPTISM NOT A DROWNING. TEMPORA MUTANTUR," says Professor Kendrick in his re^dew of Dale's "Classic Baptism " (in "The Baptist Quar- terly") : "the old arguments are becoming strangely antiquated. Once we had to resist the plea for too little water : now the demand for too much. Once we had to prove that baptizo could not legiti- mately sprinkle its subjects : now we are put to our wits' end to prove that it will not necessarily drown them." Years since, Dr. Carson had to say of some of his opponents, that, "when they could not deny that the word denotes to dip, they endeavor to make it more than a dipping." One of those whom Dr. Carson had in mind was the inventor of poptizo, or the " pop " theory of baptism, Greville Ewing, who asks, " Shall we illustrate the office of John the Baptist, and of the apostles and evangelists of Christ, by the work of j)rovidential destruction, or that of murderers?" ' ' These examples [of Classic baptizo'] imply ... a continued and permanent immersion, a remaining under water." They are cases ' ' not of voluntary" plunging, but of fatal sinking. ' ' And Dr. Hender- son, whom Carson likewise reviews, makes affirmation, that, "when baptizo plainl}^ signifies the submersion of the whole bod}^, it con- vej's at the same time the idea that the submersion was permanent ; i.e., that the body thus submerged sunli to rise no more." More recentlj^ Rev. Philippe Wolff of Geneva, Switzerland, has declared, that, " when baptizo has the meaning of immerse, it implies a per- manent submersion, and means, sink under water, and keep there ; that is to sa}', drown." Professor J. H. Godwin, who advocates the purifying theory of baptizo, yet strives to drown all who are clas- sically baptized. Who could have guessed that droivning could ever have given rise to the idea of puilfication ? The di'owning %'iews 20 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. of Dr. Dale have already- been given. On the last leaf but one in his fourth and last volume, he asseverates that the baptizing of a human being into water is "death by drowning." Were it not for this "unlimited continuance," this fatal sinking, which Dr. Dale finds in water-baptism, we beheve his views and practice would wholly accord with our own as to the " mode." The principal evidence in support of a necessary drowning in water-baptism is found, of course, in those classic examples which speak of ships sinking and of men drowning in such baptisms ; instances of which, especially of the former kind, are indeed quite numerous. Still the general consent of mankind affirms that mil- lions have been baptized in water, or immersed, who have not lost their lives ; and this should be a sufficient refutation of ' ' the ine^d- table drowning " theory. Who has not heard of Naaman's seven- fold baptism, unattended with fatal suffocation (2 Kings v. 14) ? and of the " threefold sinking down and coming up," the ter mer- gimur, the trine immersion, of the patrists, or Christian fathers, which on this theory would be an utter impossibility ? Whether the Septuagint translators rightl}^ rendered the Hebrew original or not in 2 Kings v. 14, they evidently did not suppose that baptizo denoted "unlimited continuance," and always ended in a "fatal sinking." In regard to ships (and such like heavy and lifeless ob- jects) , we should naturally suppose, that, if the}^ were baptized by being capsized or scuttled, they would soon sink and be lost ; though one Greek writer speaks as if a baptized ship might be saved by "the pro^ddence of God" (C. 49). [In these and the following figures we refer the reader to the Classic Examples as numbered and translated by Professor Conant in his " Baptizein," — a book which is, or should be, in the hands of every Christian minister and intelligent la3-man.] In several instances this ship-sinking is repre- sented as consequent to the baptizing, thus showing that the sink- ing (and so drowning) is rather an effect of baptism than the bap- tism itself (C. 39, 158). Of com-se an intusposition in water may be followed by a sinking and " drowning," or by a taking out or emersion from the water ; the result being generallj' dependent on the nature of the object baptized, or on the will and strength of the baptizer. Dr. Dale, as we have seen, concedes in theor}' an occasional rising from the baptismal grave ; but this emergence from a physical baptism is, on his own showing, seldom available STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 21 in fact. His proposition, stated as without any exceptions, is, that " baptism has no outcome to it." If a ritual water-baptism is supposedly in the Commission, our author gives no hint of a possi- ble " outcome" to it, even though G-od has said, " Thou shalt not kill," and even though the Commission itself imphes an "out- come" by its inculcating the duty of teaching the baptized dis- ciples. "When a ritual baptism is under consideration, " death by drowning" is the rule, without an)^ exceptions! Yet all the drowning baptisms of human beings, so far as we recollect, have been effected by enemies, or otherwise adverse influences, or for self-destruction. Instances, on the other hand, of baptized per- sons lifting up their heads, indicate the possibility of emergence and safetj' (C. 22). Aristobulus, Herod's brother-in-law, had to undergo repeated baptisms, performed on him as if in sport by the king's hired assassins, before he was finally suffocated (C. 16). Hippocrates speaks of persons breathing in a peculiar wa}^ after ha^ang been baptized (C. 30) ; and Gregory Thaumaturgus clear- ly' implies that baptized persons could be drawn up, and thus " saved" from drowning (C. 44). There is one case of a semi- religious self-baptizing into the sea recommended by the jugglers to a superstitious man troubled with frightful dreams (C. 64). If Dr. Dale's theor}' were true, the proposed sea-bath would indeed have quickl}^ brought his earthly dreams to an end ! Many super- ficial and momentary baptisms also are recorded, exact duplicates, in fact, of Dr. Dale's evanescent &opfo-dippings. In Ex. 25 wine is drawn by baptizing or dipping the drinking-cups into the great wine-jars. So one man baptizes his hollowed hand in water in order to dart the draught into his mouth (C. 57) ; another bap- tizes his hand into blood in order to write an inscription (C. 67). Several instances of baptizing the sword into one's throat or breast are given (C. 47, 68, 78, 77). Ex. 70 might also be ad- duced as another instance of a designedl}" brief immersion. The baptizing game between King Philip and the pancratist in the pool proves also that repeated baptisms, when performed by one person upon another in a friendly wa}' (the onlj- instance of this kind in the Classics), are compatible with safety of human life (C. 156). But, of all the baptisms mentioned b}" the Classics, perhaps that of the bladder is the briefest. The Sibjiline oracle, referring to the city of Athens, says, "A bladder, thou maj-est be baptized ; but it 22 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. is impossible for thee to sink" (C. 24). A full-blown bladder would naturall}^ float on the water : it could be pressed under or baptized by the hand ; but, on removing the hand, how quickly, in the language of Ewing, would it pop ujj ! If, now, the Wolffs and Dales of our time were much less inflated, and much heavier, than a bladder, there need be, in view of examples cited, and many others which might be given, no fear on their part, certainly no absolute necessity, of drowning in water-baptism. Even the sea-coast west of Gibraltar, a pretty heavy object, emerged twice a day from its baptism (C. 4). Immersion in water of its own force will not, therefore, necessarily " drown any li\"ing man " in the absence of enemies and of cumbersome burdens, unless he should be taken with the cramp, or carried away with the current (C. 13), or is bent on suicide (C. 65). If &aj9ii20 never " contemplates " bring- ing a man up from "the water}^ grave," it always requires the strongest possible adverse and hostile influences to carry him down and keep him there. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 23 CHAPTER V. •WATER-BAPTISM MORE THAK A WETTING. A LITTLE water applied in " any way," according to " The Congregationalist," or "in some manner and to a certain extent," according to Professor G. B. Jewett (see his " Baptism versus Immersion," p. 36), does not suffice for a true Classic bap- tism, nor, indeed, for Dr. Dale's baptizo, primary or secondary. Neither " wash," nor " pour," nor " sprinlde," will easily fm-nish "a complete intusposition," or effect a " drowning; " nor conld they, as our author confesses, originate the idea of " controlling influence." "It is the indefinitelj'' long continuance of mersion which qualifies it to exert a controlling influence over objects phj^si- call}^ mersed, and which makes it the representative ivord for any controlling influence, however induced." It is " intusposition, withinness, of unlimited continuance, which is causative of influ- ence." Still, though "sprinkling" and "pouring" are not equivalents of baptizo, and ^^ not its most natural servitors," 3-et Dr. Dale thinks that " a baptism of influence," such as he finds in the Classics and elsewhere, may be effected by sprinkling or pour- ing, and, indeed, in a "mjTiad" (ten thousand) different ways. We contend that a partial wetting or mersion will answer neither for the literal or figurative classical baptisms. In manj^ of the examples already cited (C. 16, 22, 24, 28, 30) the baptisms referred to suppose an entire submersion, a complete covering in water. It will be generally conceded that the Greek and Latin fathers well understood what act baptizo requires, and that this act with them was not a partial, but a total, immersion in water. Augustine thus addresses the catechumens: "When standing in this font, before we dip j^our whole bod}''" (antequam vos toto corpore iiwg'weremi^s), " we have asked, 'Behevest thou? ' &c. . . . After 24 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 5*ou have promised to believe, we immersed " (demersimus) " three times jour heads in the sacred font." And again he sajs, " Multa sacramenta aliter atque ahter accipimus. Qusedam sicut nostis ore accipimus, qusedam per totum corpus accipimus ; " i.e., some sacra- ments we receive by the mouth (as the eucharist) , and some by the whole body (as baptism) . Chrysostom, describing the physical act of baptism, says, "When we sink our heads down in the water as in a kind of tomb, the old man is buried, and, sinking down beneath, is all concealed at once " (C. 185, also 193). Basil saj-s the " bodies of those who are baptized are in a manner buried in the water " (C. 181) . Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother, likewise says, " But coming to the water, the element cognate to the earth, we hide om-selves in it, as the Saviour hid himself in the earth." C3'ril of Jerusalem sa.js that " he who sinks down in the waters, and is baptized, is surrounded on aU sides by the waters," &c. (C. 180). The same writer also remarks, that "as he who is in the night sees no more, but he who is in the day remains in the light, so, in descending, ye saw nothing, as in the night, but, in ascending again, ye were as in the da}" ; and in the same ye died and were born, and that water of salvation became to you a grave and a mother." And Hippolytus, speaking of Christ's baptism in the Jordan, says, "Oh wonderful transactions! How was the boundless ' river that makes glad the city of God ' bathed in a little water ! the incomprehensible fountain, that sends forth life to men, and has no end, covered by scanty and transitorj^ waters ! " (C. 203.) In Ex. 69, 156, 221, baptism is expressly distin- guished from sprinkUng. Referring especially to the bladder baptism, Casaubon, Turretin, Witsius, and others unite in saving that baptizo signifies more than to float, and less than to sink to the bottom. The slight wetting which it would get in floating could not be called baptism. Floating pieces of wood, though well wetted, and somewhat "influenced" too, b}^ the water, are not baptized (C. 10). The men who walked on the sea by the aid of cork feet doubtless received a partial wetting, but were not baptized (C. 29). A cork above the net must get quite a wetting ; but Pindar saj's it is " not baptized " (C. 62, 63). Strabo the geographer, born 60 B.C. (see Ex. 12) , in speaking of the density of the waters in Lake Sirbon (Sea of Sodom) , saj^s that one who is not a swimmer ma}" enter in without fear of baptism ; j'et such a one would doubtless STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 25 receive ' ' an application of water in some manner and to a certain extent." -^ Whenever the immersion is partial, it is always so stated (see, in Ex. 7, 11, 38, 6, such phrases as, " baptized to the waist," "up to the breast," "up to the head," &c.) . We may in- deed (somewhat loosely) speak of dipping a thing, as dipping a pen into ink, where the immersion is not total ; yet " dip," in this iUus- .tration, does not, in consequence, mean to " pour," or " sprinkle," or "wash," or even "wet" with ink, and wiU not justify " any ap- plication " of ink to the pen. What we really mean hj the phrase is, that we dip the nib of the pen into the ink ; and this, of course, would be the more accurate expression. The usage of baptizo, however, when unlimited, does as a rule, and, so far at least as it concerns humanbeings, does, we believe, invariably, require a " com- plete intusposition " of " the whole person ; " it being a matter of indifference whether the continuance of this immersion be longer or shorter. Dr. F. Brenner defines baptizeiii, " in die Tiefe senken," " untertauchen ; " that is, to sink in the deep, to immerse : and he sustains this as its Scripture meaning by reference to Phihp and the eunuch's going down into the water, to Jesus coming up out of the water, and to the Scripture terms which are used to describe baptism, such as " water-bath" (loutron, Eph. v. 26), " antitype of the flood " (1 Pet. iii. 12) , " being buried," &c. (Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12) (see his "Historical Exhibition of the Administration of Baptism, from Christ unto our Times," pp. 1, 2). But, in xiew of the above-cited examples of limited immersion, is the statement of Dr. Carson, Professor Riplej^, and others, exactly true, that going down into the water is no part of baptism ? From such con- cessions Dr. Dale has di'awn the inference that none of us Baptists have been baptized, or dipped even, save onl}- our " nobler parts," — our heads and shoulders.^ 'Bat pa^-tial wettings, or immersions, 1 Another Greek writer, quoted by Winer (Bib. Eealwoerterbucli, art. Meer, todies, p. 74), says that " living persons could not easily immerse them- selves " in this sea. The Dead Sea would make a good baptistery for all who fear a drowning baptism. This example of the use of baptizo (by Julius Africanus ?) we have not seen referred to in any author except Winer. 2 It may not be known to our readers that Dr. Dale has kindly suggested a method whereby we may dip the " whole i^erson," as our theory demands. It is a contrivance of " ropes and pulleys," whose action is to be accompanied by " sliding the whole body off from the bank by a little clever manage- ment," &c. It occurs to us that still better contrivances might be iuvented 26 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. did not fully come up to Tertullian's idea of baptizo and tingo. " Others," he says, "suggest, constrainedl}^, it is plain, that the apostles then realized an equivalent for baptism, when, in their little ship, they were covered by the spray of the waves {fluctihus adspersi operti sunt) ; that Peter also himself was sufficiently im- mersed when he walked through the sea (per mare) . But, as I think, it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea, another to be baptized (tingui) by the rule of religion " (Dr. Hovey's translation in "Baptist Quarterly," 1871, p. 77). Still there are cases of very thorough wetting which lasiy loosely be termed a baptism, or immersion. Carmel's altar was so thoroughly drenched by the onpouring of the twelve buckets of water, besides the water which was taken to fill the trench (1 Kings sviii. 33-35) , that Origen could call it a baptizing. Ingham seems to think that "our friends," in the baptizing of their babes, would prefer a single immersion to such a copious trine onpouring of water as this by which Carmel's altar was deluged. We are willing in any case to concede a fair immersion, if it be preceded by a sufficiently copious pouring. To come down to later times, Walter Scott is quoted as authority for one immersion by sprinlding. He says, " The boat received the shower of brine which the animal spouted aloft, and the adventm'ous Triptolemus had a full share of the im- mersion." Through this heav}^ showering, far more severe, doubt- less, than Carson's "summer-plump," the boatman probably got an awful drenching ; but this hardly proves that immerse means to sprinkle, or that sprinlding is properly one mode of immersion. Still, as we can speak of baptism by previous pouring, so we may of immersion by a previous showering, provided it be heavy enough, or long continued. But, from these instances of pouring baptisms and sprinkling immersions, our readers may easily see, that, had our Saviour used the word " immerse " in the great Commission, it would have been an unavailing argument against the practice of sprinkling as one mode of baptism, or immersion. We are not sticklers, however, for an actual downward dipping in every instance of baptism. Dipping is, indeed, one very frequent form or kind of immersion or baptism ; yet — as we are not afraid of an tlian the one suggested ; yet we are just as thankful to Dr. Dale for Ms friendly advice as though he had happened to hit upon the best possible method. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 27 " intusposition " in water administered, not b}^ bapto, but b}' bajj- tizo, primary and proper, in a friendly way or as a religious rite, and that we may please our friend Dr. Dale especially — we are willing to give up the Carsonian " dip, and nothing but dip, never expressing anything but mode through all Greek literature," which "theor^^," in the hands of Dr. Dale, has proved to be such a formidable weapon against his antagonists : and instead of this " dip, and nothing but dip," we will accept the other averment of Carson, parallel to this ; namely, that baptizo, in " the whole range of Greek literature, . . . signifies imjierse, and nothing else" (Cabson on Baptism, p. 398). We are willing to adopt President Edward Beecher's "original and primitive meaning" which he assigns to baptizo, — "to cause to come into a state of being en- veloped or surrounded by a fluid, whether it be done by an agent immersing an object in a fluid, or by the flowing of the fluid over the object without the intervention of any agent, or by the passive sinking of an object into it." Of course the natural method of one person's immersing another in water would be by a downward dipping. We are even willing to adopt, with slight modification. Dr. Dale's own statement of the primary import of baptizo. Pie says, on p. 449 of " Ch. Bap.," that " this word primarily makes demand for the intusposition of its object within a fluid element by any competent act mo-^ing indifl'erently the object or the ele- ment " (hence by act of dipping, plunging, or whelming), "with- out limitation of time as to the continuance in such intusposition ' ' (which ' ' indefinite period ' ' may be ver}^ brief, and hence allows of a "dipping," or may be long continued), "thus bringing the object into a new and thoroughl}^ changed condition ' ' (whenever the intusposition is attended " vtith influence"), A baptism is frequentl}^ " most brief in continuance," and " without influence ; " and a dipping is sometimes " for influence " and " with influence ; " and hence a " mersion," or baptism, is not " essentially distin- guished from a dipping," and our author's " theory " collapses at the start. If, now, Dr. Dale, in baptizing candidates, will com- pletely intuspose them for an ' ' indefinite period ' ' (which may be very brief) in a fluid element (as he now may do without fear of a "fatal sinking"), either by plunging, sinking, pouring, or sprinkling (dipping, we are confident, he will never allow), both ourselves and the claims of baptizo will be satisfied. 28 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTEE VT. CLASSIC FIGURATIVE BAPTISMS. IT has been said that baptizo has so many different meanings, primar}^ and secondary, literal and figurative, that no one word can be selected as its exact equivalent. " The dictionaries give fifteen different meanings " to bapto and baptizo. Yes, and dif- ferent writers have given many more than are found in the lexi- cons ; and they could have given hundreds more than thej have, had the}^ regarded as definitions every word which has been used interchangeably with baptizo, or which has been used to express, not onl}- the significance of the loord, but that of the whole Chris- tian rite. The patiists had more than a score of distinctive names for the ordinance, — such as " water," " laver," " bath," " foun- tain" (i.e., font), the " new birth," " regeneration," " anointing," " initiation," " mystery," " sign," " seal," " illumination ; " and, had the}' been Beecherites, the}' would have oftener used the term " puiification." Carson would allow two meanings, a primary and secondary, to bapto, — " dip " and " dye," — but only one to baptizo. What the lexicons gave as different secondary meanings he called " figurative applications " of its one meaning ; and it is in respect to this matter, and not to anj doubt as to the primary meaning of the word, that he s&js, "All the lexicographers and commentators are against me." We are about tired of seeing lexicons refen-ed to in this dispute (some sixtj', it has been stated, have been appealed to in a recent controversy), but shall just adduce one, the latest and best in our language, — the sixth English edition of Liddell and Scott. Here we miss the "dip repeatedly," and the " pour upon," of the earlier American edition. The only primary definitions given are, to dip in or under, and, in the middle voice, to bathe. Of tropical signifi- STUDIES OJSr BAPTISM. 29 cations they give four examples ; to wit, of the crowds of robbers who flocked into Jerusalem in the time of siege, tchelming the city (C. 98) , soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt, and drowned with questions (C. 95, 133, 135). Here, certainl}', is not a large array of different meanings. Indeed, I know of but few important words in the Greek language which have not more definitions than this. Many other instances of metaphorical use might have been ad- duced, — such as baptized in cares, evils, worldlj^ affairs, troubles, taxes, povertj^, affliction, grief, anger, opiate draught, insensi- bility, sleep, wickedness, wantonness, pollution, fornication, sins, &c., and (once) in pleasure; but these lexicographers evidently thought that these uses were all grounded in, and easily reducible to, one original meaning, that of immersion, and all had a general " famil}' likeness." The words " poured " or " sprinkled " would poorlj" fill the place of " baptized " in the above-cited examples ; but we can substitute "immersed" for it, and get the complete sense of the original in every instance. This shows us that the word " baptized," as applied to any person or object, imports that the person or object is intusposed or immersed, literally or tropically, into some element, so as to be wholly surrounded and enveloped by such element. Such an immersion will ordinarily be attended with some kind of influence imparted to the person or object immersed. Yet " immerse " does not of itself thereby mean to influence, since it denotes rather the means of creating or im- parting an influence. Thus to immerse any thing in hot or cold water is to subject it to a heating or cooling influence. But does "immerse," in consequence, mean to influence? above all, does it mean to make hot, or to make cold ? If so, then " immerse " wiU mean to drown hj " never taking out what it puts in," to strcpefy by an opiate draught, to hetoilder by subtle questions, to oppress b}' taxes, to ruin by debts, &c. In fact, the definitions of "im- merse" would be almost innumerable, since the different kinds of influence imparted bj' different immersions would be well-nigh numberless. But this is virtually the way in which haptizo has been treated b}'^ Dr. Dale. And as he has treated haptizo^ so, in every respect, could he treat the word "immerse," beginning its history with "immersion without influence," and ending it with " influence without immersion." And, taking aU this for granted, 30 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. lie could easily demonstrate, what we know to be false, that "if, in the development of language, any word« ever lost an element (in this ease the condition of envelopment) which was originally its gTand sole characteristic, such a word is " immerse. And so, through the wonder-working influence of the Dale theory, we must surrender " immerse," with its old meaning, which is " vitally de- pendent upon the idea of intusposition," and must consequently lay it aside as dead, or, at least, can only use it when we wish to convey the idea of "influencing controUingl3\ " Yet this may be to us one consolation, that in this sense we may use it at almost every breath ; for we are controUingly influencing, or are being con- trolhngly influenced, in " ten thousand " different ways, and at aU times. As, however, we would deny the above "influence with- out immersion" (save only as the word " immersion" should be qualified bj^ the adjectives " literal" or " physical"), so we reject in toto Dr. Dale's "influence without intusposition," which he regards as now the proper definition of baptism. A baptism of this influence kind, without reference to the idea of intusposition, exists onty in the author's brain. Dr. Dale should never separate his "controlling influence" from his favorite "merse" (iboierse). His baptizo of influence should always express or eflfect ' ' a meesive influence." A charitable, if not the true, explanation of our author's influence theory is, that lie has dwelt on and among the resulting efl'ects and influences of haptizo tiU he himself has been influenced to ignore it as having any one radical meaning, running, so to speak, throughout all its ramifications. "We, on the con- trar}^, maintain that the " ground meaning" of baptizo — namely, that of intusposition, or entu-e immersion, generally in a fluid ele- ment — extends to all the figurative or secondary uses of that word " through aU Greek literature." Confirmatory of this view is the testimony of that distinguished classical scholar, the late Professor Charles Anthon of New York. "The primary meaning of the word (bapjtizo) is to dip, or immerse ; and its secondarj^ meanings, if it ever had any, all refer, in some way or other, to the same leading idea.^ Sprinkling, &c., are entirel}^ out of the question." 1 If our readers wish to see how this " leading idea " of immersion per- vades all the so-called "secondary meanings" of baptizo, we would refer them to Eev. H. L. Gear's Keply to Rev. J. W. Dale, D.D., now being piib- lislied in the Journal and Messenger. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 31 (From a letter to Dr. E. Parmly, dated " Columbia College, March 27, 1843," and cited by Eev. Alexander Campbell in his debate with Rev. N. L. Eice.) Professor Conaut, after adducing some of the above and other similar metaphorical examples (" Baptizein,"-pp. 90, 91), says, " The idea of a total submergence Kes at the basis of these meta- phorical uses. Any thing short of this, such as mere pouring or sprinkling, viewed as the ground of these metaphorical senses, would be simply absurd." Professor Conant often gives " whehn " and "overwhelm" (to immerse and hear down, Webster and "Worcester) as the rendering of baptizo in tropical use. And Dr. Dale allows that ' ' the wide consent to the introduction of ' over- whelming ' as a translation of a certain class of baptisms must have substantial ground to rest upon." " "WTielm," he says, " in certain respects, serves very admirably as an interpretative word." It is one of Professor Conant' s seven defining terms which he would retain as a valuable help to expound the Greek word. In accordance with this idea, Professor Stuart, Edward Robinson, and all the principal commentators, refer the Saviour's dreaded baptism to the overwhelming sufferings which He had to endure. So Doddridge : ' ' Are you able ... to be baptized with the baptism, and plunged into that sea of suflferings, with which I am shortly to be baptized, and, as it were, overwhelmed for a time? " ' ' I have indeed a most dreadful baptism to be baptized with ; and I know that I shaU shortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress" ("Family Expositor," ad loc.) . With this coincides the rendering of Mark x. 38, as given by D. A. Schott in Latin, and b}' George Campbell: "Can ye undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo ? " — a rendering which the Baptist Bible version, so called, has almost literally' copied. It is, however, objected hj some, that Dr. Conant's " immerse," " dip," " plunge," " whelm," &c., whether used in a literal or fig- urative sense, are not equivalents, have, indeed, no common bond between them, but diff'er essentiall}' in import, and hence cannot properly represent the one word baptizo. For example, " dip," it is said, supposes the " baptizee " to be active, and the element to be passive ; in other words, the verb indicates the movement of the object into the element: "whelm," on the contrary, reverses all 32 ' STUDIES, ON BAPTISM. this, and makes tlie element to move to and cover the object. But our friends must not be too hard upon Professor Conant for using several different and not exactty equivalent terms in inter- preting baptizo. Dr. Dale and other Pedobaptists have often told their opponents who have held, or have been charged with holding, to "owe plain and simple meianing " of baptizo, that a word is not alwaj's used in the same sense, that it may have a "plurality of concepts," and that this word especially cannot be reduced to one signification. Dr. Conant certainty would not regard the words in question as exact equivalents, but would hold that a common " ground idea " runs through them all, which is also the ground idea of baptizo. We boast of no dictionary-making faculty ; and, if we tr}^ our hand at defining some of these terms, we shall do it without any feeling of Popish ex-cathedrd infallibility. Dr. Dale will not allow Professor Conant the lexicographer's usual privilege of varying his form of statement in defining a word, and chides him for saying that immerse signifies to put into or under water, though there is no appreciable difference in the value of these statements. Both convey the idea that the object immersed is completely intusposed in, covered with, and surrounded by, water. Thus Leverett defines mergo, as well as mmergo, "to immerse," " to put under water," &c. ; while Andrews defines it as plunging into water. If there be any difference, the putting under, perhaps, expresses more obviously the idea of covering over. Dr. Dale, we are aware, makes the phrase "put into" expressive of act, and " put under " expressive of condition; but the difference in this respect is exceedingly slight. Both phrases are expressive of act, and both, in their proper forms, are expres- sive of condition. We say of immerse, then, that it puts an object into, within, or under water (supposing that water is the element), so that it shall be wholly covered up and surrounded with water. This intusposition m.a,j continue a long or short space of time ; may be attended with influence, or be without influence ; and may be effected by different modes, or in a variety of ways. One such way is dipping, and hence dipping we may call one kind of immer- sion. For to " dip " likewise means to put under water, generally in a downward direction and for a brief space of time, sometimes " without influence," and sometimes " for " and " with " influence. If Dr. Dale thinks the " whole person " must be out of the water STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 33 prior to and in order to this full dipping (or immersion) , we are willing lie should attempt its proof. To " plunge," also, is to put into or under water, generally with suddenness and force. To "whelm" is to put an object under water by causing a body of water to come to and over it, generally with yiolence, and with destructive or hurtful influence. Were we to define baptizo, we should do it precisely as we defined " immerse." Baptismal intus- positions, then, the same as immersions, may be accompUshed in different ways, and be attended with different features ; and Dr. Conant has done wisely and rightly in employing different words in translating baptizo, in accordance with the exigencies of the differ- ent passages. Baptizo in one instance may denote a dipping, in another a plunging, and in another a whelming or overwhelming ; and hence even these in some respects variant words may be used in different connections to translate baptizo. Does any friend of controlling influence demand a proof of such a usage of baptizo f We refer him to Dr. Dale, whose statement is (see " Ch. Bap.," p. 449) that baptizo " primarily makes demand for the intusposition of its object within a fluid element by any competent act moving indifferently the object" (hj dipping) "or the element" (by whelming). "In literal primary baptism, ... it is a matter of indifference whether the object is moved to secure intusposition, or whether the element is moved to embrace its object." There is no sufficient reason why Dr. Dale should not accept, as general definitions of baptizo, the seven defining terms emploj'ed by Pro- fessor Conant (dip excepted) ; since these "contemplate intuspo- sition " of " indefinite continuance," without regard to " foiTu of action." Nay, since baptizo "refuses with absolute denial to be bound to an}^ " (act) , " whether labelled with ' into,' or ' under,' or ' over ' " (although an intus would seem to involve and require an. '•'-into''), his principles would, indeed, "justify the addition of seven more, — to 'duck,' to 'souse,' to 'steep,' to 'sink,' to ' swamp,' to 'ingulf,' to ' swallow up,' or seven times seven," or "ten thousand" ! In defining immersion, we might have added that the activity or passivity of the " baptizee " and of the element is a matter of indifference, provided there be a full submergence of the object. Most usually the person or thing is applied to the element ; but this is not necessary to an immersion. A blacksmith, for example, 34 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. will ordinarily dip Ms heated iron into a trough of water. The element ma}', indeed, be called passive ; yet the water exerts a ver}'' powerful controlUng influence. He maj-, however, put his heated iron (saj-) in an empty kettle, and then pour water into the vessel till the iron is full}- immersed. Here it ma}- also be said that the iron is put into and under water, jQt in a different way from the former method. The element, in this case, is active, — i.e., is apphed to the object; yet it exerts the same influence, we may suppose, in the one case as in the other. There has been a good and valid immersion in either case, though performed b}" dif- ferent methods, — in the one case b}- actuallj- dipping the object, in the other by causing the element to come over and immerse the object. "We ma}" Ba.j that this latter immersion was effected by pouring ; but this pouring was not, in consequence, an immersion, nor was the immersion a pouring. The pouring was merely an antecedent act preparator}- to the immersion : it maj^ even be called the cause of the immersion, yet did not in itself constitute the immersion. In the words of my friend Mr. Gear, it was a " causative,',' but not the " constitutive," act of the immersion. Thus we see that " dipping " and "whelming," for example, while not exact equivalents, and in some respects divergent in meaning, yet have the common feature or property of " intusposition," and may each properly represent bajjtizo, as its circumstances and exigencies ma}' require. But is it not a well-nigh inexplicable mj'stery that Dr. Dale or any of his admirers can hesitate to accept Professor Conant's "immerse," "immerge," "submerge," "dip," "plunge," "imbathe," "whelm," as definitions of bap- tizo, and jet can swallow down at once, and without the contortion of a muscle, such unrelated, 'opposing terms as " stupefy," " make cold,," "bewilder," "make drunk," "temper wine," (render it de-intoxicating!) "drown," "pollute," and "purify," which are given on pp. xx and 135 of " Classic Baptism " as specific defini- tions of bajytizo ? So long as our ' ' Confessions ' ' and our writers restricted themselves to this definition, " dipping is baptizing, and baptizing is dipping," all, to our author's mind, was "definite, precise, and clear:" but, when the "venerable Booth" conjoins "immersion" with " dipping," Dr. Dale detects " a note of dis- cord ; " and when, to Carson's " dip or immerse," is added " dip or sinlv," and "lay under water," the doctor is "fairly bewil- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 35 dered." ^ Was he not in this state of mind when he undertook to define the "specific conditions expressed by" baptizo? "To 1 "As Professor Stuart says, 'Bapto and haptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into any thing liquid : all lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.' So Baptists generally have freely interchanged the words 'dip,' 'jjlunge,' 'immerse,' &c., as allied in their fundamental import. They have not trod anxiously as near an ambuscade of sj'nonymes ; they have not trembled for fear of being submerged in a tidal wave of nice verbal distinctions. They have affirmed that ' dipping is baptizing, and baptizing is dipping,' in the sense in which they would have said 'immersion is baptiz- ing, and baptizing is immersion.' They have employed the liberty, hitherto accorded to every translator, of varying words according to diversities of idiom, without dreaming of an assault from Crabbe and Mr. Dale. " But precisely here is our author's strong .point. ' He is nothing if not ' verbally and intensely ' critical.' He does not assail us with Stephens and Scapula : it does not appear that he has more than the slenderest acquaint- ance with critics and commentators. But he has studied English syno- nymes; he has determined the minute shadings that mark off 'dip,' 'plunge,' and 'immerse' (as well as ' bapt,' 'merse,' 'inn,' and 'intus- pose'); and, thus completely armed, discharges his volley of synonymes with fatal execution into the Baptist camp. From the point of view of the synonymes he passes in review the Baptist authors, to see how they have made good their ' postulates,' and, as might be expected, finds them wofully deficient. Where all was to be definite, luminous, and exact, there reigns a perfect Babel of contradictory and unintelligible testimonies. One says 'dip;' another, 'dip, and nothing but dip,' yet iDresently adds, 'or im- merse' (a 'note of discord,' says the inspector); another, equally discord- ant, adds 'plunge;' another takes '.sinking' and 'drowning' under the shelter of baptizo; another hints at that distinction of hapto and taptizo which sends a ' shock through the whole Baj^tist system ; ' and, to crown all, Dr. Conant brings up the rear with 'dip,' 'immerse,' 'immerge,' 'whelm,' 'imbathe,' and we know not how many more enormities, to throw our author's critical soul into utter bewilderment and perplexity. Where and what, then, is the ' one definite meaning ' of haptizo ? Is dipping plunging ? ]s plunging , immersing ? Are 'sinking,' 'submerging,' and 'laying under water,' identical ? Does not 'plunge' express 'a movement characterized by rapidity and force ' ? and ' dip,' a gentle, downward movement entering slightly into some diverse element with immediate return ? Does not 'immerse,' like baptizo, express 'no definite form of act,' and 'intusiDose its object within a fluid element without providing for its removal ' ? And are ' Baptist writers ' to be allowed to toss about indiscriminately words so radically diverse, and postulating one meaning through all Greek literature, and that 'dip,' then thus wantonly to make shipwreck of their professions and the synonymes ? And can we wonder, that, thus summoned before his critical tribunal, he brands upon them utter ' failure ' to meet the demands of their postulates ? " — From Professor A. C. Keisdeick's article in Bap- 36 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tie a hundred- weight to a man's foot," which, as a definition of hinder, our author deems irrational, would be truly philosophic and accurate as compared with some of those above given of haptizo. We are aware that words sometimes change much in their mean- ing in the course of ages ; seldom, however, losing entirely their primary and essential meaning in the way of natural development. By some freak of fortune their meaning may be thus radically changed. Dr. Dale, and he alone so far as we can recollect, believes that haptizo, by Greek usage, underwent this radical change. "We think, that, if its import was changed at all, the change was exceedingly slight compared with the change the word "baptize " has experienced in English hands, or rather by English tongues and pens. Once, for example, it was the custom to bap- tize in rivers ; but I have just taken up a newspaper which informs me that. a man has baptized a river. Perhaps Dr. Gale was not so far out of the way, after all, in supposing that a lake might be (hyperbolically and figuratively) dipped in the blood of a frog ; for this lake-dipping, we should suppose, could be eflfected much more easily than the " complete intusposition " of one of the very chiefest rivers of the world, " twentj-nine hundred miles in length," — the "majestic stream" of Lualaba and the "mighty Congo," now identified as one, the " whole " of which Mr. Henry M. Stanley, unaided, so far as we can learn, has baptized as the " Livingstone." The " mode " of its baptism was not mentioned ; but "the act" was evidentl}^ less " Greekly " than Enghsh. Baptize has come to mean "to christen," '■'■to name" \ Well, this meaning is not stranger than some of the diametrically oppos- tist Quarterly for April, 1869. To Dale's hypothesis touching this "fail- ure" — to wit, "If it shall be found that between postulates and writings there is no harmony, that between writer and writer there is as little harmony, that the pages of the same writer compared with each other per- petuate this disharmony, that there never has been an attempt by any one writer through these three hundred years to carry these postulates 'through all Greek literature,' " &c. — Dr. Kendrick adds this "logical conclusion: " " Then the idea of propounding them as ' Baptist postulates ' is ludicrously absurd, and would imply in ' Baptist writers ' a stupidity only equalled by that of Mr. Dale in affirming them to be ' Baptist postulates,' and then pro- ceeding to show with Homeric fulness and vivacity that they have been flatly disowned by every Baptist, who, within ' these three hundred years,' has written upon this subject." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 37 ing ones given by Dr. Dale, — " to make cold," " to intoxicate," "to de-intoxicate," "to bewilder," "to establish or confirm," (the Syriac amad?) "to stupefy," "to pollute," "to purify," and such like. And the word "to name" can happily be con- served for the benefit of the "influence theor3^" To bestow pub- licly a name upon any one, especially to give him a good name, or rob him of a "good name " and give him a bad one, is most surely and most frequently to controlUngly influence him, and often his destiny, forever. We shall expect to see in the next edition of " Classic Baptism " the verb " to name " instanced as fulfilling, or as quahfied to fulfil, one of the "specific conditions" expressed by haptizo. "We would simply add as a noticeable fact, that all the above instances of figurative usage (with, perhaps, a single exception) are baptisms of a hurtful and destructive influence, and are not of that kind which Dr. Dale would naturally wish to transfer to the sphere of the New Testament. 38 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER VII. JUDAIC PURIFYING BAPTISMS. THE principal examples of the Judaic use of the word baptizo, outside of the ^ew Testament, are found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha, and in the writings of Philo and Josephus. Baptizo, in some of its forms, occurs four times in the Sevent}^, or Septuagint, and Apocrj-pha ; and, in three of these instances (2 Kings v. 14, Jud. xii. 7, Ecclus. xxxiv. 25), the act of baptism was performed for the purpose of cleansing or purification. But in Isa. sxi. 4, and in Aquila's version of Job ix. 31, one finds, on the contrary, baptisms of sin and pollu- tion : " Iniquity' baptizes me ; " and, " Even then thou wilt baptize me in corruption." Now, the idea of purification is no more ex- pressed in the word baptizo, in the former instances, than pollution is in the latter. The purification and the pollution are expressed, not by the word itself, but by the connecting words and relating circumstances. Whether these purifying baptisms are examples of physical intusposition in a fluid element — in other words, of literal and proper immersion — we shall consider at another time. Turning, now, to the New Testament, we remark that the " divers baptisms" of Heb. ix. 10 evident^ refer to the Old-Testament Levitical rites of ablution, or bathing, and are called "diverse," not because they differ in nature or kind one from another, hke sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, but because they are various, manifold (mancherlei, as in Luther's version), and refer, as Baum- garten says, both to " men and things." "In 2 Mace. xiv. 21 the word is applied to two different seats of the same kind. The only difference here was that Nicanor and Judas, instead of sitting on the same throne, or chair, had each a chair for himself, a different seat" (Carson, p. 326). By consulting such passages as Lev. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 39 viii. 6, xi. 32, xiv. 6, 8, 9, xv. 5, 13, 16, xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28, Num. xix. 7, 8, 19, xxxi. 23, one may see how often things defiled had to be "put into water," spoils taken in war made to "pass through the water," and persons, official and vmofiieial, were enjoined to wash their clothes and bathe their persons in water. The Hebrew word for "washing" of clothes indicates that the defiled clothing was trodden doivn in the water, and thus immersed in their cleansing (see art. " FuUo," in Smith's " Greek and Roman Antiquities ") . Liinemann, the continuator of Meyer, has given, mainty, the same Old-Testament references as we have done ; and all Of them, with perhaps one exception, refer to bathing. And Professor Cremer sa^^s that ' ' the peculiar New-Testament and Christian use of the word to denote immersion, submersion, i.e., to baptize, . . . may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings." The rabbis also, in the Talmud, make very frequent reference to the baptisms, under the Mosaic dis- pensation, of vmclean vessels and of defiled persons, making use of some forai of the word tabal (to dip) to denote these "Judaic" baptisms. Surely these thorough ablutions, arising from so many causes, and occurring with such frequency, may well be called " diverse baptisms." If the writer of the Epistle to the Ilebrews had spoken of "diverse sprinJcliyigs," it would also have been easy enough to supplj^ abundant references to the Old-Testament scriptures. We remark, further, that the baptisms of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches (Mark vii. 4), are traceable in part, it ma}' be, to the Levitical rites, but chieflj' to the " tradition of the elders.". These "baptisms," says Mej-er, "are to be understood of ablution by immersion." The Greek Jewish writers outside of the New-Testament and Christian sphere, who have used the word haptizo^ are Philo and Josephus ; the former employing it twice, the latter fifteen times. They both were of priestl}' descent (the latter being himself a priest) ; both lived in the times of the apostles ; the writings of both were voluminous. And it is on these writers that we must mainl}* depend for our knowlege of the vernacular Jewish Greek usage iu the time of Christ. The philosophizing Philo Judneus emploj's baptizo only in a tropical sense, to express a baptism of gluttony and of drunkenness (C. 136, 142). Of the fifteen instances iu 40 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Joseplius' writings, one has reference to a baptism (by drunken- ness) into insensibiKty and sleep, one to a suicidal sword-plun- ging, one to a dipping of a hyssop-branch or heifer-ashes, some three or four to a bodily immersion or drowning in water, several to a destructive moral whelming, and nearly one-half of the whole either to actual, supposable, or figurative shipwreckings ; thus showing that the " intusposition " idea of baptizo, "its original, grand, sole characteristic," instead of becoming obsolete and lost in the apostohc age, had become rather deepened and intensified.^ While, now, we are willing to concede with Theophylact that " God prefigures the baptism in the Jewish rites" (C. 220), and allow that the patrists found some t^'pe or image of baptism in almost every divinely-appointed act or instance of cleansing or saving power recorded in the Old Testament, we deny in toto the state- ment of Dr. Dale, that the actual '■'•Judaic baptism" (not as seen 1 Since so many jjersons possess Josephus' writings, we give, for their sake, tlie different references. The mere English reader can easily guess the word which stands for baptize. Josephus' Life, Sect, 3; Antiquities, 4: 4, 6; 9: 10, 2; 10: 9, 4; 15: 3, 3; Wars, 1: 22, 2; 1: 27, 1; 2: 18, 4; 2: 20, 1; 3: 7, 15; 3: 8, 5; 3: 9, 3; 3: 10, 9 (twice); 4: 3, 3; and Conant's Examples, 16-23, 68, 69, 96-98, 118. Only one baptizing in all these fifteen examples has ever been supposed by any one to signify a purifying ; and this suppo- sition is grounded, as we shall attempt to show, on a mistranslation of the passage (C. 69). In any possible translation, however, the baptizing is ex- pressly distinguished from a "sprinkling." As some may suppose that Josephus' notice of John the Baptist is favora- ble to the purifying cause, we here present it to the reader: "John that was called the Baptist, . . . wlio was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism (baptismo), for that the washing (baptisin) would be acceptable to him if they made use of it, not, in order to the putting away of some sins (only), but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by right- eousness" (Antiquities 18: 5, 2, Whiston's translation). John's water-bap- tism, however, had reference not so much to purification as to repentance and remission. Hence the distinctive name of John the " Baptist " was not John the " Purifier," neither is purification the especial symbolic import of the New-Testament ritual baptisms generally. Even the special sprinkling purifications of Judaism were not effected by the use of simple water. But what does Dr. Dale mean when he says that John's baptism, as described by Josephus, is " a purification of the soul," and not of the body ? As I read it, it is a " purification of the body ; " which purification, indeed, presupposes and symbolizes a purification or purging of the soul by righteousness. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 41 through the medium of patristic fanc}^ or through modern ' ' in- fluence " glasses) "is a condition of ceremonial purification, effected by the washing of the hands or feet, by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood or heifer-ashes, by the pouring upon of water, by the touch of a coal of fire, by the waving of a flaming sword" (the reader must know that these last two examples refer to Isa. vi. 6, and Gen. iii. 24), " and by diverse other modes and agen- cies, dependent in no wise on any form or act, or on the covering of the object ; " asliliewise the assertion of Dr. Dale's epitomizer. Rev. J. G. D. Stearns, that "the secondary meaning of baptizo, expressive of purification, [simply and without reference to mode ?] was its common, daily signification in the popular language of the Jews, and had been for several generations." ^ And 3'et we affirm that the immersion of one's whole person in pure water may very naturally effect or s3'mbolize a thorough 1 "It will be well to notice in this connection a mistake sometimes made by persons inexperienced in the language of the early writers. Some of the fathers speak of the ancient Jewish and heathen purifications as typical of baptism. Some say, that as these purifications were often by sprinkling, therefore the eai-ly writers deemed these modes comprehended in the term "to baptize." But the slightest knowledge will refute this; for to say of a thing that it is typical or figurative of another, and that it is exactly the same, are two very different things. It is not essential that the figure, and that of which it is a figure, should be, in all respects, alike : it is enoiigh that there be a likeness in a single point. When, therefore, the fathers speak of heathen lustrations, or Jewish sprinklings, as figurative of baptism, we must not so understand them as to make them contradict their repeated statement that baptizo is expressive of mode. The point usually aimed at by them is, that as both these are symbolical of expiation, of cleansing, and of purifying, in this respect they are figurative or tyjncal of that divine bap- tism' which washes away sins. That which prefigures baptism may be a rite in which no water is used. . . . This tendency to find a figure wherever there is even a slight similarity is a characteristic of much that is said by even the earlier fathers." — History of the Modes of Christian Baptism, by Rev. J. Chkystal, Presbyter, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Dale is not "inexpe- rienced in the language of the early writers ; " but he sadly ignores, especially in his Judaic Baptism (which is chiefly but a patristic spiritualizing of certain incidents in Old-Testament history, with the design of illustrating the nature and benefits of Christian baptism) and in his Patristic Bap- tism, the distinction indicated by Tertulliau and other fathers between the "carnalis actus" and the " spiritualis effectus" of baptism, and resolves patristic baptism mainly into an "effectus" (influence or resultant "condi- tion"), which takes place independently of any special actus, or "mode." 42 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. cleansing, and that it is a thousand times more expressive of entire purification than what, by a yiolent catachresis, is commonly called " sprinkling," as we have observed it ; to wit, the very slight apph- cation of one's moistened finger-ends to a person's forehead. Such spriulding (?) as this is too slight to be called a " washing," and too insignificant to indicate any very thorough cleansing. "The most disorderly baptizers of all," says Dr. William Wall, the great historian and defender of infant-baptism, are " those, who, affect- ing to use as little water as possible, do purposely throw no more than a sprinkle or drop of water on the face of the child. The Scripture will never justify these, nor the ancient church, nor the rubric of the Church of England ; for that requires pouring in the weakest child's case " (see Note I., end of the volume). And he further says, "How large a signification soever the word bap- tizo may have to signif}^ washing in general, it is plain that the ordinary and general practice of St. John" (the Baptist), "the apostles, and primitive church, was to baptize b}^ putting the per- son into water, or causing him to go into the water. Neither do I know of any Protestant who has denied it," (this in England, A.D. 1720 !) " and but very few^ men of learning that have denied, that, where it can be used with safety of health, it is the most fitting way." "The way that is now ordinarily used we cannot deny to have been a novelty brought into this church" (of Eng- land) "by those who had learned it in Germany or G-eneva; and thej" were not contented to follow the example of pouring a quan- tity of water (which had there been introduced instead of immer- sion) , but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pom'- ing to sprinlihng, that it might have as little resemblance of the ancient way of baptizing as possible." "The immersion of the person (whether infant or adult) in the posture of one that is buried and raised up again is much more solemn, and expresses the design of the sacrament and the mystery of the spiritual wash- ing MUCH BETTER, than pom'ing a small quantit}^ of water on the face ; and that pouring of water is much better than sprinkling, or dropping a drop of water on it. If it be done in the church, in or at the font, and the congregation do join in the prayers there used, it is much more solemn than in a bed-chamber, out of a basin or pipkin, a teacup, or a punch-bowl ; and a bed-chamber is, perhaps, not quite so scandalous as a kitchen or stable, to which things look STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 43 as if they would bring it at last." — Defence of the History of Infant-Baptism, fourth London edition, vol. iii. pp. 85, 113, 349, seq. Some persons, we know, have maintained that the " baptizee " should be passive^ and the baptizing, purifying agent element should be active; in other words, should be applied (by one's moistened finger-tips?) to the candidate, which is not generally the case in immersion. Yet Dr. Dale's theory of " withinness as causative of influence " can hardly be made to sanction this view ; for he would or should invariably intuspose in order to secure the full " controlUng influence " of water or other hquid. And if the element thus, and thus onl}', exerts its full influence, it cannot truly be said to be passive. And again : if it makes no difference, so far as baptizo is concerned, in what wa}^ or "mode" the purifj-ing element is applied, then it can be legitimately applied to the whole person by immersing the whole person in ' ' clean water." It is said, however, that, if baptism be made emblematical of death and burial, it must be significant of corruption and putrefac- tion, and is suggestive of any thing but cleansing and purity. But in Christian baptism we are not only biuied, but are raised again, henceforth to " walls in newness of Ufe " (Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12) . Dr. Dale, in opposition to his drowning theory, quotes Basil as sapng, " It is impossible to be baptized thrice without rising as often." The burial, then, as denoting our death to sin and the world, and the rising again denoting a new life of puritj^ and holi- ness, — what can better express an entire cleansing and purifica- tion? Dr. Schaff (in his "History of the Apostolic Church," p. 570) thus remarks : " It is well known that the reformers Luther and Cahin, and several old Protestant liturgies, gave the preference to immersion ; and this is undoubtedl}^ far better suited than sprin- kling to sj'mbolize the idea of baptism, the entire purifj^ng of the inward man, the being buried and rising again with Christ." Arnoldi says that an entire submersion under water in baptism is " a confession of entire impurit}", and a S3-mbol of entire purifica- tion'' ("Baptizein," p. 153). T3'ndale, whose martyr-monument is our English Bible, in his " Obedyence of a Chiysten Man," saj's, "The loasshinge preacheth unto us that we are cleansed wj'th Chrj'ste's bloude-shedynge, which was an offering and a satisfac- 44 " STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tion for the synne of al that repent and beleve, consentynge and submittynge themselves unto the wyl of God. The plungynge into tlie water S3'gn3rf3"eth that we d3'-e and are buryed with CMyst, as concernynge the old lyfe of Sjmne, which is Adam. And th.Q pull- ynge out again sygn3^f3"eth that we ryse agayn with Chr3'st in a new l3'fe."' To lilie effect is Cramner's declaration, in his Cate- chism of 1548, that " Baptisme and the d3'pp3"nge into the water doth betoken that the olde Adam, with al his synne and evel lustes, ought to be drowned and k3^11ed b}'' daily contrition and repentance ; and that, by renew3'nge of the Holy Gost, we ought to rise with Christ from the death of synne, and to walke in a new lyfe," &c. We have space to quote but two or three of the fathers. The- ophj-lact, after speaking of "the thrice sinking down," sa3^s, "Then the man comes up as did the Lord '>' (from His burial), " bearing more bright and shining the garment of immortality, and having suyiJc the corruption in the water " (see C. 202). Chr3'sos- tom asserts (as quoted by Dale), that if any one should be an adulterer, or an idolater, or should commit any other wrong, or should be full of all wickedness among men, having entered into the pool of the waters, — the bath of grace, — he would arise from the divine waters purer than the rays of the sun. And E[ippol3''tus, referring to Isaiah as foretelling "the cleansing, of baptism," says, " Pie who goes down with faith into the bath of regeneration . . . puts off bondage, and puts on sonship : he comes up from the baptism bright as the sun, flashing forth the rays of righteous- ness" (C. 226; see also 200, 218, 233, 234). Certainly the fathers could see a cleansing from sin even in the baptismal grave. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 45 CHAPTER VIII. PURIFYING BAPTISM IN SIRACH. IN Num. six. 17-19 full directions are given for the purifying of those who had defiled themselves b}^ touching a corpse. A clean person was required to take a hyssop-branch, and dip it (tahal in Hebrew, hapto in the Seventy, and- baptizo in Josephus) into heifer-ashes water, and sprinkle it on the third and seventh da}' on the unclean ; after which the defiled person (G. D. Ai-m- strong and E. Beecher saj^ the clean person!) had to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water. Two instances of purifying baptism effected hj this sprinkling of the water of separation are supposed by some persons to be on record. In Ecclus. xxxiv. 25 (C. 175) the son of Sirach asks how a man, having baptized (and so cleansed) himself from a dead body, if he touches it again, can be profited by his bathing.^ Now, according to the Levitical ritual, the defiled man (so Keil and Delitzsch and the best commentators) , after the twofold sprinkling, was required to " bathe himself in water." This Hebrew word rdhats (occm-ring some sixty-six times in the Old Testament, and often in the sense of bathing one's whole person) is in the Septuagint most fre- quently (some thirty-seven times) rendered louo., which likewise commonly signifies to " bathe." Even Robinson, in the last edition of his Lexicon, defines louo "to wash the person, or the whole body." Trench, in his " Synonymes of the New Testament," says, '■'■Louein is not so much ' to wash ' as ' to bathe ; ' " while the 1 Cyprian, with others of the fathers, gave to the text this meaning: If a man is. baptized by the (spiritually) dead, his bathing will secure no profit. And he uses this as an argument, in his controversy with the Komish bishop Stephen, in favor of the rebaptism of heretics ; as also, still later, the Dona- tists used ^t against Augustine and the old Catholics. 46 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. middle forms (to bathe one's self) "imply alwaj^s, not the bath- ing a part of the bod}^, but of the whole." Dr. George Campbell went so far as to assert that it invariably signifies to wash or bathe the whole body, and that it cannot be applied to a part. Carson would qualify Campbell's statement thus, — that, when louo "has no regimen supplied by the context, it always refers to the bathing of the whole bod}^ ; " and on p. 481, seq., he gives many classical examples in illustration of this usage. And what is true of louo in the classics holds good also in the Old and New Testament Scriptures. In Sirach the baptism of the defiled per- son involved this thorough loutron, or bathing. The word loutron occurs twice in the Seventy (Solomon's Song of Songs, iv. 2, vi. 6), and also twice in the New Testament (Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5), where, in both instances, it probably refers to Christian bap- tism. In the Sevent}" it denotes the washing, or the washing- place, of sheep, and thus imports a very thorough ablution. De- litzsch, in his " Commentar}' on the Epistle to the Hebrews," refers the "diverse washings" (Heb. ix. 10; literall}'', diverse baptisms) "not so much" (to) "the priestly washings before sacrifice as the various baths and purifications . . . after cere- monial defilement," including, of course, this case of baptismal bathing. Who, then, unless he has " a theor}* " to support or a turn to serve, ^ can doubt that this baptismal bath refers, not to the sprinkling of the purifying water, but to the self-bathing in water, which, as the final act and completion of purification, would natu- rally lie uppermost in one's mind, and be regarded as a thing of chief importance? In Tobit ii. 5 it is recorded as a noteworthy fact that he bathed himself (louo) after the handling of a corpse. The wording of the law in Numbers indicates that this bathing was the last act to be performed in effecting the entire removal of defilement. "On the seventh da}^ he shall purify himself" (or him), "and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and" 1 If anyone wishes to see liow "a theory" is sometimes supported (?) by our Pedobaptist friends, we would direct Mm to the Loutron or Water Baptism of Samuel Fuller, D.D., rector at Andover, who, to ascertain how much, or rather how little, water a scriptural dipping requires, begins his investigation by referring to Luke xvi. 24, " dip the tip of his finger in water" ! Of course, hardly more than a "drop" is required for such dip- ping. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 47 (so) " shall be clean at even." This succinct phrase, "baptized from the dead" (see a similar phrase, Heb. ix. 22, ^^ sprinMecl," and so cleansed '■'•from an evil conscience," where the writer likewise puts means for effect), " maj'^ be easil}^ explained," Pro- fessor Stuart says, from "such passages as are to be found in Lev. xi.. Num. xix. 18, &c. ; by which it appears that a person who touched a dead body was ceremoniall}^ defiled, and must wash his clothes and his person in order to become clean." There are those who try to prove that the customary way of bathing among the ancient Greeks and Romans was to be washed, standing outside the bath, or to be poured upon while standing or sitting in the empty bath : but this was not their usual full and proper bathing, as we shall show in a subsequent chapter ; and certainly was not the ancient Jewish mode of bathing, if we take the testimon}' of the Mishna on this point. We make here a few quotations from Professor Fee's " Christian Baptism," p. 92, seq. According to the Mishna, the." Miqvah," or ritual bath, "must be a pool in the earth ; or, if a tank or baptisterj' , it must be filled with running water in contradistinction from standing or stagnant water, and ' must not be less than a cubit square, nor less than three and a half cubits deep.' . . . ' Every thing that becomes unclean, either man or things, cannot become clean unless dipped in water' " (see a similar law in Lev. xi. 32). "Again : 'When- ever washing his fiesh and washing his garments are mentioned in the law, it does not mean any thing else but dip (tabal) his whole bod}' in the Miqvah.' And again : ' Everj^ one who talies a bath must dip his whole bodj^ at once.' " Professor Fee also quotes the following from Dr. Wise, " a learned Hebrew, and minister of the temple service in Cincinnati, Ohio : " " There were various kinds of ritual baths among the ancient Hebrews ; all, however, in forty kab of flowing water. One was the bath of penitents, one the bath of the proselytes. John sent his candi- dates into the Jordan to be cleansed of their moral lepros}-, like Naaman, and exactl}' as the modern rabbi sends the prosel^'te peni- tent to the Ifikva." Dr. Wise further adds, that to this Mikva the "Jewish women yet go," according to the law in Lev. xii., xv. ; and ' ' to this goes ever}^ pious Israehte on the eve of the day of atonement" (from "The American Israelite," July 26, 1878). The Rabbi Leo of Venice, treating of the present customs among 48 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the Jews, says, " He who desires to become a Jew is first circum- cised, and, a few days after, is entirely bathed in water in presence of three rabbis who have examined him." For fmlher infonnation relative to the baptisms of vessels and of defiled persons under the Jewish economy the reader may consult a recent work, entitled "The Talmud," b}^ Joseph Barclay, LL.D., a few extracts from which, relative to " Judaic baptism," we give in Note III. of the Appendix. It thus appears, from the unanimous testimony of the rabbis, that the ancient Jewish loutron baptism was no mere pour- ing or sprihkhng, but was an entire "dipping or immersion." We therefore confidently maintain that the haptizo of Sirach, with the conjoined loutron, whether this loutron refers to the bath in which the baptism took place or to the bathing itself, ' ' de- mands " a watery " intusposition." That the design and eflect of it was a cleansing or purification admits not of a doubt ; but for this design and efiect we have to look outside of the word itself. The stupid mule (C. 50) baptized his panniers to hghten them. The desired effect was not secm'ed : the design lay in the animal's brain ; and thus neither design nor effect, nor want of effect, is expressed in his haptizein. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 49 CHAPTEE IX. JOSEPHUS' BAPTISM OF HEIFER- ASHES. WE now turn our attention to Josephus' description of a simi- lar purification, — Antiq. 4 : 4, 6 (C. 69). The translation of the passage by "Wliiston is as follows : " "When, therefore, any persons were defiled by a dead bod}-, they put a little of these ashes into spring- water with hj'ssop ; and, dipping" (baptizing) " part of these ashes in it, they sprinkled them with it both on the third day and on the seventh, and after that they were clean." The text of Josephus is here exceedingly tautological, and prob- ably corrupt. According to the Levitical ritual, the li\dng water was to be put to the heifer-ashes in a vessel ; and a clean person was to "dip" the hyssop-branch into this water, and then sprin- kle, &c. • Josephus, instead of dipping the hyssop into the ashes- water, baptizes some of the ashes into a spring. The amended text of Bekker baptizes (or dips) the hyssop-hrancli, and this accords more nearly with the original in Num. xix. 18.^ Pro- fessor Conant's translation, in accordance with Beldser's text, thus reads : " Casting a little of the ashes into a fountain, and dip- ping" (baptizing) "a hj'ssop-branch, they sprinkled" (the de- filed) . The Hebrew word tahal, ' ' to dip ' ' (occurring sixteen times in the Old Testament) , by an almost invariable usage re- quires as its representative in Greek a word beginning with &ap, — whether baptto, as is usual in the Seventy (fourteen times) , or 1 The translations of D'Andilly, L'Estrange, Court, Clarke, and May- nard, agree in substance with. Professor Conant's version, so far as dipping the hyssop-branch is concerned. Many of these, however, render ad sensum at times, rather than ad literam. The oldest Latin version we have seen is from tlie press of Feyerbendij, Franlvfort-on-the-Main, Sigismundo Gelenio Interprete, 1588: " Paidum hiijus cineris in fontana immittentes ethyssopi ramulum intingentes, aspergebat se," lunging ? Is that the only way in which a " person may prove ^beside himself V ("Apostolic Baptism," p. 136.) In repl}' , we should say that there was at least one other waj', as illustrated hy Mr. Tajior himself; for how can a man be in his senses who holds, as Taylor does, " that plungixg is one sense of the term baptism^'' but maintains that pouring is the proper and specific mode or act of haptizo, and at the same time interprets this wine-baptism to be a "discoloration" or " perturbation" of mind, and makes the drunken man say, " I was stained, discolored, being a very difl'erent man from what I am when sober " ? — See his " Apostolic Baptism," p. 133. Latin literature also abounds in similar figures. In fact, almost every word which signifies to wet, moisten, soak, drench, or bury, is figurativel}- applied to the inebriate. The duplicate of the Greek, "baptized in wine and sleep," is found in Livy's 62 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. '■^ mersus vino somnoqzce," or in Virgil's ^'- somno vinoque sepul tus; " that is, immersed and buried in sleep and wine. Seneca speaks of i]x& potatio qum onergit, — the drink which immerses. Vino obrutus means covered over with, and thus buried in, wine. "Words significant of wetting, such as uviclus, macleo, madens, madidus, madef actus, are quite constantly applied to intoxicated persons. Martial spe^-ks of lana sanguine conchce ebria, — wool drunk with the blood of the shell-fish. Was not the wool said to be " di'unk" with blood, from its being baptized in it, or soaked with it ? If we turn to Greek literature, we find, besides bajytizo, the word hreclio (to wet or moisten), and so JiupohrecJio, applied to inebri- ates : its perfect passive participle, meaning " the soaked," stands, just like the same form of haptizo, for " intoxicated." Of com'se it is fi'om the connection of the words, and from attending circum- stances, that we venture to assign in any case such a meaning to brecJio or baptizo. And now shall I ask if brecho also has lost its native meaning, and acquired that of influence? Have all the Latin and Enghsh verbs and participles we have referred to parted with their original and proper meanings for that of a mere general controlling influence, "by whatsoever agencj', or in whatsoever way, effected ' ' ? The mere asking of the question canies its own sufficient answer, and gives, in fact, the refutation to the whole of Dale's baptizing-influence theory. Of com'se, every strong verb in use will effect some change, and exert some influence ; and, of course, an object intusposed within an element will commonly receive and be pervaded by an influence arising from this encom- passing element ; and by tliis ' ' influence ' ' the condition of the immersed (baptized or bapted) object maj' be changed. But this "influence," imparted to a baptized object by the baptizing or enveloping element, does not oblige us to ignore as obsolete and dead the original and fundamental meaning of the word ' ' bap- tize," whose act alone is causative of "influence." Carson held to an influence theorj^ of baptism not less firmlj' than does Dr. Dale ; and we know not but that our author derived both the " intusposition " and the " controUing influence" of his baptizo direct from the Tubbermore Baptist divine. Speaking of " the baptism of the Spirit" (p. 104), Carson says, "That which is immersed in a liquid is completely subjected to its influence, and STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 63 imbued with its virtues : so, to he immersed in the Spirit represents the subjection of body, soul, and spirit to his influence." And on p. 80 he says, "Now, baptized into sleep" (through drunken- ness) "is exactly" our figure buried in sZeep, which is an immer- sion. ... Is there an}- likeness between pouring and sleeping? Is not the lilieness between complete subjection to the influence of sleep and the complete subjection of an object to the influence of a liquid when immersed in it? " In like manner, " when bapjtizo is apphed to drunl?;enness, it is taken figuratiyel^" ; and the point of resemblance is between a man completely under the influence of wine and an object completely subjected to a hquid in which it is wholly immersed." The deflnition (not wholly objectionable) which Dale himself would assign to the phrase "baptized with wine " — to wit, " brought thoroughly under the dominion and in- fluence of" liquor — is wholly compatible ■with the idea of immer- sion and covering, and cannot, in this case, appl}- to any slight wetting or spriuliling. To be merely sprinkled with wine would amount to no ver}^ serious degree of intoxication ; and jet it is in view of such baptisms of influence as this of drankeuness that Dale asserts, " If, in the development of language, any word ever lost an element " (the condition of envelopment) " which was its original, grand, sole characteristic, such a word is baptizo." If this is so, we can only sa}' that there has been a shocking loss of original, grand, characteristic meanings in all languages since the world began. ^ 1 A quotation or two from Dr. Dale will show the great importance he attaches to these mtoxicating baptisms as proving his " influence theoiy." " Is not wine a physical element ? Is not blood a physical element ? Ai'e not tears a physical element ? And are not all these used scores of times in baptisms where there is no dipping or phj'sical covering?" [We may here remark, that the baptisms of " tears " and of " blood " are found chiefly in the writings of the patrists, or church fathers, who, as all are aware, were wont to find many types or images of baptism in the heavens above and in the earth beneath. With the fathers, this baptism of "tears," viewed as an overwhelming flood of sorrow for sin, was possessed of an efficacy akin to that of the divinely-instituted water-baptism; and Cjin-ian says, "The fire of hell is extinguished by the bath of saving water." But, says Gregory of Nazianzum,"How many tears have we to shed before they equal the flood of the baptismal bath!" (see Hagenbach's • History of Doctrines, vol. i. pp. 198, .389.) The baptism of "blood," or martyrdom, viewed as an overwhelming flood of suffering for Christ, was 64 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. deemed specially meritorious, and fully as efficacious as tlie bath of regen- eration. Thus Augustine (in his City of God, lib. siii. chap, vii.) says, " Quicunque etiam non percepto regenerationis lavacro pro confessione Christi moriuntur, tantum eis valet ad dimittenda peccata quantum si abluerentur sacro lonte baptismatis;" i.e., " Djdng for Christ avails as much to the martyrs for the remission of their sins as if they had been cleansed in the sacred font of baptism." It was this baptism which saved the peni- tent thief; though Augustine (in his Eetractationes) thinks that, possibly, he may have been previously baptized. In comparison with the baj)tism of water, it is, according to Cyprian, who himself was called to experience this baptism, "In gratia majus, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius. ... In aquos baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sangiiinis corona virtutum" (Hagenbach, vol. i. p. 214). ISo one, we presume, will question the appropriateness of the phrases, " bathed or immersed in tears," " bathed or immersed in blood," when used to denote an overwhelming flood and weight of sorrow or of suffering; while every one would question whether a mere sprinkling with tears or blood were, in this connection, a very ex- pressive or appropriate figure. But we must limit ourselves now to wine baptisms, and our readers will pardon us for making a somewhat lengthy quotation.] " Quantity of water can show that there was enough for a dipping or a drowning, if there was any disposition to use it for such a purpose ; but it can never prove any such use in fact. Alexander of Pherse " (see Conant's Eaptizein, Ex. 149, where it is naiTated that Thebe baptized her husband, Alexander, the tyrant of Pherse, not into nor in, but "with much wine," in order to his assassination) "had a sufficient quantity of wine in his vaults to have sufficed for the dipping of himself, or of any number be- sides ; and we are told that he was, in fact, baptized by much wine; and yet he was not dipped in wine to the extent of the tip of his finger. " I^ow, apply to this transaction the reasoning of the" (Baptist) "theory, ' Wine is a fluid suitable for dipping into. We are expressly told that Alex- ander was baptized, and therefore dipped ; for baptize means nothing but dip. There was no lack of wine for the dipping, as we are distinctly told there was much wine' (this is an offset to the "much water" of ^non), ' and that much wine was used in the baptism.' " On Baptist principles we are shut up to the putting of Alexander in this much wine, where he must be disowned (according to the legitimate force of the terms) as was the Duke of Clarence, or be saved by some for- eign intervention. . . . The facts of the case were, that Alexander was bap- tized by drinking (not by being dipped into) this 'much wine,' and, when thus thoroughly baptized, was murdered. " iSTow, what element of proof for a dipping into water can be found in this ^non baptism, which does not appear for a dipping into wine in this Pherge baptism ? Is water, by its fluid nature, suitable for dipping into ? So is wine. Was there 'much water' in ^non? So there was 'much wine ' in Pherse. Is baptize competent to dip, to cover over ? It was equally present in both cases. Have men been put into water of literal STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 65 fact? So have they been put into wine." [Dr. Dale only needs to show that this was the usual method of baptizing with wine, to make his argu- ment thoroughly convincing.] " What, then, I ask, was the discriminating difference in the two cases, which gives certain proof that the ^non disciple must be baptized by dipping, while the Pherse tyrant was effectually bap- tized by drinking ? "I will venture the affimiation that there is not one word in this account of the baptism at iEnon which would prevent John using the water in pre- cisely the same manner that Alexander used the wine; namely, by drinking : and, if he had so used it, haptizo would have kept an everlasting silence as having no concern in the matter " ( Johannic Baptism, p. 318). [If this last assertion be correct, then I have this to say, that haptizo itself has become intoxicated, or else it is drowned and dead forever! But, by the way, it would seem that drinking was becoming a favorite mode of baptism with Dr. Dale. He says that "one drop of prussic acid" {swallowed, we sup- pose, though the mode is left very indefinite: an external application of it, or a breathing of its vapor, exerts a very controlling influence) "is as thor- oughly competent to effect a baptism secondary (perhaps the more common form of baptism expressed by the Greeks) as is an ocean to effect a baptism primary." The Saviour's dreaded baptism, we are told, was experienced by His drinking of the " cup."' According to Dr. Dale's interpolated version, our Saviour's query thus reads: " Can ye drink of the cu]p of penal woe of which I drink, and thereby be baptized with the baptism into an atoning death with which I am baptized?" Strange that the word for "thereby" should be so often wanting in the original, where Dale's influence theory makes it necessary; as in our Lord's commission: "Go, disciple all the nations, and thereby baptize them." " He that believeth, and is thereby bap- tized, shall be saved." " Kepent, and be thereby baptized," &c. ! Strange, also, is it that an intoxicating or stupefying drinking-cup must be brought into figure forth the overwhelming flood of "penal woe" wherewith our Saviour was baptized! — a baptism of overwhelming suffering and sorrow which we are thankful did not last forever. And now we have a water- baptism, effected by drinking water; whether much or little, is not definitely stated. Luciau, we are aware, speaking of the fabled (intoxicating) Foun- tain of Silenus, says, that when an old man drinks of it, and Silenus (a quasi Bacchus) takes possession of him, he immediately becomes mute, and resejn?>Zes a baptized (wine-soaked) man (C. 148). But will Dr. Dale com- pare this Silenic water to the pure living water of ^non's springs, and afl&rm that a water-baptism at ^non may be effected in the same way ^s a baptism (or quasi baptism) at the Fountain of Silenus ? in other words, that drinking pure spring-water will baptize ? Our Episcopal clergy are accus- tomed, somewhat after the manner of the patrists, before baptizing, to pray God to "sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin." Whether Dr. Dale would call this sanctified water " divinely impregnated " and "medicated," we do not know; but it is evidently something more than simple water, and probably, like patristical water, has a vis, or " power to baptize." Episcopalian "bishops and other clergy" have comphmented 6,6 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Dr. Dale's Inquiry; but have they really come to believe that drinking their "sanctified" water will baptize them? Are our anti-immersionist friends, generally, coming to reach such a point as this ? We would like to hear from the authors of the Complimentary Testimonials again on this matter. And again: does any one wonder, after this, why Dr. Dale is so much opposed to regarding any baptisms as "figurative," except literal ones ?] STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 67 CHAPTER XII. ALLEGED CHANGE OF MEANING IN BAPTO. BEFORE Carson's time, 6apto and haptizo were, we believe, generall}^ treated as one word. They are, indeed, related to each other even as "parent and child," bearing a strong famil}' resemblance, yet marked by distinguishable features. The most noticeable difference is this, that hapto, to dip, has a secondary meaning, "to dj'e " (b}^ dipping) ; and though it has, in one instance at least, a religious usage, as in the case of the pig-defiled Egyp- tian, it is 3'et never applied to the rite of Christian baptism. Bap- tizo, on the other hand, has never acquired this, nor, indeed, an}' .other distinctive secondary' meaning'; though we notice that it is once employed (by Basil, C. 79) in connection with d^-eing. Dale, without warrant, belittles bapto down to the dimensions of our "feeble" (or enfeebled) dip, making it denote "a trivial act of superficial entrance and evanescent continuance," and thus re- moves bajoto in meaning ' ' wide as the poles asunder ' ' from bap- tizo. Just imagine the disgust with which our author must regard the teaching of the old Dutch catechism, which, when speaking of baptism, asks, "Wat is den Doop?" Were it worthwhile, we could fully show that the two are often used as exact equivalents ; that the hand is dipped in a fluid, the sword is plunged into the body ; that the sun sinks in the western ocean with bapto exactly as it does with baptizo;' and the "unlimited continuance " in either case is just as " indefinite " and just as brief. According to LiddcU and Scott, a ship, even, will sink with bapto as well as with the heavier baptizo (see more full}' in Professor Kendrick's article, "Baptist Quarterly," 18G9, pp. 141-149). But, though Dr. Dale speaks thus sligiitingly of bapto, it has done him and Bome others immense service in the way of furnishing them an 68 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. iaiaginary secondar}^ signification to bcqotizo, which, in its turn, has supplanted the primary. The helping process is this : Bapto, by long usage, has entirel}' (?) changed its meaning. It first meant " to dip," then " to d^^e b}- dipping," and finally " to dye ivitJiout dipping." How easy and natural now to imagine a hke change to have taken place in baptizo! Its primary meaning, as is now generall}' conceded, is immersion, " intusposition, general^, in some fluid element." "Intusposition within a closely invested medium is essential to its primary- use." " Baptizo demands intus- position." President Beecher is also quite as explicit in regard to its ' ' original and primitive meaning ' ' as being immersion ; and he also admits, what we believe Dale has never fuU}^ and manfully done, that its original meaning, its secular sense (of immersion), was never lost. But, in the histor}' of the word, both discover, principall}- by the aid of hapjto^ a change of meaning. With Beecher, as we have seen, its primitive and secular sense is to immerse. "I have never seen the least evidence that baptizo means to sprinkle or pour." But it has also acquired a religious sense, and in this usage it means simpl}' to purif}' without regard to mode. Dale begins the history of baptizo with "intusposition without influence," and ends it with " influence without intusposi- tion." In other words, baptizo first meant to intuspose, to merse, to drown ; which meanings have been wholly supplanted by its secondary signification, to influence controllingly . Rev. Edward Bickersteth, sen., states the change thus: '•^ Bapto acquires the secondary sense of dyeing : baptizo acquires the secondary sense of baptizing. Bapto, from d3'eing by dipping, comes to denote dj'eing in an}^ manner: baptizo, from baptizing hj dipping, comes to denote baptizing in an}' manner. What analogy can be more perfect? " But it is time for us to inquire, What has happened to bapto? Did it ever entirety lose its primar}' meaning ? Even Carson — in rather an un-Carsonian way, as it seems to me, and apparently against his own assertions elsewhere — acknowledges that " a word may come to enlarge its .meaning so as to lose sight of its origin," and that " a word may receive a secondar}' signification totally excluding the idea that is essential to the priniar}^" (pp. 45, 251). And he seems to imply that baj)to is one of these words. Yet tliis is what he saj's (on p. 54) in regard to the " double meaning" ■ STUDIES OIT BAPTISM. 69 ofbapto: "Agreeablj' to the above view of the connection between the secondary meaning of this word and the primar}', we have a great number of the branches which have the same double import from the same connection, — bamma, sauce into which food is clipped^ and a dye into which things are to be dipped ; bcqohe, dip- piing^ and dj'eing- stuff, or the tincture received from dyeing ; bcqjhi- Jcos, both dipping and dyeing ; and bapJiiJce, the d^'er's art ; bapjtos, to be dipped and to be dyed, &c. In all these there is no other common idea but mode : this is the link that connects these two things that are altogether different. If the same word has the same double meaning in so man}^ of its branches, there mitst surely be at the bottom some natural relation betiveen these meani7igs." Dr. Campbell, " the philosophical linguist," remarks (in his " Phi- losophy of Ehetoric") , that, "in some words the metaphorical sense has jostled out the original sense altogether ; ' ' and that ' ' it hap- pens with languages as with countries, — strangers, received at first through charity, often, in time, grow strong enough to dispossess the natives." But this is stating the matter rather strongly. " Secondar}- meanings shoot forth out of the primary " by natural growth : they are kindred in meaning to the primary, and are not " strangers." There is alwaj's a connecting link between them, a natural '■^ chain of significations," the exhibition of which is the life, soul, and beaut}" of true lexicography. "Science," says Carson, "in classing the meanings of a word, will always ascer- tain the primary meaning, if it is possible, showing how every secondary meaning flows from this ; and, amidst much diversity, it will generally discover a famih' likeness." Again: it is, indeed, possible that a word may become, in a measure, "weaned from its infant and original sense." But we also believe that a total loss from any word of its radiccd and essenticd meaning, effected not by accident or freak, but in the natural way of language -devel- opment, is one of the rarest things in the luorld. As instances of obsolete meanings. Dr. Campbell adduces the words to " train," "curb," " edif}'," and "enhance," the primitive significations whereof were, to "cbaw," "bend," "build," and "lift." And had he been of Dale's opinion, that, " if ever a word lost its essen- tial^ meaning, baptizo is that word," he would doubtless have men- tioned, instar omnium, the word " baptize ; " but, iustead of doing this, the erudite Pi'esbyterian divine gave the world a Baptist ver- 70 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. sion of the four Gospels, wherein he restored to "baptism" its original meaning of "immersion." But, in the four examples adduced bj- Dr. Campbell, any one can see, not only that there is no break in the " chain of significations," but that the essence of the primar}" does live and have a being in the secondary. We now notice a few examples which are confident^ adduced as showing that bapto has wholly lost its primary signification of "dipping." In the Septuagint version of Dan. iv. 30 (our ver- sion, iv. 33), it IS said that Nebuchadnezzar's " body was dipped from the dew of heaven," or, as in our version, " was wet with the dew of heaven." Here is no actual " dijoping ; " yet Mr. Car-' son, who gives up " the mode " elsewhere, sees even here a " figu- rative dipping." Akin to this is the well-known line from Milton's " Comus" (lines 802, 803),— " A cold shuddering dew Dips me all o'er." Has "dip" here lost all its original meaning, mode and essence both? We trow not. The last edition of Webster thus defines it : "To wet, AS IF by immersing in ajluid." Would it be philosophic or truthful to define it thus : "To wet vtithout immersion or dip- ping"? We think not. Therefore in this case we retain the essence, while we care little about " the mode." Another example is found in Aristotle: "When it" (the berry) "is pressed, it dips" (dyes) "and colors the hand," Here Carson surrenders the idea of mode, and says, " Surely there is no reference to dipping here : the hand is dj'ed by ^ressm^/ the thing that dyes." But, if we adopt the Websterian principle of defining, would not the full meaning be, that the hand is dj'ed as if it were dipped, or so as to look dipped? If so, the essence of the dipping process is not wholly lost from the word, much less has the word in its pri- mar}^ sense become obsolete. In fact, Dale quotes another sen- tence from the same Aristotle, where the word is used in its literal sense. Aristophanes and lamblichus also use the word in both senses, as may be seen in Dale's Examples. Still another example occurs in the works of Hippocrates (a medical writer, born 460 B.C.), who emplo3'S this word scores of times in its primary signification : " When it drops upon the garments, they are dyed " (dipped). Carson would give up "mode" here also; though we STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 71 see not why there is not as much of a " figurative clipping " in the '■'•dropping" of coloring-matter as there is in the '■'■falling" of the dew. It is probably true that regard is chiefly had, not to act, but to effect, in both these instances, while at the same time the idea of intusposition is not excluded. In this case of hapto-(b)'e\\\g, we must, at least, suppose that the garments, after their (perhaps jjlentiful) sprinkling, looked as if the}' had been dipped.^ Carson, we ma}^ here remark, was, perhaps, unfortunate in the use of the word "mode;" as when he says of baptizo that "it alwaj's signifies 'to dip,' never expressing an}' thing but mode." 1 "Drops "sometimes will do great things; Avill even, according to Shak- speare, effect a drowning in figure: " These foolish drops do somewhat .c7roty)i my manly spirits." He also speaks of " drowning the stage with tears." The poet Langhorne speaks of a "child of misery baptized in tears." And the Psalmist says, " Every night make I my bed to swim; with tears make I my couch to flow." In reference to HiiDpocrates' usage as regards hapto, Carson, after addu- cing over ^/(?/ examples of bapto-dipping from that writer, thus (on p. 43) remarks: " Thus we have seen in what a vast multitude of examples Hip- pocrates uses this word to signify ' to dip,' and that quite irrespectively of the nature of the fluid. Indeed, he not only does it so frequently in this signification, but he uses it in no other signification except once in the sense of ' to dye ; ' and it is the only word which he employs to denote the mode in question. . . . Besides, we have in this writer tlie words which sig- nify every application of water and other fluids. . . . He uses raino, aioneo, &c., for ' sprinkle; ' and, for ' pour,' he uses cheo with its compounds, which occurs times innumerable. For 'wet,' 'moisten,' 'soak,' 'steep,' he uses deuo, breclio, teggo, &c., the first of which meets us in almost every page; the second is often used ; and of the last there are several examples. For bathing the whole body, he constantly uses louo ; and he makes a very free use of the bath, both hot and cold. For washing a part of the body, he uses nipto with its compounds, and occasionally the compoiuids of liliino. If it is possible to settle the meaning of a common word, surely this is sufficient to fix tlie meaning of bapto beyond all reasonable controversy. In the works of the father of medicine, in whicli he has occasion to treat of eveiy mode of the application of liquids, and which consist of no less than five hundred and forty-three closely-i^rinted folio pages, all the words of mode are applied, . and bapto invariably is used when he designates immersion." It may seem strange that Hippocrates did not oftener use the word baptizo, as only four examples (C. 30, 48, TO) have been attributed to him, and these, it seems, " erroneously." Had he no occasion to express the idea of tliorough change of condition and of controlling influence ? Dr. Dale, as a physician or as a medical writer, would have sought to effect or express this change and influ- ence a thousand times. 72 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. What he meant was, probabty, that eveiy case of baptism was an actual down-putting of some object into the water, or else was conceived of and pictured as such ; while yet the manner (mode, loe might say) of the intusposition might be quite various.-^ But in reference to hapto he would probably maintain that it sometimes indicates result without reference to particular act, as in the two last examples. Yet, even in these instances, the idea of intusposi- tion certainly is not necessarily excluded. In Nebuchadnezzar's dew-bath there is the idea of intusposition, though without direct reference to the literal act of dipping. And suppose these " gar- ments ' ' were covered all over b}' the coloring-matter dropping on 1 Aristotle (C. 4) speaks of a certain seacoast as being baptized by an over- flowing tide. Dr. Gale rather regards baptizo in tbis instance as expressing, not so mucb tbe action of putting ujider water, as that tbe object is in that state. Dr. Carson dissents from this xie^, and sees even here a figurative dipping. " Over this slight and perfectly legitimate diversity of view," says Professor Kendrick in the BaiDtist Quarterly, "Mr. Dale makes himself merry through eight pages of as dreary and barren criticism as the tide- washed coast that has created the discussion. He does not seem to have the faintest idea of the flexibility and subtlety of thought, and of language as its exj)onent, nor of the varying aspects under which the same thought may present itself to the imagination. To the sailor, now the boat recedes from the shore, and now the shore recedes from the boat ; to the railway traveller, now the train flies by the landscape, and now the landscape flies by the train. As the rising floods beleaguer a mountain, now the floods seem to be -whelming the mountain, now the mountain seems to be sinldng into the floods. In all these cases, now one object is conceived as stationary, and now the other. Either form of conception is equally true to the imagi- nation, and therefore equally legitimate in expression, though not equally true to the fact. To the intense conception of the poet, the ' coward lips do from their color fly,' instead of waiting for the color to fly more prosai- cally from them. In the case before us it is nearly equally natural to con- ceive of the water rising, and whelming the shore, or the shore dipping and sinldng into the water. The former is more literally exact; the latter more figurative, and yet by no means violently so: and a difference like this of Drs. Gale and Carson reflects not the slightest discredit on the scholarship or good judgment of either." Were Dr. Carson now living, he would, notwith- standing all that Dr. Dale has written, probably afiirm of the seacoast bap- tism, "This is mode, and nothing but mode; it is dipping, and nothing but dipping; immersion, and nothing but immersion;" tlms adhering to "mode," and, what is worse, confounding still immersion with a dipping. We are glad that Dr. Carson is not alive ; for we almost tremble in view of what he miyht say in review of the Inquiry, &c., made by his friend Dr. Dale. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 73 them, and that thus they appeared as if dipped in a d3'e, can we not find the idea of intusposition here also ? We may, then, eon- cede that the word for dip, being so constantly used in and for dyeing, was very rarely emploj'ed for dyeing where there was no actual dipping, but where the effect produced was like that of dip- ping. But to return to "mode." Carson evidently' used this word to express specific act, while we commonly use it to denote the manner of an act. Thus baptism, or immersion in water, may have many modes ; but the modes of bapting or of baptiz- ing, provided there be a proper intusposition " in fact or figure," are with us of comparative^ little account. A 3'et more decisive example, it is thought, is found in Homer's extravagantly burlesque description of ' ' The Battle of the Frogs and Mice," in which we are told, that on the death of one of the com- batants, the frog Crambophagus, or cabbage-eater, " the lake was dipped in " (d^^ed with) " his blood." As Carson saw a figurative immersion in Nebuchadnezzar's heavy dew-bath, so Dr. John Gale sees in tMs case a h3'perbolical figurative lake-dipping. Carson- saj^s, in opposition to Gale's view, "What a monstrous paradox: in rhetoric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse! "^ This is true, in part; but perhaps we are not tO' expect a delicate aptness of figure, in all cases, in this piece of hj^perbolical burlesque. When Cowley says, " Droioned in his own blood Goliath lay," we are not expected to estimate the amount of blood in his veins to see whether a literal dipping was possible. Perhaps Homer himself, or whoever wrote the piece, would not guarantee a siifficiencj^ of blood in a frog for the lake-dipping, and might not resent the ' ' soft impeachment " of a slight impropriety in the figm-e. I suppose, however, all he meant to impl}' was, that the lake looked crimsoned, as any thing would when dipped in blood. Confirmatory of this is the following, from the English 1 We wonder that so many Pedobaptist authors (Cooke and Towne, Wolff, Stearns, and others) have followed Carson in metamori^hosing the frog into a mouse. At least they have not noticed it as a mistake, whether they recognized it or not. Probably they had a purpose in this. A good- sized frog like Crambophagus doubtless had more blood in him than a mouse, and toe need all the blood we can get for the lake-dipping. No one who has read Dr. Dale could mistake the genus of the animal slain ; for he reiterates, " Gale's lake-dipping in the blood of a frog " ad — / 74 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. "Monthl}^ Review:" "In the Septuagint it is said that Nebu- chadnezzar was baptized " (haptecl., rather, and so of the lake, be- low) "with the dew of heaven ; and in a po^m attributed to Homer, called ' The Battle of the Frogs and Mice,' it is said that a certain lake was baptized with the blood of a wounded combatant. A question has arisen, in what sense the word ' baptize ' can be used in this passage. Doth it signify immersion, pro29er?_?/ so called? Certainl}^ not ; neither can it signify a partial sprinkling. A body wholly surrounded with a mist, wholly made humid with dew, or a piece of water so tinged with and discolored by blood, that if it had been a solid bddy, and dipped into it, it could not have received a more sanguine appearance, is a very different thing from that partial application which in modern times is supposed sufficient to constitute full and explicit baptism. The accommodation of the word ' baptism ' (bapting) to the instances we have referred to is not unnatural, though highly metaphorical, and may be resolved into a trope, or figure of speech, in which, though the primary idea is maintained, yet the mode of expression is altered, and the word itself is to be understood rather allusivety than really, rather rela- tively than absolutel3^ If a bod}' had been baptized, or immersed, it could not have been more wet than Nebuchadnezzar's : if a lake had been dipped in blood, it could not have put on a more blood}' appearance." i But the " decisive " proof of a "complete" and "radical" change of meaning in hapto is found in the entu-e change in its syntax. "Where once the Greek writers spoke of dipping any thing into coloring-matter, they came at length to speak of dipping a color or a dye. We give two or three examples as quoted b}' Stuart and Dale : " Lest I dip 3'ou " (dj^e you) " a Sardinian dye " (Aristoi^hanes) . So Plato says, "Whether one dip" (dye) " other colors, or whether these." Let these examples stand for a mo- ment while we look at our own native " dip." It so happens that both Milton and Cowper, and, we presume, other writers, have em- ployed the same syntactical construction with our " dip," meaning to dj-e, which the Grecians did with their baj^to, and which our friends adduce as pro^'ing an entire change of meaning. Both the poe4;s referred to have spoken of " colors dipped in heaven." The question now is, Does this form of syntax prove that our " dip," primary and proper, has completely changed and lost its ' ' radi- cal ' ' meaning ? STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 75 Dr. Dale would probably answer, "Yes," and, to prove the aflSrmative, would ask us, in his peculiar dialect, "What! are we to imagine dj-e-tubs in heaven, and the celestials as emploj-ing themselves in dipping rainbows and angels' wings therein? " We said "probabl}'," because Dale, in obedience to a supposed demand of his theor}', almost everjTvhere, when possible, seeks to break " the chain " which binds together the different meanings of words. and thus to give the secondary' senses an independent status of their own, isolating them from all connection with, and reference to, the primar}' significations, — a purpose and business which we deem very unscholarlUvC and profitless. In a declaration like this of Achilles Tatius, "A man baptized in" (or whehned b}-) "anger sinks " (C. 113), Dr. Dale will see " no mersion either in fact or figure." Tertullian, referring to the axe which was lost in the Jordan, makes it represent "the hardness of this age mersed in the depth of error," to be raised up and restored only by " the wood of Christ." Here, vv^here everj'body else would recognize a trope, or "figure," Dr. Dale avers, "on his own responsibilit}'," that there is " no mersion in error possible, even in imagination." Does he simply mean, that- in this case, there is no literal, phj'sical immersion? This, methinks, is too much a man of straw for him to cannonade so long and fierce!}'. Cut, to sustain his averment, he goes on, in accordance with " the Baptist theory'," to convert error into ' ' a pool of water ' ' (to make every thing ' ' run smooth- ly ") ; and he finds a subject in Mr. " Hardness of the Age," and finally gets Mistress " Sin " to be the dipper, and occupies a page or two in coarse and ridiculous description of the whole thing ; which, if it betrayed his usual wit, we would copy in full, as an illustration of the waj' he rides a ' ' figure ' ' into the earth aud to death, and riots in the "incongruities" of a metaphor.^ ^Ylien Dr. Dale sees, as he occasionally will, a "figure grounded in 1 "Every metaphor," Dr. Dale says, "presents to us terms between wMcli there are many inconrjruities, and one, at least, point of resemblance. The incongruities are to he thrown aside, as nothing to tlie purpose," etc. If any one will turn to p. 263, seq., of Dale's Judaic Baptism, he will see a fair specimen of his usual stjie and method of cavilling at these "incon- gruities," and of his revelling and rioting in them; which said process, we can truthfully say, forms no inconsiderable i^art of the sura and substance of his one thousand eight hundred and four (1,804) octavo pages of Classic, Judaic, Johannic, Chiistic, and Patristic Baptism. 76 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. mersion," he does not metamorphose the " verlDal element" into " a pool of water " to effect an intusposition ; but, when a " Bap- tist writer " sees in some passage a like verbal figure, immediately there is conjured up before us either a water-pool or a " d3'e-tub," wherewith to effect, for his amusement, a figurative " dipping." But to revert again to our " dip," and to the quer\' whether any essential element of its primary' signification has been " totally excluded " and lost. To this we answer. Nay. Its literal and primarj^ meaning and its secondar}^ and consequential significations co-exist ; and we need the existence and power of the former to preside over and regulate the latter, and, in some instances, to make them even intelligible. Who could understand the now obsolete meaning of "dip" {to mortgage)., as used in Dr^'den's "never dip thy lands," unless something was known about its primary im- port of dipping in and talung out ; to wit, a part of one's propert}'? But, so far as a change in grammatical construction is concerned, there is just as much reason for inferring a change in the meaning of ' ' dip ' ' as in the meaning of hapto ; and there is no more reason for supposing a change in hapto than there is for supposing a change in " dip." That the examples of our " color-dippings " are taken from the poets does not affect a.nj essential point of this argument, the grammatical construction of " dip " being regarded as the main thing. Though our friends teU us that we cannot speak of dipping a color, or of " colors dipped," in the primary' sense of that word, 3'et we are not sure that this phraseology excludes all idea of a literal dipping. " Colors dipped in heaven " may simply signify colors which were produced by dipping ; and to " dip the pui'ple " may mean to produce the purple color by dip- ping. Is any reader of our poets who speak of ' ' colors dipped in heaven" made conscious of the fact (?) that om" " dip " (through a dyeing process) has undergone a ' ' complete ' ' and ' ' radical ' ' change in its meaning ? Or when we hear Comus saj", in Milton, "A cold, sliuddering dew Dips me all o'er," are we rendered sensible that " dip," again, " has laid aside a dip- ping," and has acquired another specific secondarj' meaning, — " to wet without dipping " ? Methinks that one with " no soul for poetry " would hardly say or beheve this. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 77 In regard to the primarj- import of bapto (to dip) , we aver that it never became obsolete, and was never lost out of the word : on the contrary, it seems to have become intensified and strengthened by age, and to have become altogether the predominant meaning. In the writings of Hippocrates, who once speaks of a bajyto-djeing (by dropping) , there are, as we have stated, some fifty examples of the use of ba2:)to in its literal sense of dipping. • This very pre- ponderance of the primary and literal sense of bapto renders it improbable that it could ever acquire and maintain a secondary meaning, unrelated to, and independent of, the primarj'. Xay, judging from the nature and philosophy of language and of mind, we should deem it an impossibility that a word of such specific import as bapto (to dip) could ever come to have, side by side, two wholly unrelated and independent meanings. We know of no reason or necessitj^ for supposing such a phenomenon to have occurred in the history of bapto. Can any one point out in the histor}* of earth's languages such an instance as the one supposed ? In the later usage of the word bapjto we observe the same pre- dominance of literal use. The word occurs eighteen times in the Seventy (exclusive of Ezek. xxiii. 15, where the reading is doubt- ful) , and in almost every instance it is used in its literal sense : at least it never has the special signification of dyeing.^ In the New Testament it occurs three times in its simple form (Luke xvi. 24 ; ^ The following are the passages in which hapto appears in the Seventy : Exod. xii. 22; Lev. iv. 6, 17; xi. 32; xiv. 6, 16, 51; Num. xix. 18; Deut. xxxiii. 24; Josh. ill. 15; Kuth ii. 14; 1 Kings (1 Sam.) xiv. 27; 4 Kings (2 Kings) viii. 15; Job ix. 31; Ps. Ixvii. 24 (Ixviii. 23); Dan. iv. .30 (33); v. 21. With the exception of the examples in Daniel and Psalms, and Lev. xi. 32, it is used as the translation of the Hebrew tabal (to dip). According to the Vatican Septuagint, by Leander Van Ess, it is connected with the prepo- sition eis (into) eight times, with en (in) iive times, and with apo (from) five times. Tabal, however, is but twice followed by min (from) in Hebrew (Lev. iv. 17, xiv. 16), although this same preposition occurs in both instances in Daniel. The primary idea of this latter phraseology is evidently that of dipping in and taking /rom, or taking a p^art of. Gesenius finds in min, as here used, the idea of instrument; as, for example, the priest shall dip (and moisten) his finger wrt/t the oil. In Daniel (from the dew of heaven his body shall be dipped) the preposition seems to have chief reference to source. We may here add, that tahal, occurring in the Old Testament six- teen times, is in the Seventy fourteen times translated by hapto, as above stated, once by baptizo (2 Kings v. 14), and once by moluno (Gen. xxxvii. 31). 78 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. John xiii. 26 ; Eev. xix. 13) , and in eacli instance is rendered " dip " in our version, though in Rev. xix. it may be either dipped or dyed.. Thus it is apparent that a dj^eing bcqjto has never dis- placed a dipping bapto, but that the latter has b}^ usage come to attain rather the mastery of the field. We grant, of course, that the word bapto is used oftener in connection with dyeing than is our word " dip; " and we concede, that, in a few cases, it was used of a dj'eing where there was no actual dipping. But this does not prove that there is not " at the bottom some natural relation between these meanings ; " nor does it prove that bapto ever means specificall}^ "to d3'e witJiout dipping," which, as a strict definition, would be most erroneous and misleading. A more full and exact definition (such as an " Illustrated Webster " might give) would be something like this : Bapto, 1. To dip ; 2. To dye b}^ dipping ; 3. To dye as if hj dipping. And this last form of statement would amply cover the two or three cases of " dyeing without dipping." It must not be supposed, however, that, because bapto (to dip) is so often used in the sense of dyeing (in Avhich respect it so greatty resembles the Latin tingo) , it has no other secondary mean- ings or '' figurative applications." Dale himself gives some ten difi'erent meanings, many of which are fanciful and unwarranted. He gives five examples where bapto signifies to temper iron or other metals ; to wit, by dipping them in water. This tempering pro- cess can be witnessed daily and hourly in every blacksmith's shop in the land and in the world. We see in the German language, for example, that das TaucJien (the dipping) is their expression for the tempering of metals. A glance at the verses of Virgil will show us that the same custom prevailed among the old Romans. " Some," he sa^'s, " dip the sputtering brass [in] the trough," — "Alii stridentia tingunt aera lacu " (Georg., iv. 172). So in " The -ZEneid," xii. 91 : "Ensem . . . Stygia candentem tinxerat unda," — "And plunged the sword, when glowing, [in] the Stj^gian wave." Indeed, so few are the exceptions, we may say that dipping is the universal method of tempering and hardening metals ; and this fact alone should have deterred Dr. Dale from attempting to ^^ pour on water " when he would quench the fiery glow of the red-hot mass of iron which was " baptized [m] water " (C. 71). We remark, further, that all the other significations of bapto are also grounded in and are referable to its primary meaninar. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 79 But supposing that hapto had changed, and even lost its primaiy meaning : what has that to do toward proving a like change of meaning in baptizo? We answer, Just nothing at all. Carson, we believe, was the first fully to establish the fact of a secondary meaning p)ecuKar to '•'■bapto; namely, that of dyeing. In opposition to a view long held, and then generally prevalent, he boldly de- clared, when, as we have seen, he might have made some reserva- tion, that bapto (to dye by dipping) came afterward to denote dj^eing, without reference to mode, and in any manner." But he flatly denies any like change in the meaning of baptizo, and asks, ' ' Where is the proof that the process has actually taken place ? ' ' " Give me the same proof that baptizo in the New Testament has been brought to designate the ordinance of Christ without reference to mode as there is that bapto signifies to dj'e, and I will at once warrant the change by my philosophy. The gold coin called a sov- ereign is now worth twenty shillings. I admit that at some future time it ma}' pass for fifteen shilhngs, or that it ma^^ be raised to the value of twenty-five shillings. Will this prove at an}' specified time that either of these things has actuall}* taken place ? " (p. 250.) Even if Dr. Dale had succeeded in establishing a "secondary meaning of controlling influence" as belonging to bap>tizo, this would not afiect the question of the proper mode or act of ritual baptism; for this, according to its "ordinary literal import," from which there is no necessity of departing, requires a " definite act," a hteral intusposition or immersion in water performed by one person upon another, and not a general " controlling influence " wrought m}' steriously in some one of ' ' ten thousand ' ' different ways. Dr. Dale, it is certain, has never made John the Baptist say to his countr3'men, "I controllingly influence you 'with' water ; " nor can we suppose that the Baptist was sent of God to controllingly influence men either in or with water. A ritual baptism in or with water, and a "baptism of controlling influ- ence," haA'e no concern together, no relation to each other. The question, "What is the proper mode or act of the baptismal rite?" is not determined or afl'ected by the question whether bajJtizo has, or has not, a " secondary meaning of controlling influence." If the newly- converted disciple is seeking, as the Ethiopian eunuch sought, for loater-haptism, he need not stop first and read through the four octavo volumes of Dale's "Inquiry into the Usage of 80 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Baptizo ' ' to ascertain whether this word has not a ' ' secondary meaning of controlling influence ; " in other words, whether there be not a " baptism of influence without intusposition " in water, or without anj^ use of water whatever. To determine the proper usage of a rite, or the definite meaning of the word which desig- nates its action, we are not to look, as Beecher, Dale, and others have done, to the supposed symbolic import, the design or effect of such rite. We may, indeed, wish to know what is the essence of a rite, what its influence, or its " spiritual efiect : " but it must ever be borne in mind that a rite enacted by positive law for man's observance supposes sonje "definite act," as "circum- cise," "sprinkle," "eat," "drink," &c. ; and that the word which designates the action must not be like the " myriad- sided " baptizo of Dr. Dale, nor like the "baptism" of John Horsey of England, — "an equivocal, open, general term," determining only this, " that water should be applied to the subject in some form or other," — but a word of plain, specific import, to be taken in its primary, hteral, usual sense, wherever it is possible. " Circum- cise," "eat," "drink," &c., may have, or, by the Dale process, be furnished with, secondar}^ meanings and resultant " influences " and "conditions ; " but with these, in the determining of the proper action of the rite, we have nothing to do. We may imagine "circumcise," for example, which primarily and properly means to cut around (the flesh), — which said process, of course, inflicts pain, and produces a painful condition, — to come b}'' its frequent use to denote the infliction of pain generally, in other words, to exert a paintnl influence and to cause a painful state and condition of things, without regard to "modality" of action, and in "myriad" (ten thousand) waj's. But all true Israelites, if in their senses, will, in observing this rite, take the knife, and per- form the literal cutting (though it may be in diff'erent modes) , irrespective of the alleged immodality and indefiniteness of action, and painful influences and conditions in general. Cheerfully will they perform this un-ideal operation, even though it be, according to Maimonides, " most harsh and uneasy " (sometimes, as we have read, producing a fatal inflammation) , and even though some pro- fane anti-circumcisionists might brand it as "indelicate" in the highest degree. We may suppose the existence of a veritable water-bapting, or dipping rite, in the Johannic dispensation, and STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 81 that John, for example, who was surnamecl " the Dipper," did, as a religious rite, dip his penitent fellow-countrymen (and our blessed Saviour) "in the Jordan." But it is conceded that the hapto, or " dip," of the dipping rite, experienced in preceding ages " a radical change in the sj^ntax," proving that it also expe- rienced " a radical change in meaning," and that it acquired a secondary meaning, — namely, " to dye without dipping ; " which meaning had whoU}^ supplanted its primary one. How, now, shall we suppose that " John the Dipper," who " was sent to dip in water," administered his ritual dipping? We read, not only that "there went out to him all the country of Judsea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were dipped by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins," but that "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was dipped by John into the Jordan." Did John perform this dipping in water according to hapto primary, or hapto secondary? Could any man, unless a born imbecile, or one wholly demented, imagine that John performed on the Saviour, for example, some general dyeing process on the river's bank, "without iutusposition," or "dipping"? What has this al- leged secondary sense to do with a proper ritual dipping in water ? In reference to this subject, the Rev. Mr. Gear thus remarks : "But he (Dr. Dale) evidentlj^ fails to consider, that even if he is successful in estabhshing a secondary meaning for baptizo, in which all idea of iutusposition is excluded from its import, it will avail him nothing upon the subject of Christian baptism, for the reason that correct principles of interpretation imperativelj^ de- mand that the ordinary literal import of "iutusposition," or "immersion," must be taken as the true import of the word in all cases where its context does not require and indicate that literal "iutusposition" or "immersion" must be excluded from its import ; which is certainlj'' not true in a.nj case where the ordinance of baptism is spoken of in the Scriptures. . . . AU of Dr. Dale's discussion as to the metaphorical and secondary use of words is wholly immaterial and u-relevant to the baptismal controvers}'. It is just as true of a secondarj' as it is of a figm-a- tive meaning, that it is not to be assumed or substituted for the ordinary literal import of a word, unless the context so impera- tively requires and indicates. It seems whoUy unnecessary, 82 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. therefore, to take special notice of the eri'ors which Dr. Dale commits in the manner in which he seeks to estabhsh secondary meanings for the words which he discusses ; 3'et, in the interest of a sound philosojjhy, I must protest against such a wholesale slaughter of figure as that which Dr. Dale attempts." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 83 CHAPTER XIII. LOOSE BEASONINGS. IN spite of Ernesti's "Principles of Interpretation," and of Alexander Carson's logical " Canons," oui- Pedobaptist friends wiU sometimes reason loosely on the subject of baptism. This is done either by commuting effect for cause, mode for act, inter- changeable words in a proposition for exact equivalents, a figura- tive sense for the literal, or the meaning, design, or effect of a rite for the meaning of a word. This false reasoning generaU}' as- sumes the form of a syllogism, patterned after the geometrical axiom that things which are equal to the same things are equal to each other. The trouble in this form of ratiocination is, that, in the propositions, there is not expressed always and in every respect an exact equivalent. Thus it will not do to argue, that because an eel is a fish, and a perch is a fish, therefore a perch is an eel ; or that, since immersion is a wetting, and sprinkhng is a wetting, therefore sprinkling is immersion ; or that, since baptize with the church fathers meant to illuminate, to regenerate, &c., therefore regeneration and illumination are both one, and each is equivalent to baptism; or, finally, that since, with the same fathers, baptize meant to seal, and one mode of sealing is by applying a wafer, therefore the apphcation of a wafer to one's person is one mode of baptism ! But this, 3'ou say, is ridiculous stuff to write and print, and call it reasoning. True enough ; but, "on my own responsibilit}-," I will aver that there is an abundance of just such loose reasoning as this in many a learned treatise on baptism, and not a little such even in Dr. Dale's ponderous octavos. "When Clement of Alex- andria speaks of a man "baptized by drunkenness into sleep," one would naturally infer that this condition of sleep was caused 84 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. hj his baptism, or was an " injluence resulting " from his baptism. Does Clement then say, as Dale would make him, that ' ' this thor- oughly changed condition of a profoundly' sleeping man is a bap- tism ' ' ? Because the effect or result of a baptismal intusposition is frequentty a controlling influence, does haptizein (to intuspose) therefore mean to influence controllingly ? Because a ship bap- tized into the sea commonly sinks to the bottom, does it follow that a man (or a cork) baptized into the sea will sink to the bot- tom, or, at least, will never rise again? Because a ship sunk by its baptism to the bottom of the sea will remain there forever, does it follow that a drunken man ' ' baptized into sleep ' ' will sleep on forever? Because a man baptized into water by a man-hating enemy, lilce Timon (C. 28), for the purpose of destropng life, will probably " never see the light," does it follow that a man intusposed in water by a friendly hand (C. 156) will fare as badl}'? Because a putting-in does not express a taking-out, does it follow that " a baptism has no outcome to it," and that every baptismal intusposition is unending? Because words denoting receptive element are b}^ the preposition eis (into) frequentl}' connected in regimen with baptizo, can we safely argue that " re- pentance," for example, connected b}^ the same preposition with " baptize in water," is also a baptismal element? Because a bap- tismal intusposition sometimes "thoroughly changes," or " con- trollingl}' influences," the intusposed object, does it logically follow that every instance of such change and influence, even where there is no intusposition either " in fact or figure," is caused by a baptism, or is itself a baptism? We have seen no facts adduced as yet which prove that such a stupendous change has occurred in the meaning of this word. A reference to a baptism by drunkenness " into sleep," or to a baptism " into fornication," or to a baptism in "wickedness," " cares," and "pleasure " (C. 129, 154, 155), or to a baptism in (or with) " seas of waihng," in (or with) "anger" and "ignorance" (C. 113, 125), is far enough from proving a baptism of "influence without intuspo- sition," either "in fact or figure." Does one ask if there is in- tusposition of anj" sort in a baptism with wine, a baptism b}^ an opiate draught, or b}" sophistical questions (C. 163, 135), or in a baptism of "tears" and of "blood"? If the reader will look at Conant's Exs. 95, 147, he will find that a baptism with wine. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 85 " by drinking," is compatible with the idea of intusposition " be- neath the waves," and of being "plunged in the cask." An opiate draught flooding the senses will baptize one ' ' into stu- por." A person ovei-whelmed, or, as Liddell and Scott have it, "drowned," with questions, may be said to be baptized into "bewilderment." The patristic baptism of tears and of blood, while not allowing a physical intusposition, was regarded as an overwhelming flood of sorrow and suffering. Thus ever}' " baptism of influence " is or should be properly a " mersive influence," and every baptism of changed condition is or should be a mersivehj changed condition. Dr. Dale says that " one bewildered b}' questions, or drunk with wine, is equallj^a baptized man," because * " they are brought into new conditions of being." If this be the true reason, then every birth is a baptism (for surel}' every infant b}' birth is ' ' brought into a new condition of being " ) , and thus we shall have a new kind of infant-baptism ! Where shall we find an end of these "thorough changes," and "controlling influ- ences," and " new conditions " ? And how shall we characterize that reasoning — as sound, or " loose," or very peculiar — which asserts that " nothing can more fully develop influence than the infolding of an object within the influential agenc}'," and 3'et maintains or implies that even the patristic " divinelj'-impregnated," "medicated," " baptizing- water," if recognized as a receiving element, cannot be recognized as "agency," or, if recognized as agency, cannot be recognized as recei\'ing element ? Or that reasoning which acknowledges that a baptism into " ideal elements " — as into repentance, into Christ, '&c. — can be symbolized " with water " used in the way of pouring and sprinlvling (though these are not the ' ' natural servitors of baptizo "), but denies that it can be sj'mbolized with or in water, if used for immersion or "dipping"? Or that reasoning which takes baptizo out of its natural element, water, — although these are joined together in closest connection in the Scriptures, and apart, at times, from all so-called " ideal elements," — and afflnns that baptizo and the use of water, in the New Testament, have nothing whatever to do with each other ? Or that reasoning which would lead us so far to ignore both "fact and figure," that, in the illustration of the destruction of a ship by its baptism in the waters, we are to see nothing but the "naked idea of destruction," a 86 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ^^destruction of the ship, however effected"? Or, finally, that reasoning which avers that baptizo demands " intusposition," " withinness," " intusposition in a fluid element," for an "indefi- nite period," longer or shorter, and afflnns or concedes that the fathers never, except in case of "pressing necessity," performed the baptismal rite without thrice intusposing the naked bodj^ of the candidate in water, saying at the same time, "This servant of God is baptized," &c., and yet denies that this "momentary water-covering," or "water-burial," was "any baptism what- ever," or "any part of the patristic baptism proper"? We are tempted to ask, What is there which a man who is controUingly influenced by passion or prejudice, or some like pernicious malady (or infirmity) , will not try to prove ? And yet some persons have seen in this treatise of Dale, not onlj^ the "wit of Pascal," but the " logic of ChiUingworth." Our readers, however, may like to know what Dr. Dale does with the "momentary water- covering " which he recognizes "in the ordinarj^ patristic baptism." This covering, or burial, he says, was not a baptism, and was not expressed by baptizo. ' ' That it is ever used in patristic writings to express a covering and uncovering of water, I hare never seen adequate evidence." In his view, this covering in water was simply a means of effecting a baptism which was " purely spiritual " in its nature. The water- covering was not called by them a baptisma, but a ccdypsis, or catadysis, a tapJie or entJiapsis, that is, a " covering," a " sinking- down," or " burial," and was merety a sort of side-issue designed to symbolize the "covering of Christ's body in the sepulchre," and to represent sin as " left drowned at the bottom of the pool." And this, it seems, is no part of Christian baptism ! Of course their ^^ momentary water-covering was no baptism;" for to bap- tism there is "no outcome." Yet their catadysis, or sinking- down, has, per se, also no outcome. Still, notwithstanding its "unlimited continuance," the fathers secured a subsequent ana- dysis, or rising-up ; and they used both these words to express their haptisma, and their baptisma to express both these acts. They did not use baptisma simply "to express the eflect of this covering," but they used it to express both the act and the eff'ect. TertuUian has one word which ought to have set Dale right, and which utterly confounds all that he has written on patristic bap- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 87 tism as being solely a " spiritual effect." That one word is this : ' ' Quomodo et ipsius baptismi carnalis actus quod in aqua, mer- gimur," &c., — "As of baptism itself, there is Si i)liysical act, that we are immersed in water ; a spiritual effect, that we are freed from sins" (" De Baptismo," cap. ^Ai., C. 209). Dr. Dale, in noticing this passage of TertuUian, says that ' ' the phj^sical water- covering is expressly distinguished from the effect," &c. This is plain enough, and what nobody denies. He says that " the physi- cal act ... no more constitutes the baptism," &c. No one sup- poses that it constituted the whole of patristic baptism. He refers finally to the so-called clinic baptism of the sick and dj^ing, which was a "true, perfect, 'most glorious' baptism, while it was no water- covering." We acknowledge that an affusion made as near like an immersion, or " water- covering," as possible, was, in case of "pressing necessity," substituted for "immersion in water," and under such circumstances was deemed valid, and equal in eflJcacy to the "saving bath." But why, now, could not Dr. Dale have acknowledged, with TertuUian, that "immersion in water " was " the physical act " of baptism? And why should he, nay, how could he, maintain, in view of Tertullian's assertion, that "immersion in water "had no more essential and necessary connection with patristic baptism than their ex ordine, customary baptismal anointing, insufflation, and the giving of salt, milk, and honey? Do our readers wonder, that, to certain persons not naturally stolid, a good deal of Dale's "Patristic Baptism," not to speak of his other volumes, is hard reading? We notice in his last volume an important-looking syllogism. having reference to Cj'prian's views of baptism. This "father" (of aspersion and infant-baptism) was once asked by the presbjiier Magnus, "Whether the sick who were not bathed, but perfused (non loti sed perfusi) , with the saving water, are to be regarded as legitimate Christians?" His reply was, that "in the saving sacraments, when necessity compels, and God grants his favor, divine compendiums " (such as perfusion or affusion, and asper- sion, that is, pouring or sprinkling) "will confer the whole on believers ; . . . whence it appears that the sprinkling of water possesses equal A^alue with the saving bath," — In sacramentis salutaribus, necessitate cogente, et Deo indulgentiam,. suam lar- giente, totum credentibus conferunt divina compendia. . . . 88 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Unde apparet aspersionem quoque aqum instar salutaris lavacri ohtinere. The reader will safel}" infer, from Magnus' asking such a ques- tion as the above, that anj^ thing less than a complete immersion in baptism was generally regarded as a matter, to saj' the least, of ver}^ doubtful propriety. Indeed, Cyprian's argumentation has sole reference to the mode or act of baptism, and supposes, in almost its every sentence, that immersion was deemed the regular and proper, or (as Hofling states it in his " Sakrament der Taufe," p. 48) the " more perfect and effective, form of baptism." Hence we may also infer that the iiTegularit}' of the " mode," as well as the frequently culpable deferring of the ordinance to a sick-bed, was one reason wh}- " clinics," on recovering from sickness, were prohibited from entering "holy orders," or the ministr}'. Dr. Cave (in his "Primitive Christianity" p. 150) says of this clinic baptism, that " it was accounted a less solemn and perfect kind of baptism, parth" because it was done, not b}' immersion, but by sprinkling ( ? ) ; partly because persons were supposed at such a time to desire it chiefl3'out of a fear of death." And here we ma}* properly state that even the compend, perfusion, like the pericliusis of Novatian (the first chnic mentioned in history) , was no mere hand-pouring of water, a mode of baptism which was never pic- tured on the old frescos, but probablj' a poming around and over the whole bod}', and thus, instead of being a very slight pouring of water on the head, or a mere sprinkling of water on a part of the face, or a finger-tip moistening of the forehead, was a very thorough washing of the bod}', and almost ec[uiA-alent to a bath or immersion, so far as a wetting is concerned. " The ancients," saj's Salmasius, " did not baptize otherwise than b}' immersion, either once or thrice ; except clinics, or j)ersons confined to theu' beds, who were baptized in a manner of which the}' were capable ; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water, but the v:liole body had water poured upon it." Indeed, the verb perfundo is frequentl}' used of bathing in the baths and in rivers, and is often wrongly rendered ' ' sprinkle ' ' b}' Br. Dale (see " Johannic Baptism," p. 317) and b}' other Pedobaptists. Cyprian, moreover, bases his "sdew of the validity of perfusion or aspersion in case of necessity mainly hy an appeal to the Old Testament. He does not say that haptizo in its secondary mean- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 89 ing denotes merety a washing or ablution, regardless of foiTii ; or that baptism is " any application of water ; " or that it is simplj- a " controlling influence," without any kind of water use or appli- cation. He does not refer to the custom of the earlier churches, nor to any " apostolic tradition." He does not assert or insinuate that John must have baptized' the immense multitudes by pouring or sprinkling, perhaps with some "instrument," or that the "about three thousand" could not have been immersed by the apostles on the da}- of Pentecost. He does not say, with Joseph Addison Alexander, that immersion is no more essential to the rite than nudity ; and that as every elder need not necessarily be an old man, and as the Lord's Supper may be administered at other times than in the evening, so the baptismal rite may be celebrated otherwise than in its possibl}" original form of immer- sion. He certainly did not, in any attempt to prove a change of meaning, saj', with the distinguished Princeton professor, that to ' ' take tea ' ' does not always impl}- a partaking of that bever- age. In fact, he argues the case in most respects very differently from our modern Pedobaptists. And again : we cannot but observe how careful C^yprian is, not to designate any of these ' ' divine abridgments ' ' — which were available only through the special indulgence of God, and were to be practised only in case of necessitas cogens (" pressing necessity") ; that is, on a bed of sickness and death — as a proper baptism, but that he rather regards them as something, which, through divine favor and press- ing need, will answer for baptism, or have the same efficacy as baptism. In this sense he speaks of the sick as having been bap- tized, and he designates such pouring or sprinkling abridgment, which, "when necessity compels," obtains like the saving bath (and hence not the same as the sa^'ing bath, Cj'prian himself being judge), as ecclesiastical baptism, not scriptural, or proper, or regu- lar, ex ordine baptism, but something which, in case of uecessit}', would be accepted b}- the church as baptism. EA-identl}-, those who practise the ' ' abridgments ' ' nowadaj's could get but httle comfort or encouragement from C^'prian, and still less from the other church fathers of his time. "It is customar}-," sa3's Rev. James Chrystal, presbj-ter of the Protestant-Episcopal Church (in his "History of the Modes of Baptism," p. 63), "to represent Cj'prian as asserting that the mode is a matter of indifference. 90 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. No author is misquoted so constantly for the present irregularities in using sprinkling and pouring" (vice trine immersion, which this writer advocates) "in cases where no necessity requires, and none so unjustly." Dr. Dale knows that they themselves never performed the baptismal rite but b}^ immersion, except in case of necessity, when, in view of impending death, they performed on the clinic a rite as nearly resembling a " water- covering " as might be, " that no soul should be lost," For modern advocates of sprinkling, therefore, to appeal to the church fathers for support and comfort, is wholly futile, and sometimes, as we have seen it, looks hypocritical and dishonest. Better do as Wolff does, — give up the fathers entirel3^ "We renounce completely," he says, " the use of the fathers, and we shall not invoke their testimony in support of our doctrines on baptism." Yet, upon Cj'prian's statements as given above. Dr. Dale bases this sj^llogism : " Sprin- khng water does, Cyprianly, baptize ; sprinlding water does, under no condition, clij) : therefore Cj^Drian's baptism is not dip." Certainl}' not in this instance ; but this does not prove, what the syllogism seems to imply, that dip wiU not baptize, nor that Cyprian's ex ordine and proper baptism, in common with that of the fathers generally, was not by trine immersion.^ ^ It has been objected against us as Baptists, that we, in common with others, use but a very meagre " compend" of a proper " supper" when we celebrate the Holy Communion ; as also, that, in many other respects, we depart widely from the "mode" of its original observance. We grant, of course, that we do not partake, as the Saviour did, of unleavened bread; and we see no necessity for partaking of the bread and the cup at night, in the time of Easter, in company with just eleven or twelve male persons, in a reclining posture, in a large furnished chamber, in the city of Jerusalem, &c. : for our Saviour has nowhere commanded these things. He simply bids his disciples eat and drink, while he says nothing about the time, fre- quency, or "mode," of eating and drinking. His words are, "Do this" — to wit, eat and drink these emblems — "in remembrance of me ;" or, as Paul has it, " As oft as ye drink it, do this in remembrance of me." '^As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup," &c. (1 Cor. si. 25, 26.) We do not contend for any special " mode " of eating and drinking, nor for any special mode of baptizing. With any particular mode of doing these things we have at present but little concern. In regard to the "compend" character of our Eucharistic observance, we remark, that, although Paul in one instance (1 Cor. xi. 20) speaks of the "Lord's Supper," he does at the same time dissuade his erring brethren STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 91 Both Beecher and Dale have argued much and loosely from the supposed signification of the rite, confounding in many instances the imagined design and significance or efficacy of the baptismal ordinance with the meaning of the word b}^ itself. Dr. Dale has spent any amount of time and pains in ascertaining what Christian baptism was to the patrists, or church fathers. Why, it was every thing to them, — a grace-giving sacrament, a saving ordinance, the seal of the second life, the saving impress, yea, the divine, holy, mystical, spiritual, heavenly, roj^al, immortalizing, inviolable, indissoluble, unassailable seal and pledge of one's eternal salvation. " Being baptized," saj^s Clement of Alexandria, "we are illumi- nated ; being illuminated, we become sons ; being made sons, we become perfect; being made perfect, we become inunortal." According to Chrysostom, "Baptism is a ransom to the captive, remission of every debt, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, a robe of light, a seal not to be violated, a chariot to heaven." " Some," he says, " think that the heavenly gTace " (of baptism) " consists onl}' in the forgiveness of sins ; but I have reckoned up ten advantages of it," &c. With Gregory of Nazianzum, baptism is the great and beautiful phjdactery, the garment of incorruption, our perfection, illumination, sanctification, grace, a seal, the rectification of our fallen image, our second birth ; which is of the da}-, and is free ; which emancipates from passions, and takes awaj^ every veil of our birth, and conducts us to the life above. " Bap- tism," he says, "is the illumination of souls, a change of life, 'the answer of the conscience toward God,' the strengthening of om' weakness, the putting-away of the flesh, the following of the Spirit, the partaking of the Word, the amendment of our for- mation, the purging of sin, the participation of fight, the dissipa- f rom regarding and obsen'ing this ordinance as a feast, or as in any way connected with a feast, and sharply reproves them for eating and drinking on these occasions to excess. "Have ye not," he asks them, "houses to eat and drink in ? " " If any man is himgry, let him eat at home." Dr. Eobinson remarks that "the institution of the Lord's Supper probably took place at the close of the proper meal, immediately before the third cup, or cup of blessing ; ' ' and both Luke and Paul expressly state that the cup was not given until " after supper." The paschal supper is not obligatory upon us as Christians; for "Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us." 92 STUDIES OW BAPTISM. tion of darkness, the chariot to God, the walking with Christ, the support of faith, the perfection of understanding, the key of the kingdom of heaven, the exchange of life, the abrogation of slavery, the loosening of bonds, the remodelling of our composi- tion. Baptism — what more is it necessar}' to enumerate? It is the noblest and most magnificent of the gifts of God. For as some things are called the hol}^ of holies, ... so also is this bap- tism more holj than all the other baptisms we possess. As Christ, the giver of this, is called by manj^ and diverse names, so also this gift," &c. (see Hagenbach's " History of Doctrines," vol. i. p. 387, where the original of this panegyric is given ; also Dale's " Patristic Baptism," p. 495.) Time would fail us to tell of all the patristic praises of baptism, or " illumination ; " yet we are gravely assured by Dr. Dale, times without number, that the " all hoty" baptism of the fathers " was not a mere dipping in water." Did ever a Baptist writer suppose it was ? or did ever a Baptist Chris- tian dream that the whole of a genuine Christian baptism was ' ' a mere dipping in water " ? There is, we must saj^, something which looks almost like decep- tion in Dr. Dale's incursion among the "fathers," and his report concerning their views of baptism. His ponderous treatises are entitled "An Inquiry into the Usage of Baptizo." Once "bap- tism" was discussed under the two heads of " Mode " and " Sub- jects." Our author gives but slight consideration to the " Sub- jects," and but little to its modal usage ; nor does he inquire into its distinctive and proper usage as an act ; but, instead of this, he devotes his treatises mainly to a consideration of the effects or benefits of baptism. Indeed, he confounds, as we have seen, act and eflTect ; and this confusion -vitiates his whole "Inquiry" in general, and his "Patristic Baptism" in particular. Instead, therefore, of visiting the fathers to inquire into their views of the distinctivel}^ proper meaning and usage of ha])tizo in itself consid- ered, his inquiry rather relates to the influence and the benefits, which, in their ^dew, attended baptism. Pie found out, in the course of his stay among them, that they attached to their haptizo a very powerful^ controlling and most blessed influence, in case, at least, no obex, or bar, was put in the way ; and so he felt himself not wholl}" out of place in their society. But the truth is, he visited them incognito, or under disguise. Had he disclosed STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 93 his pecuKar views to the "patrists," he would not have felt much at home with them. He did not affirm in their presence that there was no specific act in baptism ; that a ' ' momentary covering in water" by dipping was not "any baptism whatever;" that, so far as haptizo was concerned, the}'' might just as well " drinJc " their "impregnated," "medicated" water, as to be thrice im- mersed in it; that haptizo had "no concern whatever" in the ritual baptisms of the New Testament ; that, in all the New-Testa- ment Scriptures, there is no water-baptism inculcated or exempli- fied ; and, finally, that to a living man a proper water-baptism would be " death by drowning." He was prudentlj' silent on all these points ; and instead of asking after the carnalis actus, the distinctively proper phj'sical act or usage of baptizo, he merely inquired what were their A'iews of the efficacy, the benefits, and blessings of their " consecrated- water " baptism. And here we may imagine that the golden-mouthed Chrysostom, speaking for the fathers generallj^, answered him as follows (see in Augustine, contra Juliaimm, lib. i., "Ad Baptizatos ") : " Ecce libertatis serenitate perfruuntur, qui tencbantur pauUo ante captivi et cives ecclesise sunt, qui fuerunt in perigrinationis errore, et justitiae in sorte versantur, qui fuerunt in confusione peccati. Non enim tan- tum sunt liberi, sed'et sancti ; non tantum sancti, sed et justi; non solum justi, sed et fiUi ; non solum filii, sed et heredes ; non solum heredes, sed et fratres Christi ; nee tantum fratres Christi ; sed et coheredes ; non solum coheredes, sed et membra ; non tan- tum membra, sed et templum ; non tantum templum, sed et organa Spiritus, viDES, quot sunt baptismatis largitates " ! " You see, Dr. Dale, how many" ("ten," at least, in number) "are the BENEFITS OF BAPTISM" ! Our author, having returned home, has carefully reported to us all these and several other largitates, or largesses, of patristic baptism, and tells us that the Christian baptism of the fathers was something more than a mere dipping in water ! True enough ; but what have these largitates really to do with the ritual " usage of haptizo ,' ' save as a supposed result of its " usage " ? And here we may remark, that perhaps the most eff'ective popular argument which Dr. Dale brings to bear against the modern Baptists is the imputing to them the belief that Chris- tian baj)tism is but a senseless, meaningless " dipping into water." 94 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Dr. Hague (in his " Examination of Messrs. Cooke and Towne," — an admirable little work, with its acute logic, and terse, crispy style) has well exposed the fallacy and danger of this loose reason- ing " from the signification of the rite," and from the underlying assumption that " the thing to be done is not to be learned from the terms of the law, but b}^ ascertaining the moral meaning of the rite, and choosing for ourseh^es the most appropriate manner to express it." " This mode of argumentation," he says, " sets aside the words of the law of Christ as insufficient, and not adapted to explain the will of the Lawgiver ; " and that thus " the law, instead of making the action plain, uses an enacting term which is uncer- tain, equivocal, determines nothing as to manner, and leaves the inquirer to infer what ought to be done from the spiritual meaning of the rite." Dr. Hague objects further and truthfully as regards Dr. Dale's theory, that "it annihilates a positive rite of Christ. Rejecting the very word which Christ has chosen as the exposition of His will, it seizes the abstract idea of which His institution is said to be an emblem, and then makes new rites as emblems of that idea. . . . Any abstract idea, or any spiritual truth, may be represented by various outward signs or emblems. Yet who but God has the authority to exalt one of these into an emblematic rite, and make the observance of it binding upon the conspience? And if He selects one, impresses on it His own seal, invests it with the dignity of an ordinance, and commands it to be regarded as His appointment, who has the right to set it aside, and substitute another, on the plea that it will do as well, and answer the same end? " We cannot quote further from Dr. Hague ; but the speci- men we have given ma}^ assure our readers that a large part of his masterly little work furnishes as complete a refutation of Beecher and Dale as it did of Messrs. Cooke and Towne. We again notice in Dr. Dale's treatment of baptizo a frequent confounding of mode with act. He, indeed, denies in general that baptizo expresses any act. Were he tied down to prove any specific act of baptizo, he would be as powerless as an infant. It is onl}^ when he leaves tangible, visible acts, and soars away into the cloud- land of influence, that he can make a show of doing an}^ thing. But he does not always remain in this upper sphere. Through some weakness or inconsistency he occasionally comes down to earth, and is easily caught, or rather he surrenders both himself STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 95 and Ms argument. Thus one of his "postulates," and to his mind a chief support of Jiis "theory," is, that active transitive verbs are divisible into two distinct classes, — the one directlj'' ex- pressing action, hke bapto; the other direct^ expressing condition, an example of which is baptizo, — and that, " as a point be3'ond controversy, no word can belong to both these classes " (" Classic Baptism," p. 234). But, while asserting that baptizo expresses "condition characterized by complete intusposition," he is yet forced to acknowledge that the ' ' condition of intusposition in- volves some act adequate for its accomphshment," &c. ("Judaic Baptism," p. 51.) While denying also that baptizo, or any other word, can "express both act and condition," he yet saj-s (and here is another instance of his frequent giving and taking away almost at the same breath) that "act and condition may be in- separably united in one word " (" Classic Baptism," p. 65) . Thus the " great gulf" which in Dr. Dale's imagination (see Id., p. 26) was supposed to separate active transitive verbs into two distinct classes of action and condition is, in fact, disowned or annihilated by Dr. Dale himself. Look, for a moment, to his statements in regard to a change of meaning in bapto. This word of " trivial " import primarily denotes not only action, but a particular form of action, — to dip. But in its secondar}' meaning, "to dj'c," it, like baptizo, chiefly expresses "condition," and exerts also a very powerful and permanent " controlling influence " (as, for example, to dip in, or bapt with, aniline colors), and this, too, notwith- standing the Dale "postulates," that no word can express both act and condition, and that a gulf impassable separates these two classes of verbs. And what shall we do with another postulate of his, that a long-continued withinness, or " intusposition of un- limited continuance," lil^e that of baptizo (wh}' not buthizo, kata- pontizo, kataduo, as these, for certain, " never take out what they put in " ? — perhaps, after all, the intusposition needs to be limited, in order that we maj see the amount of influence received b}' the intusposed object) , is necessar}^ to create this ' ' controlling influ- ence"? "Language development," he saj's, "protests against the monstrosity which allies the profoundest influence with a dip- ping." Yet here is that insignificant, almost contemptible bapto (to "dip," "a feeble word") used b}^ the Greeks to express the very powerful controlling influence of d^'eing ! Our author, 96 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. indeed, sometimes speaks as if there were two different stems to bajyto, — one meaning to dip, and the other (from which he derives his baptizo of influence) meaning to dye. Yet even he virtually disowns his own statement when he asserts that bcqjto, to dj'e, has "its origin in dipping into coloring-liquids," and that "the pri- mary meaning of the verb bapto is to dip." Nay, he himself could not so easily prove that the meaning of baptizo has in a most remarkable manner changed from mersion without influence to influence without mersion, had not his bapto set the example of a change from dipping without d^'eing to dyeing without dip- ping. The truth is, our author seldom lets his own " postulates " stand long enough to give any one an opportunity de novo to attempt their overthrow. By these frequent inconsistencies and truthful concessions he removes the foundation entirely' away from the superstructure he has labored to build, and his castle-in- the-air theory of " condition " and " influence " falls, by his own hands, a shapeless mass of ruins. Thus he gives us, in fact, aU we can ask or desu-e when he concedes that baptizo " primaiily makes demand for the intusposition of its object within a fluid element b}^ anj^" (or " some") " competent act." The truth of this concession is well-nigh self-evident. Almost slmj child can see that an intusposed condition must commonly be preceded b}^ an act of intusposition. If baptizomenos (baptized) denotes a " condition of complete intusposition" of any person or object, then the active baptizo must first put such person or object into that state. The form or mode of the act is to us, in the main, a matter of indifiference. Yet, over and over again, Dale denies that baptizo expresses any ^^tJie act," any "particular act," any " specific act," any "definite act," any " characterizing act," ^^ any act," but "condition;" which condition, however, "involves some act." Truly there must be some act expressed or implied in baptizo, or no one would know how to obey the command to bap- tize or to be baptized. It seems almost like blasphemy to say that God's inspired Word has enjoined a ritual baptism, and 3'et has not specified or indicated any ' ' the act ' ' for us to perform. Dr. Dale sa3-s that John and others (instead of performing any proper baptismal act) merely symbolized baptism b}' a water-rite which has no connection with baptizo, or baptizo with it ; and he some- times calls this baptizing " symbolh'," which is another confusion. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 97 We believe that John baptized sjTnbohcally ; in other words, that his water-baptism was a sjTnbol or sign of repentance : but this baptizing symbolically is a world-wide different thing from sjTnbol- izing baptism ; which thing John was not commissioned to do. But does Dr. Dale still ask us what is " the act " of baptizo? "Well, we will take his most frequent representative word for baptizo^ " in- tuspose," — a favorite word with him (in import not displeasing to us) , though Carson did use it, and though, like immerse, com- pounded with a preposition, — and our answer would be, The act of baptizo is to put within, to put (in close contact) something within something, "generally in a fluid element." The act, thus, is definite enough ; though the mode of the act is indeed left indeterminate. Thus it maybe true that "there is no form of act inherent in baptizo ; ' ' but this is far enough from proving that baptizo does not express " any act." All we ask of Dr. Dale is, that when he uses a water-rite, and calls it baptism, he will " in- tuspose " without any fear of a drowning, using any " mode " or "form" which may please him best. And is our conviction utterly baseless, that if Dr. Dale, or smj other well-informed' Pedobaptist, were convinced that his soul's salvation depended. upon a proper water-baptism, he would cause himself to bej im- mersed in the name of the Trinity without delay ? We notice, finally, in Dr. Dale's method, great looseness and inaccuracy in the use of dictionaries, and in his explication of the meanings of words. We will imagine one or two instances to. illus- trate his methods. Our Saviour, when instituting the ordinance of the Supper, said, " Take, eat." Our author turns to the lexicons, and under the word " eat " he finds many difi'erent meanings. He calls them, in general, not tropical or figurative, but secondary meanings, and regards them mainly as independent of the pri- mary, and as having a status of their own. Thus the " chain of significations" is broken, and their " natural relation" dissolved. This is the foundation error of his most baseless and unphilosophi- cal assumption, that baptizo, ha\dng acquired a supposed 'sacondarj' meaning of " controlhng influence," therefore discards and loses all reference to its primarj^ " gi'and, sole characteristic" and " vital " meaning of mersion and " envelopment." Because, in the words of Blair, "a multitude of words once figurative may by long use come to lose their figurative power," our author loosely 98 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. infers, and would have us believe, that they thus lose all resem- blance and reference to their original selves ; and it is in this way' alone that he can get out of the " intusposition," the "within- ness," demanded by baptizo, and thus escape a drowning. The primary import of ' ' eating ' ' he will acknowledge to be a chewing and swallowing of food ; but among the secondar}^ uses he reqol- lects such expressions as these : "A cancer eats flesh," "Eust eats iron," " Their tuord will eat as doth a canker," "The sivwd of Jehovah shall eat flesh," &c. Here a literal meaning and the idea of a definite mode must, of course, be given up. Take the exam- ple of the sword (Deut. xxxii. 42) in the Hebrew. There is no eat- ing here either " in fact, figure, or imagination." What ! shall we picture to ourselves a sword furnished with mouth and teeth, &c., and sitting down with knife and fork before a plate of flesh ? In- credible and monstrous ! Or take the words applied to the Sav- iour, " The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." Shall we imagine " zeal " to be metamorphosed and incarnated into " Mr." Zeal, furnished with a large mouth, huge teeth, and capacious stomach, and hterally eating up and swallowing down the Saviour? What an outrage upon common sense and all propriety ! No : the abstract idea of all these and other eating examples is that of devouring or consuming "without regard to any form of act," and with " supreme indifference to mode." But how many wa^-s and modes there are (a " myriad " at least) of devouring and consum- ing ! " The seven wise men of Greece " (or of any other country) ' ' could not declare the nature or mode of an}" given ' eating ' by the naked help of ' eat.' " "If ever a word lost an element which was originally characteristic of it, such a word is ' eat.' " But what sJiall be the mode of our consuming the consecrated bread? We may as well adopt the mode suggested by our friend Professor Milo P. Jewett, as being the most significant, simple, and convenient, adapted to infants as well as to adults ; namely, that of crumbling the bread on the floor with our fingers. Who can doubt that this is the way by which it msij and should be consumed ? But our Saviour also gave the cup, and said, " Drink all je. of it." But " drinlc " has even more definitions than the word " eat," and is encompassed with the same difficulties. It meant primarily to swallow as a liquid ; but the literal meaning is lost, and the mode must be given up. Think of one's ears drinking luords, or a STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 99 smoker drinJcing tobacco, or Eloisa in Pope's verses drinJcing " de- licious poison ' ' from tlie eye of Abelard in a literal sense ! ^ In this last example shall we convert Abelard 's eye into a cup, and Eloisa's eyes into a mouth, and thus picture her as drinking literally from the poisoned cup ? What nonsense and absurdity ! No : the mode of drinliing in this case was by gazing or beholding. And, if we reverently gaze at or behold the cup of communion, is not this incontestably one mode of drinking thereof? And, if we do it sin- cerely and with right hearts, shall we not be accepted of God? Is not the religion of Christ a spieitual religion, caring little about mere externalities ? And shall the Church of God be forever di\id- ed by our contentions about " the form of a form," " the shadow of a shade ' ' ? And this is right reasoning and philosophic and scriptural inter- pretation ! Let us here calmly listen to the weight}^ words of Pro- fessor Irah Chase: "The question to be decided hj the honest and unsophisticated inquirer is, not whether the word ' baptize,' or some kindred expression, may not in some connection have been used by some writer in an improper or figurative way, so as not to imply strictly an immersion, but what was the act which we have reason to beheve that our Lord had in mind when he instituted baptism." And still another word from Dr. Chase's associate pro- fessor and friend, the sainted Henr}' J. Ripley : " The honest con- clusions of philology ought at length to be acquiesced in, and not to be unsettled by suspicions and surmises more shadow}^ than real." 1 " Still on that breast enamoured let me lie ; Still drink delicious poison from tby eye." Pope's Eloisa to Abelard, lines 121, 122. 100 STUDIES ON BAPTISM, CHAPTEE XI\. THE "influence THEORY " IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. WE now propose to ascertain what the " controlling-influence theory" has done with the baptisms of the New Testa- ment. Most Pedobaptists have acknowledged that the classic baptizo, in its primary sense, signified to immerse, but claim that the meaning of the word, ti-ansfen'ed to the New-Testament sphere, was changed by religious usage. That the Greek usage of Jewish-Christian writers should differ somewhat from 'the Greek of classic Paganism in idiom, and in the meaning or application of some words, is reasonable to suppose, and is most certainly true : but to conceive that a word of such specific import as baptizo; a word in common use among the Greeks and throughout the Greek- speaking world for centuries, used at least by the poet Pindar in the sixth centur}^ before Christ in a compounded form ; a word which (in common use from the time of Pindar to that of Jose- phus, a contemporary of the apostles) meant, as many of our oppo- nents now maintain, not onty to immerse, but to sink, yea, sink to the bottom, and drown, with the sure prospect of remaining there forever, — that such a word should all at on<3e, or gradually, come to denote such a slight specific act as sprinkHng or pouring, or such an indefinite act as washing, or, indeed, '•'-any reverent application of water," or no application of water, but simply " controlling influence," and all this, too, when the Greek lan- guage had abundance of words to denote all kinds of water use or apphcation, and, indeed, all kinds of influence that ever need be exerted, is about as wild and crazy a theory as ever sprang from a distempered brain. Our Saviom", as a wise teacher and lawgiver, would not, in giving a law to His church, have employed a word of ambiguous, doubtful import, such as John Horsey supposes hap- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 101 tizo to be, — "an equivocal, open, general term," determining this onl}', " that water should be applied to the subject in some form or other ; " or such as Dale supposes it to be, — a word expressive of controlling influence exerted in a " myriad " of waj^s, yet without any use of water. When our Lord said, " Take, eat," He used a word of well-known import, which everj'bod}- could understand. It ha^ its secondar}' or tropical significations ; but Christians have been wise enough, when interpreting Plis command, to let them alone. Would not He naturall}^ be as cautious in the selection of a word, when enacting the law which had respect to the great initiatory ordinance of Ilis church for all coming time ? ^ Professor 1 To a respected member of another denomination, as we suppose, cer- tainly an ardent admirer of Dr. Dale (personally unknown to the writer), who proposed a newspaper "friendly discussion to involve only the merits of IMMEKSION, proof to be confined to the New-Testament record,^' I re- turned the following, in substance, as a part of my answer: "But this limiting of the inquiry to the New Testament looks to me a little suspicious. Our Saviour, in the^ ordinance of the Supper, said, ' Take, eat.' Now, if there was any doubt as to the meaning of the Greek word phago, ' to eat,' it, to me, would look very strange and unphilosophical, should we, in our endeavor to ascertain its meaning, confine our inquiries to Scripture usage alone, and wholly neglect its usage ' through all Greek literature.' There is a reason why such words as 'faith,' 'repentance,' 'righteousness,' &c., should be used in another and higher sense in the ISTew Testament than what they have in Pagan, classic Greek usage. But what can be the reason or necessity of any Scripture change of the literal, proper, and usual meaning and action of such specific words as ' eat,' or ' drink,' ' immerse,' 'pour,' or 'sprinkle,' is past my comprehension. ... Of one thing I am pretty sure, that we can make a word of the most definite specific import mean almost any thing or nothing, as our prejudices may incline us. If our Lord had been of English or American birth, and had given His great commis- sion in our language, and had plainly said, ' Go, disciple and immerse,' &c., it would be comparatively easy for peo}Dle of other generations and other tongues to show, if they were disposed to do so, that literal physical immer- sions in water, of large numbers, and at all times of the year, especially in the icy climes of Northern England and America, would be exceediugly inconvenient, if not altogether impossible; that the word has diverse sig- nifications, and figurative or secondary meanings; that its Scripture use was different from its usage in profane authors; that, as employed in connection with 'ideal elements,' it denotes, not a i^hysical act, but a spiritual effect; that though its primitive literal import may have been to intus^jose, yet it lost its oi'iginal grand, sole, characteristic idea, and acquired that of control- ling influence merely ; that, at any rate, dipping or covering over is not its 102 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. E. A. SoiDhocles, himself a native Greek, and author of a Greek grammar, lexicon, &c., sa^'s, under the word haptizo^ "There is no e\4denee that the New-Testament writers put upon this verb meanings not recognized b}^ the Greeks." And, in substantial agTeement with this. Dale himself says, "The New Testament introduces baptizo to us in entirely new relations, but in precisely the same construction which the original nature of the word re- quires ; and we must deduce the new ideas intended to be conveyed by a strict adherence to the construction and to the force of indi- ^idual terms. It must be borne in mind that it is not the word haptizo which is used in a novel sense in the New Testament ; but the novelt}' is in its phraseological combinations." With Dale, the organic phrase, baptize into., everywhere (with one exception in the New Testament, Mark i. 9) denotes "the passing of an ob- ject out of one condition into another." The baptizing of a per- son into water denotes an unlimited intusposition in the same, and "involves destruction of life." In the New Testament, instead of water, a new ideal element is introduced, and believers are there baptized, not into (nor even in) ivater, but into repentance, into remission of sins, into the name of the Lord Jesus, into Jesus Christ, into His death, into, one bod}', and into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So, also, we read of a baptism into Moses and into the name of Paul. The reader, then, will understand, that, in Dr. Dale's "\'iew, there is no phj'sical ?';afe9'-baptism either enjoined or recorded as a Christian rite in the New Testament. Chiistian baptism is taken wholly out of the sphere of water, mainty, we suppose, for these reasons : First, A li^dng man cannot be baptized into or in water without destruc- tion of life : even a baptism vjitJi water, if performed in a literal way and manner, produces a fatal suffocation. Second, Instead of water, the New Testament provides other and " ideal " elements. TJiird, The gospel of Christ believed, and the doctrines of re- exclusive meaning; that its action, whatever it may have been, is wholly independent of 'mode;' and that at least one mode of immersion is by sPEiATfLixG, as has been proved by an anti-immersionist named Dale, whose vernacular tongue is known to have been English, and a fragment of whose voluminous works has reached even to our times. So says the future 'Pedo-sprinJdei-. Could any one easily convince him of his error?" STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 103 pentance and faith received into the heart (doctrines which effect baptism, and hence called " baptisms of doctrine ") , will baptize in its secondary- and regnant sense ; that is, will controllingly injluence the behever.-^ Thus, in his " Christie Baptism," pp. 396, 397, he explicitly declares that "belief can baptize," and that " kepent- ANCE baptizes into the remission of sins." On this theorj' and interpretation, our Saviour is made to say, "He that beheveth, and is (thereby) baptized, shall be saved;" and Peter's exhor- 1 The " baptisms of doctrine" spolien of in Heb. vi. 2, if we accept this rendering, were probably so designated from tlie fact ttiat tliey were accompanied with instruction, as in the commission, " Disciple, baptize, teach," and in the catechnmenate practice of the early church until it was supplanted by infant-baptism. Most commentators, however, reverse the order of the words, and read, as in our version, "the doctrine of " (or con- cerning) " baptisms," aijd make these refer to external and to spiritual bai> tisms, or to Jewish, Johannic, and Christian, or regard the plural as simply used for the singular. Chrystal, we perceive, refers the plural form to the three immersions of the one baptismal rite. Winer, it is true, inclines to the rendering, "baptisms of doctrine;" making these the object or end of Christian instruction, " instruction-baptisms," in contrast with the legal and traditional lustrations of the Jews, the " diverse baptisms" of the law, De Wette, also, in his Heilige Schrift, gives " Lehr-Taufen," or "baptisms of doctrine;" though in his Handbuch he makes the two words, "baptisms" and " doctrine," grammatically independent of each other, as in Luther's ver- sion (thus making seven fundamental "principles," instead of "six"), and comments thus: "Upon these two things (repentance and faith) follows, in the gospel order of salvation, («) baptism, which was connected (6) with instruction . . . and (c) with imposition of hands." He, however, acknowl- edges that the other rendering, baptisms of doctrine, has nearly equal weight. "That baptismos," he says, "elsewhere is not used of Christian baptism (though used of the Johannic by Josephus), presents but a slight difficulty: since the usual baptisma does not occur in this author, he can follow another usage.. The plural, perhaps, can be referred to the triple immersion (Can. Apos., ' three baptisms of one initiation '), if not with Theodoret and Beza, to the multitude of the baptized, and of baptismal acts." In opposi- tion to De Wette and to Winer (who, however, gives his opinion hesitatingly), Alford, Lange, Ebrard, Liinemann, and Bleek (perhaps the ablest com- mentator on this epistle) prefer the rendering of our version, " the doc- trine of baptisms," and supply the word "doctrine" before each of the following phrases, — "of the laying on of hands," "of the resurrection of the dead," and "of eternal jadgment." But how senseless to carry back our disputes to apostolic times, and make this " doctrine of baptisms " refer to the so-called different "modes " of baptism I 104 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tation, " Repent and be baptized," is changed into " Repent, and be (therebj-) baptized." In opposition to this interpretation, we remark, that, when we are advised or bidden to do this thing and that, our inference naturally is, that different specific acts are requked of us. Should, however, the this and that be iden- tical in meaning, we should naturally suppose that this identity would be indicated by a "that is," or a "thereby." So, when our Lord bids His disciples to go, make disciples, baptizing and teaching them, the language naturally implies that " discipling," " baptizing," and " teaching " are different acts. Had He meant otherwise, he would have said, as Dale makes Him sa}', " Go, disci- ple, and thereby ' controUingly influence,' aU the nations." But this is evidently both an adding to and a taking from the word of God. Our author may tell us that we add the words, " in water ; " but these, as being the most usual, not to say the most essential, requisites of baptizo, are naturally and necessarily understood. Thus Dr. Dale finds "water " in the " baptizings from the mar- ket," in the "baptizings of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches," in the baptism of the Samaritan multitudes, and in many other and " diverse baptisms " in the New Testament, where no water is mentioned. Our author does, as we have seen, speak of a water-rite which sometimes accompanied baptism, and which he improperly calls ritual baptism, of which he recognizes eight examples in apostolic history. The mention of water occurs in two instances ; to wit, in the baptizing of the eunuch, and in that of Cornelius (doubtless) and the other Gentiles, who, contrary to the usual order of events, had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to their ritual baptism and the imposition of hands (Acts viii. 38, x. 47). In the baptism of the Samaritans (Acts viii. 12, 13),-:- though the records do not state that Philip baptized them, but onty that they were baptized, — while no mention is here made of water, a water- rite is 3^et recognized by Dr. Dale, not so much from the fact that "women" were there baptized, as that one of the subjects was Simon Magus, whose baptism could not well have been that of the Holy Spirit, nor that even of controlling influence, but might have lasted long enough for, and amounted to as much as, a mere "dip into water;" which Dr. Dale informs us is all that "the Christian baptisma, according to the theor^^," amounts to! The STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 105 re-baptism of John's disciples (Acts xix. 5) , and the baptism by Paul of Crispus and Gains, and of Stephanas and his household, the baptism of Lydia and her household, and of the jailer " and all his," are claimed as ritual. But why a ritual baptism is denied to the Pentecostal converts, and predicated of the last two household baptisms, and, indeed, of some others mentioned, is difficult to perceive, unless, indeed, it be taken for granted that these house- holds contained not only infants, but adult unbelievers^ who might have been ritually baptized, but could not have received the bap- tism of the Spirit, or that of " controlling influence." Certainly an " ideal element" could be as easily furnished b}^ imagination for these so-called ritual baptisms as the words ' ' in water ; ' ' and as an ideal element, such as "rato the name of the Lord Jesus," does not with om- author preclude a " ritual baptism " in Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, so it need not preclude a ritual baptism from the " gi-eat commission," nor withhold it from the converts at Pentecost. Even Professor J. H. Godwin, who holds, with Dr. Dale, that haptizo expresses "the efl'ect, and not the mode, of action," and who sees in the baptism of our Lord's commission only a spiritual purifj^ng, a baptism " of the mind, not of the body," yet acknowledges that the Pentecostal converts, in obedience to Peter's exhortation (" Repent, and be baptized, each one of 3'ou ") , were " baptized by water." On Dr. Dale's theory-, the}' must seem- ingly have been at a loss to know how, after their repentance, they were to be controllingly influenced. He tells us, however, that they were baptized hy or of the Holy Ghost ' ' through repentance and faith." As, after their repentance-baptism b}^ the Holj^ Ghost, they were, according to Peter's assurance, to " receive the gift of the H0I3' Spirit," it follows, that, if they received no water-baptism, they were, as Dr. Dale himself acknowledges, doubly baptized by the Holy Ghost ; the one baptism being regenerative, and the other conferring miraculous endowments. He concedes, however, the possibility that the}^ ma}^ have been rituall}- baptized ' ' some other day." But, as we have seen, it is only in a loose wa}' that any of Dale's water-rite examples can be called ritual baptisms. He himself has not the temerit}' to call them t(;a/e?--baptisms. In his view, there are no ritual water-baptisms, that is, drowning baptisms, in the New Testament. So far as it relates to a ritual physical baptism. Dr. Dale is neither Baptist nor Pedobaptist, 106 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. nor any part or kind of a Baptist, unless it be of the Jcata-hsqytistio sort : for with him a physical baptism " with " water is drowning, and a destruction of life ; and it is a practising of virtual decep- tion on his part to talk of " ritual baptisms " (ritual drownings) in the New Testament, or for him to imply that he holds to a ritual baptism. By his influence theory, every ritual water-baptism is influenced out of and away from the New Testament, and is abso- lutely and forever discarded. He saj^s, "The Scriptures do not saj^ one word about either a baptism or a dipping into water." "The presence of water, actual or imaginary, is unnecessary to a baptism." " Whenever a baptism is stated without any explana- torj' adjunct, there is no, of course, calling on tuater to fill the deficiency." "The idea of a complementary relation between baptizo and water is an absolute and impracticable error." "There is no such thing in Scripture as a ph^^sical baptism." " A ritual baptism by water was not instituted in the commission, nor at any other time, by formal and public announcement." "The water in ritual baptism no more depends for its manner of use on baptizo than does the face depend for its reflection from a mirror ; upon that mirror being in its form a circle, an oblong, or a square. These two things [baptizo and the manner of using the water] no more stand in Scripture conjoined with each other by grammatical or logical relation than do the earth and the moon stand in creation conjoined b}' a suspension-bridge." "There is no phj'sical use of baptizo in the ministry of John." " This word has nothing whatever to do with originating the presence, or in controlling the use, of the water in the rite connected with John's ministry." " The verb baptizo and the noun baptisma, as used in the history of John's baptism, have no more to do with the quantity or the manner of using the water employed in his sym- bol rite than has the multiplication-table to do with the amount or the manner of using Rothschild's wealth. Let these words mean what they ma}^, they have no more control in the relations in which the}- stand over the use of the water than a sleeping infant has over the earth's diurnal revolution." "It [baptizo'] has no more to do with regulating the use of the water than the child unborn." " The idea that baptizo has an}' complementary relation with water in the New Testament, or has an}^ concern in the mode of using the water in ritual baptism, is foundationless." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 107 '•'• Baptizo has no control over loafer in the New Testament in a single instance.^' If this be so, tlieu we may justty conclude, for one tiling, that any attempt to determine the mode of baptism from the use of water in the New Testament is as futile as would be the attempt to determine it from the phases of the moon. A sweeping controlling-influence theor}' , indeed, is this ! "Why was it ever invented ? and for what have our friends lauded it to the skies? That cause, methinks, must be truly desperate which requires such a "theory" as this to uphold it. It seems to me that what Carson said of Mr. Ewing and his ' ' jpop-theory ' ' can well be applied to Dr. Dale: "In this theory' of Mr. [Dale] we have the strongest evidence that our opponents are not them- selves satisfied with any mode of defence hitherto devised. We have Mr. [Dale's] own virtual acknowledgment that the ground on which pouring (or sprinlvling) has till his time been held for baptism is not firm. Can there be a more certain sign that he himself was dissatisfied with the usual view of the subject than his having recourse to so extravagant a theory ? If he has taken to sea in this bark of bulrushes, must he not have considered the ship which he left as being in the ver}^ act of sinking ? I call on the unlearned Christian to consider this circumstance. What must be the necessities of a cause that requires such a method of defence ? ' ' We have sometimes queried exactl}^ what, on this theorj-, one person did to another when he baptized him. Take the case of Philip and the eunuch. Our friends will hardly allow that there was water enough in the desert or wilderness for the evangelist to drown the Ethiopian treasui-er, even if they had both been so disposed. On the other hand. Dale will allow that the eunuch, before his ritual baptism, had already' been controUingly influenced b}^ the " good news " of an atoning Saviour ; that he had alread3- received spiritual baptism ; that his soul already' had been baptized into Christ. But " the}' went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he haptized him." Again we ask. What did Philip do? Dale tells us, that, with his hand, he poured a little water on the eunuch's head. Ver}' well ; but, if assertions amount to any thing, this use of water had "nothing whatever" to do with haptizo^ or the act of baptizing. Again : What did Philip do? "I pause for a repl}-." 108 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. And here we may properly inquire, What has this "influence theory" done with our Lord's last command, "Go, therefore, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatever I commanded you " ? There are, as it seems to me, two or three points bearing on the interpretation of this pas- sage, which are so self-evidentlj' true that their correctness may be taken for granted. One is, that, if any ritual baptism is to be inferred from or connected with this commission, it must be found in the word "baptizing;" another is, that if one of the two participles, "baptizing" and "teaching," denotes a particular specific work or action connected with, yet different from, the making of disciples, the same holds true of the other ; and a third is, that both participles are equally related to the preceding verb "disciple." Every one of these points is set at nought by Dr. Dale's interpretation, and a more jumbled up and confused speci- men of hermeneutics we have rarely seen. On p. 426 of his "Christie Baptism" he says, " A ritual baptism by water was not instituted in the commission, nor at any other time, bj^ formal and pubhc announcement." This alone would seem to be enough to set aside the ordinance altogether. But, strange to say, he in- sinuates a ritual baptism into the discipUng to Christ, deriving it not at all from " baptizing," but in part from the " all things which I have commanded you " (though no such command, according to Dale, is known to have been given), and in part from Christ's own example of rituallj' baptizing through His disciples (John iii. 22, iv. 1, 2) ; though no direct mention is made of " water " in connec- tion with Christ's baptizing, while the people were baptized doubt- less into some "ideal element." Had the commission run thus, " Go, disciple all the nations, sprinkling them into the name," &c., even Dr. Dale, we trow, would have made this "sprinkling" to have had some reference to the Christian rite. To be sprinkled into a name denotes, indeed, but an insignificant act and effect ; and we can think of but one thing which could save it to the " controlhng-influence " theor}*. Like baptism, "no sprinkling is self-ending;" and the act of sprinkling, happily, could be continued on during the process of " teaching " the disciples ; and if continued during their whole lives, as its "unlimited continu- ance" demands, it would doubtless effect a considerable degree STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 109 of influence ! In determining the relation of ' ' baptizing ' ' and " teaching " to the verb " disciple," Dr. Dale appears to us to be wholly arbitrary. Dr. Halley, Alexander Campbell, and many others, make the two participles explanatory of the verb's action : in other words, they would disciple by baptizing and teaching whomsoever thej^ could, just as they would " cleanse a floor " (by) "washing it." There is, at first sight, some plausibility in this view, and the reading baptisantes, of manuscripts B. and D., espe- cially favors it ; but Dr. Dale accepts it only in part. He is willing to disciple by teaching, but not by baptizing. The making of this exception is well, we think, for those who would fulfil the Saviour's command ; for even an apostle who would disciple men by control- lingly influencing them could not tell which of ' ' ten thousand ' ' diflferent methods of influencing controllingly he should employ. Our author, therefore, makes the " baptizing" to be no separate action from that of discipling, no means for effecting disciple- ship, no consequent upon discipling, but makes it to be included in discipling; while "teaching," on the other hand, is regarded as a separate action, and as a means of discipling. Hence the commission, according to his interpretation, is " disciple (and thereb}^ baptize) the nations 6^/ teaching them," &c. This "real baptism," efi'ected so far as man can do it by discipling, — i.e., " by preaching and teaching," -*-is a baptism " into the absolute ti'iune God for all eternity ; " " the last consummating baptism of redemp- tion ; " "a baptism forever., even for evek and ever. ' ' The repent- ance-baptism of John, and the baptism " into the name of Christ " and " into Christ," could be s3axibolized by a water-rite ; but this baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and H0I3' Spirit, this "full subjection to " the Trinity, is not to be sjmibolized. " The association of this baptism (into the name of the Trinity) with a ritual ordinance is wholly wanting in scriptural authority, whether it be sought in command or practice." The so-called ritual baptism which Dr. Dale, without the authority of anj- " formal and public announcement," or command of our Lord, interprets into the com- mission, is properly a baptism, not into the name of the Trinit}*, but "into the name of the Lord Jesus," the "crucified Re- deemer." Dr. Dale still uses the full Trinitarian, not the "ori- ginal formula," in his ritual baptism of " sinners," though he does so in known and confessed contradiction to apostolic precept and 110 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. example and to right reason (for ' ' there is no blood in the Son as the second person of the Trinit}' ") ; but he justifies his practice mainly on the ground of its supposed accordance with the will of God as indicated by long-established ecclesiastical usage. We beUeve that this interpretation of the commission, taken as a whole, is original with Dr. Dale, and that no one will ever arise to dispute his claim to sole ownership. But how does this interpretation of the commission bear on the question of m/ani-baptism ? Nothing can be plainer than om' author's averment that the nations are to be discipled, and thus baptized, " hy preaching and teaching." This " discipling to Christ hy being taught to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded will ' ' inevitabl}' debar infants from any ritual baptism on the ground of the commission. Yet Dr. Dale derives infant- baptism from the commission b}" the following reasoning : Infants compose a large and integral part of the nations. But the nations, and hence infants, are to be discipled, and thus baptized. But how ? By being taught to observe all the Saviour's commands? This is impossible. This discipling method, therefore, must be modified ; otherwise infant - baptism is unauthorized, and the commission itself is destroj'ed. • Our author noio tells that " it is not true that preaching and teaching are the onl}^ means for discipling to Christ." Na}^ he even denies that '"teaching" is a means for discipling. He says, "The 'teaching' is clearly to be addressed to ' them ' who are " ("by the Holy Ghost ") '-'■already discipled." Thus, after all, " teaching " is a consequent upon discipling ; while " baptizing," on the other hand, remains included in it. We will not stop to reconcile all these statements, but will give our author's exceedingly foggj' syllogism (found in " Christie Baptism," p. 447) touching this matter : "To exclude infants from the command ' to disciple the. nations ' is to annul that command. But this command must stand : therefore ' disciple ' must represent either a princi- pal, not exclusive, means only, or it must have a breadth of mean- ing wliich ^ill embrace . . . little childi'en." Plow much more logical and simple is the intei'pretation of J. Winkler, " an old defender of infant-baptism," who asserts that "the Lord pre- scribes two means for the clisciphng, — the baptizing in respect to the little ones, the teaching in respect to adults " ! Who does not see that the commission with the " breadth of meanina: " advocated STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Ill by Dr. Dale will easily embrace as proper subjects of baptism all classes of men (thieves, clruiilcards, profligates, &c.) which go to make up " all the nations" of earth? and who does not perceive that our Saviour's " great command " is ver}' conti'oUingl}", not to say unduly, influenced hy om' author's "influence theory" of baptism ? There are certain objections and difficulties supposed by some to militate against the idea of baptism as being always an immersion, — such, for example, as that ineffabl}' foolish whim of " inevitable drowning," or the scarcely less fanciful notion of " scarcity of water," or the alleged impossibility' of John's immersing the mul- titudes who flocked to his baptism, or of the apostles immersing the " about three thousand " on the day of Pentecost, as also of immersing couches, &c., — which objections we, as Baptists, are specially obUgated to consider. .But the moral objection of the incongruity of incorporating a water-rite in a spiritual religion, making it also co-ordinate with faith and repentance, and in some aspects seeminglj' indispensable, to salvation, — this is for others to consider as well as ourselves. And Dr. Dale's solemn, almost anathematic asseveration, that " an}' preacher who cannot preach the faithfully-interpreted preaching of Peter ' ' (his preaching of ?'e29e'/itonce-baptism, as interpreted by Dale), " but will substitute for it, be dipped in water, or he ritually baptized in any form., ma}- some da}' understand that it would have been better for him had his tongue cleaved to the roof of his mouth than that it should ever have uttered such things," is for his denominational friends to ponder upon as well as burs. The rite of Christian baptism, if it be a rite, is confessedly the chief ordinance of the gospel. Nowhere does the Saviour assert, "He that believes and partakes of my Supper shall be saved." Nor does Peter ever urge inquiring sinners to " repent, and receive the H0I3' Communion upon the name of Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins." Nowhere is the doctrine of the Lord's Supper declared to be, as is the "doctrine of baptisms," a foundation principle of the gospel of Christ. Before, then, we accept a " thcor}' " which influences this great ordinance of Christ out of the New Testament, we may well pause, and meanwhile lis- ten to a few thoughtful words from Ilenr}- Alford's comments on "the great commission" (Matt, xxviii. 19): "As regards the 112 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. command itself (baptizontes) , no unprejudiced reader can doubt that it regards the outioard rite of baptism so well known in this gospel as having been practised by John, and received by the Lord himself. And thus it was immediately, and has been ever since, understood b}' the church. As regards all attempts to ex- plain away this sense, we may saj^, — even setting aside the testi- mony furnished by the Acts of the Apostles, — that it is in the highest degree improbable that our Lord should have given, at a time when He was summing up the duties of His church in such weighty words, a command couched in figurative or ambiguous language ; one which He must have known would be interpreted by His disciples, now long accustomed to the rite and its name, other- wise than He intended it." It would appear that this distin- guished commentator was utterly ignorant of the now asserted fact, that the water-rite of John was not a baptism ! STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 113 CHAPTER XV. BAPTIZO AND THE PREPOSITIONS. — "IDEAL ELEMENTS." "I indeed baptize you in water into repentance^ — Matt. ill. 11. OUR author, as we have seen, has converted "repentance," " remission of sins," " Moses," " name of Paul," " name of Christ," " His death," " one bodj'," &c., into " a pool of water," to use his own style of expression, and has removed baptizo from aU connection with water in the New Testament. " The state- ment," saj'S Dr. Dale, " ma}' be made without reserve, that, in the New Testament, neither baptizo^ baptistes^ nor baptisma, is ever used to introduce an object into water, or to express the condition of being in water." "The new word baptisma" (not occurring in the Classics or Josephus) ' ' has never any complementary rela- tion with water." ^'■Baptistes in religion has nothing to dO' with water in any form Or measure." " The verb bap)tizo has no- more to do with the sjTiibol water . . . than Chang Eng of the Celestial Empire has to do with the succession to the presidency over this ' Flowery Kingdom ' of America." " The word baptizo ■ as used in Scripture has no more control over or connection with the manner of using water than a broken arm has control over or connection with the movement of the solar system." But, if bap- tizo is thus taken wholly from its native and natural element, it is unaccountably strange that its name and act should still be men- tioned so often (and so carelesslj', too, we must thinli, if we believe in its natural drowwmg' propensity') with "water," "the water," " a certain water," " much water," " the Jordan," and." the River Jordan ; " or that John could say, " Therefore I come baptizing in water," and mentioning no "ideal" element. Dr. Dale says, if our (Baptist) theoiy be true, Paul's inquiry of John's disciple* 114 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. should mean, " Into what water (fresh or salt, river or spring, hot or cold) were 3'ou baptized ? ' ' On the supposition of gi-eat irregularity in their baptism, the inquirj' possibly- might be, "Into what — water, or milk, or oil, or wine — were jou baptized?" But we suppose the phj'sical element of baptism could be taken for granted, and that any inquiry into that matter would be about as sensible as to ask them what element thej' breathed. Baptizo has alwaj's had an afSnitj' for water as for its native element. Take the strictly classic examples as given b}^ Dr. Dale. Out of one hundred and twelve such examples he gives sixty-one of physical iutusposition (without, with, and for influence) , and sis of " rhe- torical figure," where "iniluence" is hkened to an overflowing, ingulfing wave, &c. Of these sixt3'-seven examples, over fifty have reference, expressed or understood, to the element of water ; and the same ratio would doubtless hold true in the wi'itings of Josephus. But we see no necessity, and feel no desire, to discuss the ques- tion, whether there be a baptismal water-rite enjoined in the Xew Testament. The whole church of Christ, with comparatively' a few individual exceptions, haxe taken the affirmative of this ques- tion for granted. We shall, therefore, pass on to consider the force of the prepositions eis, en, and ek (into, in. and out of), as used in connection with baptizo. And we would here remark, that the grammatical construction of baptizo in the New Testament, so far as the prepositions are concerned, is exactly the same as that in the Classics, save that eis (into) does not occur with such rela- tive frequency' as in classic Greek. The expression '•'•into the Jordan" occurs once; "m the Eiver Jordan," once; " i?i the Jordan," once; " m water," according to our received text, five times (though Mark i. 8 is very doubtful);^ "m the Holy 1 " As to the two e?i's in Mark i. 8. 1. The first is omitted, the second Is retained, by Tischexdohf in his last critical edition, by Volkmae, and -by Weiss in his Das Marcusevaugelium (Berlin, 1ST-.), who has treated questions of textual criticism with much care and ability. The second en "has much less authority for its omission than the first. Tischendorf and Weiss thinlv it was omitted by B. L. to make the construction of 2:)7ieumati conforai to that of hudati. 2. Both en's are bracketed as doubtful by Lach- MAjsrx and Teegelles : the latter, if he had known that the Codex Sinaiti- cus was against the first, would probably have omitted it. 3. Both are STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 115 Spirit," six times; while "water," without a preposition in tlie original, and always as contrasted Avith "m the H0I3' Spirit," occurs three times at least, and , probabl}' four; and "fire," also without a preposition, 3'et closely connected with and apparent!}' explanatory of " wi the Holy' Spirit," occurs twice; thus making at least twelve examples of baptizing ^'^^, and one of baptizing into, a commonly supposed element. This owe. example we shall soon consider. But, before entering upon this investigation, we would briefly notice the force of eis (into) in connection with the so-called " ideal elements " in such phrases as " baptized into repentance," "into Moses," "into the name of Paul," "into Christ," &c. The " baptism of repentance " (or " baptize into repentance ") is peculiarly a Joliannic expression. The Baptist plainly required of his fellow-countrj'men repentance, and an open confession of sins, before receiving an}' to his baptism ; and he refused to bap- tize those who brought not forth " fruits worth}' of repentance." Since, therefore, his baptism of repentance was invariably preceded b}' repentance, it follows that his baptizing eis (into) repentance cannot mean baptizing them for, in order to, or into ; that is, to secure repentance as an object, or to put them, as for the first time, into a state of repentance. Tyndale renders it, "I baptize you in water in toTcen of repentance." " The expression, ^ I baptize 3'ou in water into repentance,' means," says Professor Hermann Cre- mer in his " Biblico-Theological Lexicon," " nothing more than ' baptism of repentance into remission of sins,' and ' repent, and be baptized.' Not as though repentance were to be worked b}' this baptism in the place of remission, but remission cannot be without repentance, without which, also, no one can enter the kingdom of heaven ; and as repentance is required, too, of all who come to baptism (Matt. iii. 2, 8 ; Acts ii. 38), it remains, accordingly, the distinctive characteristic of those who are baptized for the remis- omitted by Alfokd, and by Westcott and IIobt in their edition soon to be published. They suppose both to have been derived from the parallel passage in Matthew. There can be little doubt that this is the way the.;?/'.s^ one got into the text of Mark: as to the second, the case is far from clear. I incline to believe with Tischendorf." — From a 3Ianitscript Letter 0/' Pro- fessor EzEA AucoT of Cambridge; to whom the writer would liere express his great obligations for repeated favors in the way of textual criticism. 116 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. sion of sins." Alexander Campbell, who, with Dr. Dale, generally renders haptizo eis "baptize into," and sees in this phrase the idea of a passing out of one condition into another, converts John's metanoia (change of mind, or repentance) into "reformation," and makes John baptize the penitent and sin- confessing Jews in order to effect their reformation. Nor does Dr. George Campbell's ren- dering differ materially from that of his American namesake : " I indeed baptize in water that ye maj" refonn." Truly John's bap- tism must hare exerted a very powerful controlling influence ! But this is exactly the reverse of Peter's method ; for he tells the people to repent, or reform, and then be baptized. In view of the notion of baptizing into, i.e., to effect a reformation, we simply remark, that John required a reformation of the people prior to their bap- tism, when he counselled them to repent, and to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance ; and that the only ' * reformation ' ' into which he baptized people was the reformation he required of them before their baptism. The baptism of repentance preached and practised by John was a baptism wliich presupposed repentance, and which obligated men to repentance, just as the corresponding Christian baptism, the " baptism of faith " (so termed by Cremer), presup- poses faith, and obligates men to faith. Alford says the baptism of repentance is " sj'mbolic of repentance and forgiveness, — of the death unto sin," &c. J. P. Lange, on Mark i. 4, speaks of the baptism of repentance " as not onl}' obliging men to change of mind {metanoia) , but also exhibiting and s3'mboliziug it." And Professor Eobert Wilson, the rcAaewer of Carson, says, " Whether we baptize into Christ's death, into repentance, into the remission of sins, ifcc, we do not create, w6 onl}- recognize, the relation pre- sumed to subsist between the parties and that into which they are baptized." The like view is advanced also in the " Speaker's Commentary," which makes the " baptism of repentance " signify " a baptism requiring and representing an inward, spiritual change." Josephus well understood the character of John's re- pentance-baptism when he said that " he commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both righteousness towards one another, and piet}- towards God, and (so) to come to baptism ; for that the baptism would be acceptable to him if they made use of it, not for the put- ting away (or remission) of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, inasmuch as the soul had been previously purified by STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 117 righteousness." — See further, ou "John's Baptism," R. Ingham's " Subjects of Baptism," pp. 3-10 ; Matthies' " Baptismatis Ex- positio," p. 44, seq.; Hofling's " Sakrament tier Taufe," pp. 2G- 30; and Dr. J. A. Starck's " Geschiclite der Taufe und Taufgcs- innten " (" Ilistorj^ of Baptism and the Baptists "), p. 5, seq. In our own view, therefore, the baptism of repentant men eis (into) repentance ma}' well express an appertaining, or belonging, or obligation, to repentance, or an exhibition or profession of re- pentance, or both participation and profession. To be baptized into Moses, -into the name of Paul, into Christ, &c., evidently in- volves the idea of " allegiance to " or "belonging to " Moses, Paul, and Christ, — such allegiance and belonging as would characterize their respective disciples and followers ; and as eis means unto as well as into, and as this U7ito seems to express a belonging to, I would adopt this as the best one word to stand before all the " ideal elements " of baptism in the New Testament. Dr. Dale insists that w^e, as consistent Baptist expositors, mak- ing John to baptize Jesus into the Jordan, should also make John perfoivm the superhuman task of baptizing his countrj'uien into repentance. See Matt. iii. 11: "I indeed baptize 3'ou in water (our version, and so Dr. Dale, with water) into repentance." Of the two words which may here denote element, "water" and "repentance," the former o/te?i, the latter werer, occurring alone with liuptizo, tlie former alone, as Professor Stuart would say, " naturally designates the element." To immerse or " merse " a person or a people into repentance, or into a name, or into another person, is unnatural and incongruous phraseology. If we substitute the word " merge " or " immerge," the phraseology would be less solecistic, but still far from natural. Besides, Dr. Dale will tell us that " merge " is no equivalent or exact s3'nonyme of immerse or baptize. The Holy Spirit, considered in its influences as poured out and shed abroad, is indeed, in the Scriptures, appropriate!}' regarded as a baptismal clement, and, as such, is directl}' contrasted with w^ater. Far different from this is the case of the so-called " ideal elements." If John had said, "I baptize you in water, but ye shall hereafter be baptized in or into the name of Christ, and in or into remission of sins," &c., this would, to a certain extent, have favored Dr. Dale's A-iew of "ideal elements;" but these are never compared or contrasted with water, and no char- 118 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. acteristic of a proper baptismal element or act is congruous ■vrith them. Again: we are baptized not onlj- "into" the name of Christ, but in Acts ii. 38, x. 48, we have the phrases, ujDon the name and in the name, in immediate and inseparable connection with baptizo (although Dr. Dale can not onty separate them, but can even interpolate a word into the text which inspiration never thought of recording) ; and this diversity of phrase opposes itself strongty against this "ideal-element" theor3\ Justin Martyr, the first "father" who describes the mode of baptism, uses, not the usual preposition "into" the name, but, as in Acts ii. 38, "upon" the name, as follows: "Then they (the persuaded and believing) are led by us to where there is water, and they are regenerated, &c. ; . . . for they make their bath in the water upon the name of the Father," &c. Yfould Dr. Dale also render this, "then thej' are washed with water ('believing') upon the name," &c. ? The Clementines and the so-called "Recogni- tions" of Clement speak also of baptizing epi (upon) the thrice- blest name. Chrysostom makes "in the word," which Paul speaks of in connection with " the bath of the water " (Eph. v. 26), to mean en onomati, &c., " in the name of the Father," &c. Nearlj' all the Latin fathers have the phrase in nomine (in the name) in theu' versions of the baptismal formula ; which fact shows us that the}^ did not, in the manner of Dale, regard the eis to onoma of the formula as an ideal receptive element. Thus in Vision III. of "The Shepherd of Hermas " we find baptizari in nomine Domini. The Vulgate also gives to the three diverse phrases, "upon," "in," and "into" the name, the same render- ing, — to wit, in nomine, or in the name; and Matthies affirms, in his " Baptismatis Expositio," that they all have "the same vim." If we believed in these ideal elements, we yet know of no reason whj' the}' should preclude a ritual baptism into water, and " consistenc}' " would certainly require that we should bap- tize into both ; but consistenc}' does not require that we should baptize into the name of Christ, or into repentance, to the exclu- sion of water. As our natures are twofold, physical and spir- itual, so we can assured^ be baptized into water and into an "ideal element" (if there be such a thing) at the same time. And, discarding "ideal elements," we can assured^ be baptized into water, and into, unto, with reference to, in relation to, such STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 119 objects, without any departure from the established usage of the preposition eis. To hold that repentance, for example, is a recep- tive, enveloping element, because eis (into) metanoian some- times follows baptizo en Jiudati (baptize in water), is a gi'ound- less assumption. " That the local force of the preposition eis," sa^-s Professor Cremer, "must not be pressed as though it were to be explained in analog}^ with Mark i. 9 (into the Jordan), is plain," &c. Perhaps Dr. Dale imagines that he uses eis as Cremer saj's' it should be done in this connection, — in an "ideal sense." The truth, however, is, that, while he employ's it in connection with "ideal elements," he yet uses it with a "local force." As John himself baptized in water, his baptizing, which here denotes a physical act, could not, for man\' reasons, have been into the ideal element of repentance. If "it is impossible to baptize the body or the soul ' into the death of Christ ' b}- anj' external act," so it was impossible for John to baptize hj any external act his fellow-countrymen "into repentance" and "into remission of sins." Thus, in one sense, Dale's exposition, b}- discarding a proper phj-sical water-baptism from John's ministry, leaves him with nothing whatever to do. Our author does indeed speak of John's "administering a ritual baptism in which there was water." The element, however, is not only " ideal," but " there is no phj'sical use of baptizo in the ministry' of John. This word has nothing whatever to do with originating the presence, or con- trolling the use, of water in the rite connected with John's minis- tr}'." As used in the history- of John's baptism, this verb has no more control over the use of water ' ' than a sleeping infant has over the earth's diurnal revolution." In Johannic as in Christie Baptism, baptizo has "no concern whatever" with the use of water. How, then, could John baptize " symboll}' " or unsj-m- boll^', either in or with water? and how could he administer an unpliysical baptism into a "verbal" or "ideal" element? Each of these things is, for certain, an utter impossibility. Dr. Dale appeals to the Alexandrian Clement's baptizing " into fornication," and to Josephus' baptism of Gedaliah " b}" drunkenness into insensibilit}^ and sleep" (C. 128, 118), as proving the veritable existence, outside of the Scriptures, of baptisms into ideal ele- ments where there is no physical envelopment, or covering, or dipping. "We will concede that Thebe, for example (C. 149), 120 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. could, by a certain physical use of baptizo, baptize " with much wine" her t3Tant husband Alexander "into insensibihty and sleep" (though this baptism could have been more directly per- formed b}^ himself), and that thus she could indirectly baptize into a so-called ideal element. If, now, John could, by any ph^'sical use of baptizo, baptize his fellow-countrymen in or with water, and if this kind of water-baptism effected repentance, then it might be said that he indirectly baptized impenitent men " into repentance." But Dr. Dale denies that John's use of water, a "powerless symbol," could in an}^ way effect a true repentance. If, moreover, baptizo had been put to a proper " physical use " hy John (it matters not whether the baptism was into, or in, or with water ; nor does it matter whether it was a sjinbol baptism or not, for a baptism is not destroj'ed, and made no baptism, by its possess- ing a symbol character) , the result would have been, on Dale's showing, ' ' destruction of life. ' ' The phrase ' ' ' John was baptizing in water ' has no other Greekly meaning than death by drowning." And yet John saj's that he was " sent to baptize in water " ! Dr. Dale makes repentance, the ideal element, to do the baptizing, and John the " Purifier " merely sjTubolizes that baptism by a sjmibol rite with which baptizo has nothing to do ! Here, in this rep- resentation, we have plain contradictions of Scripture. The Scrip- tures declare that John baptized men, as Dale will have it, "into repentance." Our author avers that John did not baptize men into repentance, but that he merety symbolized such a baptism, concerning which "symbolizing" the Scriptures sa}' nothing. The Scriptures also affirm that John baptized, as Dale will have it, "with water ;" but our author asserts that his baptizo and water had " nothing whatever" to do with each other. He does, indeed, speak at times of John's baptizing " s3'mbolly " with water ; but we cannot allow him to confound baptizing S3'mboli- cally with the sj^mbolizing of baptism. John's baptizing in water was indeed a symbol of repentance, and was hence called the " bap- tism of repentance." He was "sent to baptize in water" syva- bolicallj', or as a sign of repentance ; but he was not sent to sj-mbohze baptism. These two are yevj different things. But, on the other hand. Dale, b}" making repentance the element of baptizo, gives John altogether too much to do. John tells the multitudes, "I indeed baptize you in water" (or with water, as STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 121 some would have it) "into repentance." This, by our author's exposition of haptizo eis, would mean, "I, b}' the use of water, cause you to pass out of one state (impenitence) into another state or condition (repentance) ; " or, " I controUingly influence you with water into repentance." But this is a great deal more than John 'could do. If he could have baptized men "into repentance," as he did baptize them or could have baptized them "into the Jordan," then, indeed, we should hold repentance to be a baptis- mal element. In a certain sense, John might have preached men into repentance ; but b}^ no physical act could he baptize them into such a state. No use of water could effect such a change. Dr. Dale need not tell us that this "is precisely the doctrine which John makes to ring in the ears of impenitent Pharisees and Saddu- cees. It cannot give repentance, or remit sins." This is, indeed, John's doctrine ; but he expresses it l^lindl}^ enough, and, in fact, by contraries, when he says, as Dale would make him, " I control- lingly influence j'ou with water into repentance." But Dr. Dale would make John do even more than this. Fol- lowing the statement of Mark i. 4, he makes John baptize the multitudes, not now into rejoentance, but " through repentance into the remission of sins." Repentance, it will be observed, has thus a good deal to do. It is the baptizer; it is also the element; and now it is some kind of means. How another Dr. Dale would rich- cule all this ! But, if we make remission of sins an element, John himself also does a mighty work. " I controlhngl}' influence 3-ou with water into the remission of sins." This sounds hke the highest kind of Iligh-Churchism and Pusejism. If John, however, had expressed himself fully, so as to accord with the Dale theorj', he probabty would have said, "I influence you controUingly, yet onl}^ symholhj, with water, into the remission of sins." A httle water used ' ' s3'mboll3' ' ' must even thus have had a very powerful eflTect. But some one may sa}-, "You have here left out repent- ance; and has not this something to do with remission of sins? " Yes, we think so ; and hence we cannot regard the " into remission of sins" as another element of haptizo. John, indeed, preached "a baptism of repentance into remission of sins." The baptism which he preached and practised as a symbol or declaration of and engagement to repentance was to be preceded by repentance, and hy fruits worthv of repentance, — such a repentance as would issue 122 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. in or result in the forgiveness of sins ; and as John's baptism was characterized b}^ a demand for a repentance which had a -sdew to the remission of sins, and was appointed to S3Tnboli2e such a repentance, so his baptism of rei^entance may be said to have respect to, and to be for, the remission of sins. Metanoia and apJiesis (repentance and remission) are frequent and almost in- separable terms in gospel nomenclature. " That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in {ejji, upon) His name ; " "Repent, and turn (e«s), in order that j'our sins maybe blotted out ; " " Hun as a Prince and Sa^-iour did God exalt to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins ; " " Re- pent, therefore, of this wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven;" " Repent, and be each of you baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, unto remis- sion of sins" (Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iii. 19, v. 31, viii. 22, ii. 38). After the words "repent" and "repentance," we have in the original Scriptures, very frequentty, the preposition eis, into, unto, or in order that (see above, Acts ii. 38, iii. 19) : so in Acts xi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 25, we have the phrases, repent- ance into (unto) life, repentance into (unto) salvation, repentance into (unto) the full knowledge of the truth. What hinders, then, our ha\T.ng, in accordance with Scripture faith and teaching, a re- pentance into (unto) remission of sins, or a baptism of repentance into (unto) remission of sins? (Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3.) Thus, in accordance with Scripture idiom, this "into (unto) remission of sins" need not here be converted into a "figurative water- pool," nor be regarded as a baptismal element into which repent- ance baptizes. Nowhere is it stated that John baptized men into the remission of sins, but that he preached the baptism of repentance eis with reference to remission. From Paul's obser- vation in Acts xix. 4, we learn that John baptized the same baptism of repentance which he preached. He does not sa}' that the baptism preached was spuitual and real, "in which there was no water," and the baptism administered was ritual and symbolical ; nor does he say that John baptized his baptism of repentance " into remission," nor that his baptism of repentance baptized " into remission." Can haptisnia — a word which, by its ending {ma, and not mos), expresses, in Dale's view, not " act," but " state or condition " (not necessarily so, however : see Sopho- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 123 cles' Greek Grammar, § 139 ; and the Latin haptisma and baptis- mus we know are used indiscriminately) — be used as a verb of action to put repentant men into remission? Again: shall we sa^^ with our author that " the baptism which John preached did issue in the remission of sins ' ' ? Then we must also sa}' that the baptism which he practised did issue in repentance ; for he says, " I baptize 3'ou in water into repentance." But the truth is, they were alread}' in a state of penitence and pardon before they received any baptism. Their " souls had alread}' been purified by righteousness," and their repentance had already secured forgive- ness. On the phrase, " baptism of repentance into remission of sins," Professor Riple}', with his wonted judiciousness-, thus re- marks: "That is, baptism which implied an acknowledgment of repentance, and was a pledge of repentance, and which had respect to the forgiveness of sins as connected with repentance." It was such a repentance as this which John symbolized in his water- baptism, — a repentance which secured their forgiveness, a baptism which indicated the fact that theirs was " the remission of sins." " Baptism," saj's Professor Fee, " is declarative of the two facts, — repentance on our part, and forgiveness on God's part : and thus both repentance and baptism are {eis) to the end remission of sins, — the one absolute, the other relative : the one makes us in purpose right before God, the other before our own souls and the world. . . . 'He that believeth and is baptized' — he that has faith that e\inces itself in the works of obedience — ' shall be saved.' Repentance and baptism, then, are {eis) to the end remission of sins, into the relation of forgiven ones." " In both passages " (Acts ii. 38, xxii. IG), says Professor Hackett, " baptism is represented as having this importance or efficac}', because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation." In regard to eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Acts ii. 38), Professor Hackett thus remarks: " T\^e connect [this] natnrall}' with both the preceding A'crbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to ^repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other." Possibly the same might be said of both parts of the phrase, " baptism of repentance " (for the forgiveness of sins). Some, however, as TertuUian, Chr3-sostom, Jerome, Greg- 124 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ory, Theoph^^act, among the fathers, and Mej^er, Lange, Alford, Wordsworth, and the " Speaker's Commentary," of our da}', hold that John's baptism was preparator}' to the remission of sins to be received subsequently from the Messiah ; but we thinlj, with Gregor}' of N^'ssa, and C^'ril of Jerusalem, with Hofmann and Ewald, that John's baptism, as indicative of repentance expe- rienced, had reference to a remission already' received. We know very well what Dr. Dale, in opposition to these ^dews, has to say about a physical water-baptism, and " destruction of life," and how, in opposition to any such phj'sical intusposition, he adduces his wine-drinking baptism. But we doubt whether he will affirm very loudl}' again that John could have baptized the multitudes in the Jordan or in ^non by making them to drink of its waters ; baptizo, meanwhile, looking on in silence and uncon- cern. Should he do so, he may be called on for his authority to make such a statement, — to show, at least, that "drinking" was the usual method of baptizing in or with water ; or, failing to do that, to point out, if he can, a single instance of such water- drinking baptism on record. It follows, from what we have seen, that Dale's influence theor}', of a repentance baptizing through repentance into repentance, and thus into remission of sins, involves not only absurdity, but manifest heres^^ and falsehood. The making of repentance an element of baptizo supposes that the people were for the first time put into a state of repentance b}' John's baj^tizing them in water. For Dale will not den}' that to baptize any one (either with water or with the Hol}^ Spirit) into repentance " indicates the passage of such an object out of one condition (impenitence) into another condition (repentance), without removal." But John's disciples were already repentant before their baptism ; and hence John's baptizing them into repentance did not put them into that state as for the first time. And Christ's apostles were already' repentant before His baptizing them in or with the H0I3' Spirit ; while, indeed, nothing is said of His baptizing them " into repentance." It is only John who thus baptized the people, and he did not put them into repentance as for the first time b}' his " baptizing iii water." And again : the Gospels teU us that John was ' ' sent to baptize in water," manifestly as a sj^mbol of rejDentance. Dale tells us that John's baptism was repentance-baptism, — that is, a baptism STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 125 effected by repentance, — and that John merely sjonbolized this baptism. Does there not lie here an action, — "The Gospels versus Dr. Dale " ? And in this connection we might ask why, since John only prac- tised a sjTnbol-rite of baptism, he could not have selected a sym- bol which corresponded more nearly to the intusposition idea of baptizo than its " non-natnral sersators," sprinkling or pouring or — ^drinkinrj? Certainly this baptizo idea of "passing out of one condition into anotlaer," this within-putting (intusposition) of the soul into repentance, into remission of sins, into the name of Christ, &c., could be represented by the use of water in no better wa}", ive should say in no other way, than by the entire immersion of the believer's person in water. Certainly a baptism into "clean, water " should naturally sjTnbolize a baptism into a cleansing " ideal " element ; and, if we held to this kind of bap- tism, we should strongl}' advocate immersion in pvu-e water as its fittest sj'mbol. And certainly it is the sheerest of all unwarranted assumptions to take for granted that a baptism into ideal elements precludes and does away with a representative physical baptism. Just as reasonabl}' might the would-be ' ' proselji^es ' ' in former times have taken it for granted, that because they had become the spiritual children of Abraham, and had experienced the inward " circumcision of the heart," they were thereb}- exempted or debarred from the observance of the outward rite. How is it, that, on this assumption, Peter did not tell the Gentile Cornelius and his companj' of "kinsmen and near friends," that, as they had alread}' experienced the baptism of the Spirit, the}' need not trouble themselves to receive, or that the}- could not receive, the outward baptism of water ? And why did not the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in some way intimate, that, if our hearts had been " sprinkled from an evil .conscience," it were superfluous or impossible that our bodies should be ' ' bathed in pure water ' ' ? Indeed, our author concedes that the " Scriptures speak of two baptisms, — a sj'mbol baptism of the body, effected b}' water ; and a real baptism of the soul, effected by the H0I3' Ghost." Admit- ting the justness of this concession, we cannot but wonder that Dr. Dale ventures to speak of a " baptism of the bod}'," for this sounds like a " physical baptism " (or drowning) ; and the doctor assures us that " there is no such thing in Scripture as a physical 126 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. baptism." When he speaks of a " sj^mbol baptism of the body," does he mean a baptism of the " whole person " ? Does he mean, in accordance with one of liis definitions of baptizo, that the bap- tizer b}' some '■'■act" "thoroughly changes the character, state, or condition [of the body] hj placing it in a state of phj-sical intus- position " ? A " baptism of the body effected by water ' ' will certainl}' allow of this ' ' physical [and fatal] intusposition, ' ' Or does he mean that the baptizer is possessed of some mysterious pervading and assimilating '•'• influence " whereby he " controllingly influences," or " thoroughlj' changes, the character, state, or con- dition of the ' body ' " ? What a mighty work is effected, accord- ing to Dale's definitions of baptizo, by a " sjinbol baptism of the body " ! Can it be trul}^ said that our author holds to a bodily baptism? We think not. We are, however, glad to be assured that a "baptism actualized b}' the Holy Ghost," and that a bap- tism into " ideal elements," as into repentance, into the name of Christ, into the remission of sins, &c., ma^" be " sj'mbolized " and "illustrated" b}' a ritual sj'mbol. Simon Magus, as is con- ceded, though he had experienced no real baptism of the soul effected by the Holy Ghost, was yet, with the other Samaritans, baptized into an ideal element, the "name of the Lord Jesus," which, with Dr. Dale, is sjnionj-mous with "remission of sins;" and this his baptism, though no water is mentioned, is acknowl- edged to be a ritual baptism " with water." The " about twelve " Johannean disciples at Ephesus were also ritually baptized into the same ideal element. Thus a baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus and into remission of sins can be illustrated by a water-rite, provided this sj'mbol-rite be not a baptism into or in water! Yet John baptized not only "into repentance," but "m water." The Israelites, according to Paul's statement, not only baptized themselves "into Moses," but m (not by, as Stacey, God- win, and Dale would have it) the cloud and in the sea. And where Paul asserts (1 Cor. xii. 13) that " we were all baptized in one Spirit into (so as to be) one bodj'," De Wette refers this " Spirit " to baptismal element. Olshausen appears also to take a similar idew. According to the Dale " theory," there can be a baptism into several different ideal elements at one and the same time ; as, for example, into repentance, into remission of sins, (possiblj') into the Coming One, and all this as into "John's STUDIES OJSr BAPTISM. 127 baptism " (Acts xix. 3,4). Surely he can allow us to baptize into water and into an ideal something, if not into relation to or with reference to something else, at one and the same time. Supposing the existence of a baptism into ideal elements, why may we not, with our duplicate natures, be baptized in or into water, and " into the name of the Lord Jesus," as into the soul's life-element, at the same time ? "In the very act of baptism," says Theophylact, "water is conjoined for the sake of the bod}'; for, we being twofold, the cleansing also is twofold." C3Til of Jerusalem says, "Yet, after the gift of the Spirit, Scripture saitli that Peter comananded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that, the soul having been regenerated through their faith, the body also, by means of the water, might share the gift." And Ambrose thus speaks : " For, man consisting of two natures, soul and bodj', the visible is consecrated bj^ things visible, the invisible by the invisi- ble myster}^ For the bod_y is washed with water : the sins of the soul are cleansed b}' the Spirit. It is one thing we do, another we pray for, although in the verj' font the hallowing of the Di\n.n- itj' be at hand. For not all water cleanses," &c. If it be asked whether these "two baptisms," effected by widely differing agencies, and not occurring simultaneous^ in fact, are not con- tradictor}' to the idea of the "one baptism" of Scripture, Dr. Dale shall give the answer : ' ' The baptism symbolized hj water is not another baptism, but the \ery baptism actualized by the Holy Ghost, declared bj' the ritual words, and illustrated b}' the ritual sj'mbol." Dr. Dale, then, does not object to a " s^inbol- baptisra of the body," provided it is not "effected b}' " immer- sion, or a " dipping into water." His objections to these uses of water are, we suppose, substantiall}' these : First, That the verbal or ideal elements, "into repentance," "into remission," "into Christ," &c., are a substitute for "into water," and forbid a dipping into water ; which is assuming as true the very thing to be proved. Secondl}', That the phrase, "baptize into water," though properly an organic one, does not occur in the Scriptures, but that in its stead we have the word for water in the dative case with the preposition en (in), or without any preposition, indicating thus agencj' or means. But we have the phi-ase, "baptized into the Jordan," and we are content with baptizing 128 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ?*n water (the exact counterpart of Tertiillian's ^Hn aqua mergi- mur"), and even with the "dative of" (enveloping) "means or instrument; " since, wherever in the New Testament water is in this regimen with baptizo, the element, water, is always contrast- ed with another element, — to wit, the Holy Spiiit ; which fact justifies the use of the "nude dative," while at the same time a " phj'sical intusposition " in water is not forbidden. Thirdly, Our author's principal objection to a baptism into water is, that its normal effect is "destruction of life." But, as we said, we are glad to agree with our author so far as this, — that a sjmbol-bap- tism of the body maj be effected hy water ; he effecting it by the way of sprinkling, we by the way of immersion. Which mode of using the water best represents the normal force of baptizo, and the real baptism of the soul into repentance and into Christ, we leave our readers to judge. It is conceded b}' our author that John practised a water-rite as a sj-mbol of spiritual baptism. A "symbol," we suppose, denotes something having a " resemblance." Our query is. Why, with his baptizo demand- ing intusposition, and with water which admits of intusposition, he did not practise a water-i-ite which bears some resemblance to, and which best symbolizes, the baptizing (or intusposing) of men ' ' into repentance ' ' ? But Dr. Dale has ah-ead}" given us his answer : ' ' John was ' ' [not] ' ' commissioned to drown every per- son whom he baptized " ! After all, was there ever so strong and thorough, we might almost say so deep^ a Baptist before? That our readers ma}^ become acquainted with the different views of writers as to the ground-meaning of eis in connection with the so-called "ideal elements," we append here a few quotations. '■'■ Baptizein eis never means any thing else than baptize in refer- ence to, in respect to; the context alone determining the more special significations " (Meyer on Rom. yI. 3). "To baptize in reference to recognizing and confessing the name of Jesus : by baptism one is bound to believe in Jesus, and to confess this belief" (De Wette). "In the might of, and for the name;" ' ' under the authority and unto the authority of the Triune God ; ' ' ' ' plunged into the name of the Three-One God as the element, and the dedication of the baptized into this name ' ' (Lange) . Baptized "to the knowledge and confession of the one living God;" "into the power and grace of that name" (Stier). STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 129 "Planted into fellowship of the Three-One God" (Wiesinger). "Sunk into His death" (Riickert). "To baptize into an}' one signifies baptism as devolving a thorough obligation, a rite where- by one is pledged ; and the sublime object to which baptism binds consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (Olshausen). "To baptize one ' unto repentance ' means ... to bind one to the exercise of repentance" (Fritzsche). "Formulae" (into, in, and upon the name, in connection with baptizo) " eandem habent vim ita ut . . . in confessionem, ad confitendum," &c. (Mat- thies). "A dedication of himself to the three persons of the blessed Godhead, under the separate characters which they bear in the work of redemption " (Professor Bannerman). "Into com- munion and fellowship with Him and the Holy Trinit}', as revealed in the work of creation, redemption, and regeneration; " "Dedi- cated into communion and fellowship with" (Schaff). " A pro- fessed dependence on Him, and devoted subjection to Him ' ' (T.- Scott). " Purifying them for the Father," &c. (Professor J. H. Godwin) . " An insertion of him within Their blessed Name, and a casting the shield (to speak humanl}-) of that Almighty Name over him" (Dr. Pusey). "Into participation of, into union with ; " " Into a state of conformity with and participation of His death" (Alford). '•'■Unto, object, purpose; into, union and com- munion with ' ' (Ellicott) . ' ' Into the name . . . means that con- A'erts are pledged b}' baptism to a faith which has for its object the Being designated by that name, and which brings them into miion with Him" (Speaker's Commentary). " Unto the Father, ... as manifesting their faith and obedience in respect to the Father," &c. " To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is to receive baptism in token of faith in Him, and subjection to Him " (Professor Riple}'). "Unto, in relation to" (Professor J. G. Fee). "Into union with Him, and subjection to Him" (J. A. Alexander) . ' ' Into obligations incumbent on a disciple of any one," " A profession of faith in and obedience to " (Edward Rob- inson). " By baptism we come to belong to, consecrated to, an}' person or theory ' ' (Professor Stuart) . "A profession of sub- jection ... to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of being God's peculiar propert}', and of entire devotion to His ser^-ice " (Profess- or John J. Owen). "Into Chiist denotes a spiritual connection. with Him. . . . The truly baptized Christian has been incorporat- 130 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ed into Christ" (Professor S. H. Turner). " Into the faith and subjection of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (Carson).^ Our 1 Consult further, on the import of this formula, Ingham's Subjects of Baptism, pp. 24-48, 111-116, 589, 590, 624-626; also pp. 35-41 of Hofling's Sakrament der Tauf e ; an article in the Christian Review for 1855, vol. xx. p. 281, seq. ; also in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. i. p. TO3, seq., an article by Dr. Bindseil, translated by H. B. Smith. Dr. Bindseil, in the manner of Grotius, makes baptizing into a name equivalent " to giving to one the name of another;" something like our modem "christening." "The baptized person," he says, " was accustomed to take the name of him in whose name he was baptized." Thus to be baptized into the name of Paul was to be a "Paulinist," &c. "He" upon whom the name of the Trinity is bestowed in baptism " acknowledges his subjection " while yet he "is elevated to a higher dignity." We may here state that Carson, in partial agreement with Dr. Dale, says of the eis of the commission, " Now, though water is not the regimen, yet it is the meaning of the preposition in reference to the performance of the rite that must regulate its meaning in all cases." Dr. Ashmore too, our highly-esteemed missionary in China, advocates in substance Dr. Dale's view of ideal elements. Yet Carson and Ashmore, and the many other Baptists who agree with them as to the rendering of this preposition {eis as into), are far enough from adopting Dale's theory of "controlling influ- ence" and "ideal elements," with all its various consequences; which theory jjroperly does away with water-baptism and water-rites altogether. Dr. Ashmore, speaking of "baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit," says, "But if the underlying significance is an incorpora- tion into the name, then we can see why they are to be merged or mmerged into. . . . Now, this merging, or this intusposing, if Mr. Dale chooses, can only be represented by immerging or immei-sing the whole body into water, when for the moment it disappears like something incorporated into the water." Again he says, "While I afl3rm the underlying idea of ' a merging into,' I cannot see any other way of making that idea somewhat visible than by some sort of an operation by which one object is in brief space made to appear to be completely merged and incorporated into another 'Object, In the New Testament this initiatory 'merging into' was done 'with water' and 'in water;' and so I use water, and go down into the water." Some also, who are not Baptists, find in the phrase, "baptize into the name," &c., a very striking and convincing proof of immersion. So the Rev, Dr. Towerson, in his work on the Sacraments (London, 1686), thus remarks : "For the words of Christ are, that they should baptize or dip those Hvhom they made disciples to Him (for so, no doubt, the word hap- tizein properly signifies), and — which is more, and not without its weight — that '.they should baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; thereby intimating such a washing as should receive the party baptized loithin the very body of that water which they were to baptize him with." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 131 closing quotation shall be from Professor J. A. Broadus' article in " Christian Review," 1859, p. 78, seq. ; to which we refer our readers for a fuller discussion of this subject : " If it be insisted that we should translate eis by the same word in the commission as in the examples where ' name ' does not appear, then we should think it greatly preferable ... to employ uniformly the term unto rather than into. To baptize ' unto the name,' ' unto Jesus Christ,' 'unto His death,' &c., are expressions which readily suggest that general idea of 'as regards,' 'with reference to,' which we have shown to belong to these phrases. 'Into' does not so naturally suggest this ; and then it is ver}^ likel}^ to carry with it a notion which is unscriptural and highly objectionable, — viz., that baptism itself brings us into a union with Christ, which we know results only and immediate^ from faith. ... If any change is to be made in the baptismal formula, let it be ' unto ; ' and not only there, but in all the other passages which have eis in the original." 132 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XVI. BAPTIZO AND THE PREPOSITIONS. " And was baptized by John into tlie Jordan." — Map.k i. 9. THE rendering of haptizo eis by Dr. Dale is invariably "bap- tized into," save in three instances. One, which we have already noticed, is where he introduces the word " introduced " in Josephus' baptizing some heifer-ashes into a fountain. Another example is from the classics (C. 64) , where the superstitious man was told to baptize himself into the sea, under the auspices of the old Expiatrix, to cure him of his frightful dreams. Dale, in order to save the poor man's life, renders it, " Merse thyself (going) to the sea." That such was his kindly motive is e^adent from his own declaration in regard to this passage. He says, "It is such language as is elsewhere used for drowning; and, unless dehverance come from some other quarter than the phrase itself, drowning is inevitable. I do not say that every baptized man must become a di'owned man : but I do say that haptizo never did and never will take a man out of the water ; and a command to baptize a man in the sea, or to baptize himself into the sea, is a command (inter- preted simpty by the force of its terms) to drown a man, or to commit suicide hj drowning, just as surely as that two and two make four. For this reason, I say that the weight of e'S'idence is in favor of another possible intei-pretation." And in his explica- tion of a like phrase on p. 627 of his last volume, " baptizing into the lake," he says, " The participle indicates intusposition and its essential controlling influence in general ; while the adjunct ' into the lake ' points out in particular the specialty of influence, which, to a human being, is death by drowning." The dreamer, then, going alone, would certainly have perished if he baptized STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 133 himself into the sea. But is such au evident makeshift translation as this really worthy of notice? The third instance is found in the passage Mark i. 9, 10, which we shall now consider: "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John into the Jordan; and straightway coming up {eh) out o/ the water," &c.-^ The latest English edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon assigns to eis as its " radical meaning into, and then more loose- ly in." This is much better than the "radical signification — direction towards, motion to, on, or into" — of our American edition, which so greatly puzzled the author of the "New and Decisive Evidence," that he has given "motion into" as the fourth and last and " unusual " specific meaning of eis! Baptizo eis, we are told elsewhere, is an " organic phrase," and thus the two words naturally belong together. Baptizo, and so "im- merse," easil}^ and naturaUy construe both with eis and en {into and in) in every passage in the New Testament where a ph3-sical element is mentioned ; and it is only when we substitute for these words such strangers as "sprinkle," "pour," or " pour upon," " pop," " purify," or " influence controlhngi}'," and the lilve, that all the related prepositions, eis, en, and ek {into, in, and out of), have to be changed about, or otherwise manipulated. The sub- stitution, in fact, has dislocated every thing, or, to use an expres- sive country phrase, "thrown everything out of Jdlter." Even when, by much effort and force, the prepositions are adjusted to the new order of things, the}^ never seem to be entirely at home, or to rest at ease. Carson well understood the predicament Ids "friends" were in, as regards the prepositions, when he said, " What the grammarians have provided to explain dco-fc passages, they use to make dear passages dark." ^ To enliven and to help elucidate this discussion, we quote further 1 " There can be no doubt, I think, that ek (out of) instead of cqto (from) is the true reading in Mark i. 10: so Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hoi-t, Fritzsche, De Wette, Meyer, Vollonar, Weiss, &c." — Manuscript Letter o/ Professor Abbot. 2 We have noticed that Pedobaptist writers frequently assume at the out- set some supposed difficulty in tlie way of ascertaining the meaning of Clirist's law to His churcli from the words of the law itself, and would guard us against trusting too implicitly to etjTUology, literal meanings, Greek usages, &c. So Hutchings begins his discussion of the " mode of baj^)- 134 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. from this author a few sentences relating to this subject: "Ad- mitting all that is demanded for this supposed vagueness " (in the prepositions), "is it not utterly incredible, that, with respect to this ordinance, each of the three prepositions should assume, as it were in concert to deceive us, its most unusual signification ? . . . Is it not absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit would use the three prepositions all in an unusual sense, when there were other prepositions better suited to the purpose? The absurdity is still heightened by the consideration that these prepositions are used in connection with a verb which the hardiest of our opponents can- not deny as importing, at least in one of its senses, to immerse. The usual sense of the whole three prepositions is in our favor : the verb admits our meaning " (as the hardiest of our opponents concede) ; " but, according to the great bulk of the most learned of our opponents, this is its primary meaning. Judging, then, tism " by referring to an old law of King Edward III. (noticed in Black- stone's Commentaries), wliicli forbade " all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Kome;" which law, says Blackstone, might seem to prohibit the bujdng of grain and other victuals, but which had reference rather to the purchasing of " nominations to benefices by the Pope." Instead, now, of its availing nothing to " search the dictionary, and find the etymology," we could not well understand the peculiar meaning and force of that word unless we knew its etymology; but, knowing this, we could easily see how a " fat benefice " would afford good provision for one's livelihood. We, of course, would not rely in our argument on etymology alone, or literal meanings, or Greek dictionaries. "Use is the standard of speech" and of interpretation. Words by use acquire tropical significations, and extended though commonly related meanings ; as witness in our language such words as "aspersion," "canard," "candidate," "candlestick," "clerk," "conversation," "dauphin," "dean," "dilapidate," "dowry," "duplicity," "edify," "Gehenna," "gossip," (a sponsor!) "heathen," "idiot," "impose," "knave," "manufacture," "martyr," "neighbor," "pagan," " paradise," " parricide," "peculiar," "pecuniary," "pontiff," "prevent," "reflection," "remorse," "resentment," "ruminate," "sau- cer," "spirit," "sycophant," "villain," "vulgar," &c. The three words, "hypostasis," "substance," and "understanding," are kindred in etymol- ogy, but diverse in meaning. To ascertain the true force and meaning of such a word as baptizo, we must ascertain its proper usage throughout Greek literature. It is the peculiar merit of Professor Conant's Baptizein, that in it he has set forth all, or nearly all, the classic examples of baptizo ; and that, by giving them a natural and familiar voice, he has allowed them, as it were, to speak for themselves, while all who hear have also the oppor- tunity to judge for themselves. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 135 even from their own admissions, is it credible that the Holy Spirit would use language so calculated to mislead? Could there be any reason to pitch upon such phraseology, except to deceive?" (p. 133.) The laborious efforts of our friends among the prepositions re- mind us of the putting together of the parts of a machine by those not very well acquainted with it. Put together wrongfully, a piece wants easing here or stretching there, or twisting somewhere else, with a great deal of jamming and pounding : and nothing seems exactly to fit, and nothing works kindly, till you put the right thing in the right place ; then it all goes together easily enough. Now, the prepositions as they are, with their primary, usual meaning, exactly suit the idea of baptismal intuspOsition or immersion, and they never will consort easily with asaj other idea. Why not, then, dispense with all this straining effort, and abide by the literal, usual, ^jroper meaning, both of verb and preposition? Think what " a strait betwixt two " Professor Stuart, for example, was in when treating of this simple phrase (rendered thus b}' Pro- fessor Robinson himself) " baptized into the Jordan^' ! He has already investigated the usage of the classics, and freely ac- knowledges that " hapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or im- merge. All lexicographers are agreed in this." In regard to the mode of baptism in the early Christian churches, after addu- cing various testimony, he sa3's, " But enough. ' It is,' sa3's Au- gusti, ' a thing made out ; ' viz., the ancient practice of immersion. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines the subject, to den}' this." He knows, of course, that into is the usual meaning of the preposition : but he finds a few cases (such as in Alciphron III., 43, "having bathed iyito the bath," and John ix. 7, " go wash {nipto) into the Pool of Siloara") where eis can be more easily rendered "in," " to," or " at ; " and so these " dark passages " make this clear one a little doubtful. In regard to the import of the -verb itself, he says, "I feel philologically compelled" to say "that the probabilit}^ that baptizo implies immersion is ver}' considerable, and, on the whole, a predominant one ; but it does not still amount to certainty." And what does he say about "the Jordan"? With rare honest}-, he is accustomed to make frequent affirmation 136 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. " to his hurt ; " and here he concedes that " the Jordan naturally designates the element by which the rite of baptism is performed." And, after fom' pages of critical inquiry, he thus concludes : " On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in favor of the idea of immersion, when we argue simply ex vi termini; i.e., merel}' from the force of the words or expressions in themselves considered." And at a later point he further saj's, " For myself, then, I cheerfully' admit that haptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does, in all probability, involve the idea that this rite was usually performed b}^ immersion, but not alwaj's." Just think of the pressure, on the one hand, resting upon him, to give a correct philological statement, and, on the other hand, the pressure, the almost irresistible weight of personal practice, preference, position, reputation, denominational sjTiipa- thies and interests, the known desu-es and hopes and expecta- tions of his brethren, which would naturall}- and strongly tend to draw him away from making any concession to the Baptist theory ! Dr. Dale, in treating of this passage, disjoins haptizo and eis, " the organic phrase," and refers the preposition far back to the verb of motion, the first word, indeed, in the preceding clause, virtuall}' changing the sentence thus : " Jesus came from Xazareth of Galilee to the Jordan, and was baptized by John ". (ai the Jor- dan) . This is to re-write the Gospel ; and such a change of the written order, as Professor Loos of Bethany' College remarks, "is not sustained hj am' of the versions, nor by the matured scholar- ship of the age " (see Professor Fee's " Christ. Baptism," p. 147) .. Commentators, however, can be quoted on both sides of this ques- tion. While Meyer regards this "into the Jordan" as convey- ing the "idea of immersion," — Vorstellung des Eintauchen, — De Wette and Winer would make this preposition have some refer- ence to the preceding verb of motion, without, however, denj'ing the das Eintauchen idea of haptizo. Lexicons and grammars do indeed tell us that eis in constructio pregnans is joined with verbs which express rest in a place when a pre^'ious motion to or into is expressed or imphed. Instances of this latter kind are found in John i. 18, Mark ii. 1, xiii. 16, Luke xi. 7, — " He who is into the bosom of the Father," "He is ijito the house," "He that is into the field," "My children with me are into bed;" STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ' 137 and in most of these examples the idea of a previous going is easil}^ recognized. Instances of the other kind, where the idea of previous motion is expressed, are supposed to be found in Matt, ii. 23, iv. 13, John ix. 7, &c, — "Coming, he dwelt into Xaza- reth," " Coming, he dwelt into Capernaum," " Go wash into the Pool of Siloam." It will be noticed that the verb of motion in these passages just quoted almost immediately precedes the preposition ; which cer- tainly is ver}' unlike the state of the case in our passage. '\Ye may state alsoi that Mej'er, the keenest exegete " of them all," ex- plains the use of eis in the first two instances (Matt. ii. 23, iv. 18) , not from the previous verb of motion, but from the verb dwelt, with which the preposition is united, and which in itself involves the element of motion connected with settUng don^n into a place. In reference to John ix. 7 he remarks, as Carson did before him, that the washing in the pool could not be effected without first going into it. The preposition ek (out of) is properl}- antithetic to eis (into) , and naturall}', in our i^assage, refers to Jesus' coming up either out of the water or out of the river, and not away from the river, as in Matt. iii. 16, where apo is found. No student in Greek composition would be allowed by his teacher to use efc, instead of apo, when speaking of a person's going axoay from the edge or shore of a river. A similar use of eis and ek also occurs in the account of the baptism of the eunuch (Acts viii. 39). In regard to ek, however, we are told that the passage in Mark xv. 46, which speaks of the stone as being rolled to {epi) the door of the sepulchre, is followed in a succeeding verse by the query, " Who will roll for us the stone out of (ek) the door of the sepul- chre?" And John (xx. 1) speaks of Mary Magdalene as finding " the stone taken away out of the sepulchre," as though the stone, perhaps, had been rolled into the sepulchre. And such, according to Mej-er, was the case, in part : " The stone was rolled into the entrance of the tomb, and so closed the tomb." And this vaay perhaps serve to explain, if an}' explanation were needed, how the disciple John could go into the sepulchre, while he went not im, but onh' so far, that, stooping down, he could look in. In reference to eis as meaning into, we have been asked, if, when the storm of wind came down into the lake (Luke viii. 23), it was " immersed in the lake." Probablj' not, — at least, not the whole 138 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. of it ; yet there doubtless was a good reason for employing here the preposition eis. The bed of Lake Gennesaret, it is well known, lies very low, and is surrounded on all sides by steep hills and mountains ; and it is through the gorges or ravines between these hills that the storm-wind comes down into this low-lying lake. But we have thus far been trying to explain ' ' dark passages ' ' by a process not needful for explaining a clear one. It is an estab- lished law of interpretation, that words should not be forced from their literal senses " without reason or necessity." In the passage under consideration there is neither reason nor necessitj^, only as one has a purpose or theory to serve, for departing from the literal meaning either of verb, noun, or preposition. "The Jordan" '■'• naturally designates the element" in which the baptism took place. The " in the Jordan " and " in the River Jordan " of like examples are strongly confirmatory of this view. The "water" in the following verse (as also in Matt. iii. 16, as Stuart concedes) " designates the River Jordan ; " and the phrases, " into the Jor- dan," and "into the water," would here be convertible terms. The preposition eis natural^ and easily construes both with the noun and verb, and, unlike the eis of a " dark " passage, is self- explaining : in other words, we need not go outside of the phrase itself for its explanation. The ek of the next verse, as we have said, is the natural opposite of ezs, and indicates a point of depart- ure either from within the water or from within the river. And, finall}'', baptizo, in its literal, usual, ph^'sical sense (for with its figurative senses we have here nothing to do) , ' ' demands intuspo- sition." Some Pedobaptist writers, we aire aware, tell us that rivers were resorted to in early times, not for convenience in im- mersing, but on account of the supposed greater purifying power of living or running water (for pouring or sprinkling purposes). " Both Gentile and Jew," sa3's Dr. Dale, " attached a specially purifying value to running water." This majhe so ; but I am not aware that Christians have ever been fastidious as to the natural character of the water used for baptism. We know, at least, that Tertullian said it makes no difi'erence whether one is washed " maii an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo," &c. ; which Dr. Wall thus translates : " It is all one whether one be washed in the sea or in a pond, in a river or in a fountain, in a standing or in a running water," &c. The reason, then, for repairing to STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 139 the River Jordan with, eis in connection with baptizo is, that the said river furnishes the element which is proper and necessary for that "complete intusposition," which, according to Dale, is the "vital" idea of baptizo. There can, indeed, be a going to the Jordan with eis (as in the Sevent}', 4 Kings ii. 6, 3 Kings ii. 8) for other purposes than baptismal intusposition, though eos, or epi, or pros, would answer as a substitute for eis to avoid any possible ambiguity ; and, for such a going to the Jordan, the preposition eis would not require an}' enveloping in its waters : but when such a word as baptizo is connected with "into the Jordan," or such a word as tingo, or mergo, or immerse, the case is entirely different. Ten thousand "dark passages," where eis can more easily be rendered to or at, would not have a feather's weight toward dis- proving the fact of intusposition in an example like the one before us, where either of these verbs should be found.. Thus, from every point of view, we are fully satisfied with the prepositions as they are. There is nothing "dark" or difficult about them as used in connection with baptizo; and if, in any case, they did in themselves present a seeming difficulty or ambiguity, the estab- lished ' ' vital ' ' meaning of the verb baptizo would alone be suffi- cient to make all right and clear. If it should be proved that eis here may mean "to" or "at," or had it been by some other phraseology explicitly and unmistakably declared that Jesus was baptized at the Jordan, the proper and usual meaning of the verb baptizo would plainly enough declare the fact that He was im- mersed in its waters. Had it been recorded in history that a certain person was baptized, i.e., immersed, at the Jordan River, we never should have guessed, from the unusual preposition used, that he was sprinkled or poured upon while standing on the river's bank. Were it reported that a certain man was drowned at the Pludson, the somewhat unusual preposition emploj'ed would not oblige us to conclude that he was controllingiy influenced to his death " without intusposition " in the water. Baptizo and im- merse, no less than drown, " demand intusposition." And this, it will be seen, is really the view of Dr. Dale ; for he sa^'s, " In the phrase baptizo eis there is an essential power of the verb which fixes definitely the meaning of the preposition. The verb demands, in such construction, withinness for its object, and necessitates eis to indicate the passage of such object out of one condition into 140 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. another condition without removal. There is no question as to the propriety of translating eis diversely in diverse relations ; but the question is this, Can eis be translated otherwise than by into when construed with baptizo, or with any other verb of like character? " To the objection urged by an opponent — that " as this is the only instance in which eis is used, and, as it is here connected with the name of a place, it is much more probable that it has the common signification of at" — Carson (p. 298) gives the follow- ing answers : — 1. "Here a false first principle is assumed; namely, that one instance may be explained in a meaning which it could not have in a number of instances. Can any thing be more absurd? 2. " If it is construed here with the name of a place, that place is a river in which the immersion took place. 3. " If, in common syntax, such a phrase has such a meaning, why should it not have this meaning in the syntax of Scripture? 4. " If, to produce such a meaning, such a sjmtax is necessary in common language, why should it be thought probable, that, where such s^'ntax occurs in Scripture, it has not the same mean- ing? If the syntax is necessary to the meaning, why is the meaning denied where the syntax is found? 5. " If in common use the same verb is sometimes coupled with e?i, and sometimes with eis, wh}' may it not in scriptural use be capable, in the same sense, of the same association? 6. "This instance does not give, according to our interpretation, a new meaning to the preposition, nor a new meaning to the verb associated with it, nor a new syntax to the regimen. What rea- sonable pretence, then, can there be for a change? 7. " The meaning of ' at ' is not a ' common ' meaning of eis, as he asserts. Even by those grammarians who give ' at ' as one of the meanings of eis, it is not supposed to be a common mean- ing." [And in the following pages he goes on to prove that it " never has this signification."] 8. "This extravagance is still more aggravated when it is considered that the prepositions j>ara and ein appropriately^ desig- nate at, and that no other prepositions but en and eis could be employed in expressing an immersion in or into water. If these are the onl}^ prepositions that could be used to express that this ordinance was performed by immersion in or into water, if there STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 141 are appropriate prepositions to express a^, if water or a river is the regimen, what can the meaning be but the common meaning of the prepositions in and into ? Can an}' reason be assigned for giving another meaning to the prepositions but an obstinate rekic- tance to admit the consequence ? 9. "The thing is still worse when it is considered that this extravagance is employed not onl}^ to avoid the common meaning of the verb, but to give it a meaning that in the Greek language is not in CAddence from a single example." Carson goes on with still other answers which we here have not space to quote. Is it strange that Dr. Dale has given considera- ble attention to " the philosopher of Tubbermore " ? 142 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XVII. BAPTIZO AND THE PREPOSITIONS. " I baptize in water." " And they were baptized by him in the Eiver Jordan." " He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire." IN Professor Conant's one hundred and seventy-five examples illustrating the usage of baptizo in the Greek writers (nearly a dozen more examples than are given by Dale) , the verb is sixteen times followed by eis (into) , and thirteen times by en (in) , in con- nection with element. Bapto (to dip) is in its literal sense fol- lowed by en as well as eis, though the latter usage is the more prevalent. But, whether eis or en follows haptizo, the fact of actual intusposition is just the same. Dr. Dale, indeed, says that the phrase baptizo en "is never used, by inspired or uninspired writers, to express the passage of an object from without an element to a position within an element ; " and yet he recognizes many cases of drowning with this preposition. Indeed, he " cheer- full}^ admits that the phrase ' were baptized in the Jordan^' stripped of the specialties of its use, and regarded merely in the possible force of its terms, may express a mersion in the Jordan," and refers for proof to Josephus' Wars, 3: 10, 9 (C. 22), where "vessels and crews were baptized in" Lake Gennesaret ; "and there, at the bottom of those waters, vessels and crews lie until this day."^ "We say, then, that the phrase 'were baptized in the ^ Dr. Dale could have told his readers that some of the crews might pos- sibly have escaped from their submergence, had it not been for their Eoman enemies ; for Josephus goes on to say that ' ' such as were baptized in the sea, if they lifted up their heads above water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels." We may add that Chrysostom, who knew something about Greek, evidently could have no sympathy with Dr. Dale STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 143 Jordan ' is competent to effect a baptism in the waters of Jordan ; but it imtst be such a baptism, as will place its object within the -WATERS WITHOUT REMOVAL." Again: he saj's that if "Greek forms " are so far disregarded that people will, by means of baptizo en, — a phrase which in his \'iew property expresses, not a ' ' passing into," but a " resting in " (would he say the same of embapto en, in Matt, xx-sa. 23, or of bapto en, in Dent, xxxiii. 24, 2 Kings \dii. 15, Ruth ii. 14, and the like?), — find a " position in water, there is no help for them but to stay there." For such " luckless objects 'in the water' there is no outcome." Hence to be put in water by baptizo en would be as bad as to be put into water l^j baptizo eis. Thus if one puts slices of turnip "m the sharp brine" by embaptison holme, according to directions given in example C. 153, "the pickles," our author maintains, " will still remain immovable in the brine." We wonder that he did not add " for- ever " ! Again : he plainly states that " for one person to baptize another in water must by the simple force of its terms destroy life." Consequently he holds that "men and women were never put in the water by any command of God." But by whom was John the Baptist " sent to baptize in water " ? Dr. Dale further objects to John's immersing the people in water, " because the preposition may denote only the position of the baptizer ' ' (" Johannic Baptism," p. 272). But what will become of the "luckless" baptizer "m the water"? Our author certainly can see " no help for him but to stay there ; " and this is treating him much worse than even immersionists are charged with doing. And here we may remark that this supposed ' ' inevitable drowning ' ' is really the only serious and insuperable objection which Dr. Dale has adduced against a true water-baptism, or immersion, in all his four volumes. In our last chapter we saw that "into the Jordan," b}' the manipulating tactics of our friend, was made to mean to or at, or both to and at, the Jordan. B^^ a similar process, and through the in his drowning views of baptizo; for he says " that one who is baptized (in) water rises again loith great ease, not at all hindered by the natnre of the waters " (C. 229). He probably never once thought of the import of the word as hindering a speedy emergence. Shall we ever again hear of this " indefinite period," this " unlimited continuance," which in its indefinite- ness may mean a minute as well as an age ? 144: STUDIES ON BAPTISM. same necessity, the more frequent expression, "m the Jordan," in connection with baptizo, is made to signify at or near the Jordan; the phrase " ^■?^ the Jordan," like that of "in the wil-* derness," expressing not the idea of element at all, but simple locality. But if, as Stuart saj's, " the Jordan," and much more " the River Jordan " (as in Mark i. 5, which, according to Schaff, is also the " best reading " in Matt. iii. 6), " naturally designates the element," why may not the preposition en in this case denote both locality and element? Some have maintained that the Jordan here may mean " Jordan region." This expression, " region," or' " country round about Jordan," occurs twice in the Gospels (Luke iii. 3, Matt. iii. 5), and denotes, in the first instance, the place where John preached the baptism of repentance ; and, secondty, the place w/ience the inhabitants came to receive John's baptism "in the River Jordan." Dale states that 5 dhn preached at the Jordan, and made his home at the Jordan ; and he sees no ' ' going to the river " for baptism. But we have never seen any such statements in the Scriptures ; and, if they do not say that John went to the river for the purpose of baptism, t\x.&j do imply that the people did, and one place from which they went was the ' ' region of the Jordan." We read, according to our received text, that John both preached and baptized in the wilderness ; never of his preach- ing "m the Jordan," but only of his "baptizing" there: and since the wilderness where John preached and baptized bordered on the Jordan, and " the Jordan naturally designates the element " of baptism, there is no necessity for supposing, with Hutchings, that John ' ' thrust persons beneath the sand and dust of the desert," or for asking, with Dale, " how is there to be a dipping in the waste lands of a wilderness ? " According to Carson, baptize would find water in a desert like Sahara. We should say, however, that some of Cyprian's " com- jjends" were naturally more suitable for such a place; and the Carthaginian bishop, we doubt not, would think that a threefold aspersion or sprinkling of sand upon a person, in the name of the Trinity, would answer for baptism in case of such necessity as that of the supposed dying Jew (referred to in Smith's " Christian Antiquities," p. 168), who, while travelling in the desert, was thus baptized. But, as the wilderness of Judasa la}^ near to and bordered on the Jordan, Mark (i. 4.) could well speak of John's STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 145 preaching and baptizing in the wilderness (though Tischendorf, Alford, and others would here read "the Baptist," or "he who baptizeth") ; while in the next verse he speciahzes the particular place of immersion as being " in the River Jordan." John's first baptizing-place was in Bethabara, or Bethany rather, " beyond Jordan." But, though beyond Jordan, it was on its east bank ; and, thus bordering on the river, the baptizing took place in the river, and yet in Bethany. A person, for example, may be said to have been baptized in the city of Providence ; and jet it may not be within its inhabited parts, but in some secluded point of See- konk River, on which the cit}' borders. John also baptized in JEnon, a place of " many waters," probably l^'ing some little dis- tance west of the Jordan (see Note II., end of the volume). But does not en sometimes mean at or near in the Greek writers ? Yes, "much more frequently," sa^-s Winer, "in the Greek wri- ters" thau in the New Testament, where he finds but two or three not very clear examples (all referring to " sitting in the right-hand ' ' jilace) , and makes no mention of ' ' in the Jordan ' ' as one of them. But if en means at or near in some " dark pas- sage "of the Greek writers, or in a passage not so " dark," is this a sufficient reason for disturbing both verb and preposition in the " clear " joassage before us? If, indeed, water-baptism to a living man involves "destruction of life," if baptizo in the New Testa- ment has no complementarj^ relation with water, if there is nO' physical use of haptizo in the ministry of John, if John did not baptize, but only symbolized baptism, then must his haptizo en not only be taken out of Jordan's waters, but may be removed awa}'- from its banks even to the remotest parts of ' ' Jordan dale ' ' or " Jordan region;" but, till all this is proved, John's haptizo will cleave to the river, and abide in its waters. We have seen that " into the Jordan " of Mark i. 9 is followed by '■'•out 0/ the water" in the next verse: so, in Matt. iii. 6, ' ' baptized in the Jordan ' ' is followed in verse eleven by ' ' baptize in ivater." And here the preposition en must undergo another change. The "in the Jordan" of Matt. iii. 6 must mean at or near the river ; but the " in water " which almost immediatelj^ fol- lows, and which, as Stuart says, "designates the River Jordan," means, not at or near, but with water. Dr. Campbell has told' the world that our translators, who rightty rendered Matt. iii. 6- 146 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. " in the Jordan," ought consistently to have rendered Matt, iii. 11 "m water." We observe that Professors Andrews Xorton and George R. No^-es, in their translations, give in this passage the rendering, "in water." The former gentleman, commenting on the latter part of this passage, "He will baptize you in the Hol^' Spirit," &c., says, " We must recollect that the ancient mode of baptizing was by plunging into water." "I am sorry to ob- serve," saj's Dr. Campbell, " that the Popish translators from the Yulgate have shown greater veneration for the style of that version than the generahtj' of Protestant translators have shown for that of the original ; for in this the Latin {in aqua — in spirito sando) is not more exphcit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render en to Jordane, in the sixth verse, in Jordan; though nothing can be plainer than that, if there be any incongruit}" in the expres- sion in zoater, this in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition in could not be avoided there, without adopting a circumlocution, and saving tuith the water of Jordan, which would have made theu" deviation from the text too glaring. The word haptizein (baptize) , both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies ' to dip,' ' to plunge,' ' to immerse,' and was rendered hj Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dj'eing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning : thus it is en hudati (in water) , en to Jordane (in Jordan) . But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, . . . which may denote laith as well as in, did not the whole phraseology in regard to this ceremonj^ concur in e\'incing the same thing. . . . When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I m&j say, rather than translated, into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be pre- served so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped b}' the sen- timents and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, alwaj'S inchnes to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." The two phrases, "in the River Jordan" and "in water," used, we may say, by both Matthew and Mark (though Mark's " m water " is doubt- ful) , in close connection, in the same regimen, and meaning the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ' " 147 same tiling, should certainlj' be treated alike : and if John baptized at or near the Jordan, then he also baptized at or near water ; or if he baptized tvith -water, then he should also baptize tvitJi the Jordan, yea, toith iEnon, and even toith the wilderness. Thus, as we have seen, there is not a preposition which naturally suits any sprinkling, pouring, purifying, or influencing theory. They all have to be influenced somewhat forcibly out of their primary, usual meaning, and made to stand for something which baptizo, in its primary-, usual sense, not only does not require, but absolutel^' forbids and repudiates. But does not en in Hebraistic Greek sometimes mean by or with ? Certainl}' it does, and it should be so translated when such trans- lation is necessar}- ; ^ but such cases are in the New Testament vastl}" fewer, as Winer and others have shown, than was formerly supposed. The truth is, that the in and the with idea is a closely- related one in ever}' language ; so that at times they can be used interchangeabl}' without greatl}" altering the sense. But shall we go on trying to explain "clear" passages by "dark" ones? Well, a Greek historian, perhaps, might have told us that the inhabitants of Philippi once built a bridge in the StrjTQon River (in Latin, jionteni fecit in fliiviine. — Xepos), The idea of the phraseology would probablj' be, that the bridge was built not only over the river, as toe should sa^^, but in its banks and waters. Again : we might possiblj^ have read in Greek or Eo.mau history' that Brutus and Cassius la}' an ambuscade against Antony in the River Strymon. Carson would locate this ambus- cade, not in the water of the river, but within its wooded and sheltered outer banks ; the word "river " at times standing for the valle}'' through which the river runs (see 1 Kings XA'ii. 34) . But suppose, again, it were recorded that Paul baptized the household of Lj^dia and of the jailer in the Strj'mon, or, as some suggest, in the Gangas River : would not any one hesitate before interpreting this in b}' the preceding ' ' dark ' ' ones ? Knowing that ' ' baptizo 1 In such examples as to "kill in a sword" (Rev. vi. 8), to "smite in a sword" (Luke xxii. 49), perhaps, to "trample tliem in their feet" (Matt. vii. 6), "in the prince of the demons" (Matt. ix. 34), "in that man whom he hath appointed " (Acts xvii. 31). Luke, it seems, notwithstanding "his more Greeklj^ style," knows how to use the Hehraistic in for xvitli or by quite as well, if not so often, as the other writers. 148 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. demands intusposition," that the word " river " " naturally desig- nates the element," and that in, and not at, near, or over, is one of the prepositions which baptismal intusposition requires, and that, in right interpretation, the literal meaning of words " is not to be deserted without reason or necessity'," would not a candid scholar say, as Professor Stuart did in a like case, that the phrase- ology " is in favor of the idea of immersion " ? And what insuper- able objection can be urged against the correctness of this idea? Well, the chief thing is, this ridiculous (contemptible) drowning- scarecrow. Did C. Taylor (the editor of Calmet's " Dictionary of the Bible "), who holds to pouring as baptism, yet does not deny that " plunging is one sense of the term baptism," express himself too strongly when he declared that the assertion, " Baptism im- ports drowning," could only be made b}^ " some perverse sophist " ? (See his " Apostohc Baptism," p. 122.) We admit, then, all that our opponents demand, — that the name of a river is not always equivalent to water ; and that, by Greek usage (explain it how we will) , a cilj may be said to be in the sea, and a man or an oxraj may be said to be in a river, without envel- oping themselves in water, or even wetting the soles of their feet, — and yet say that these examples do not touch the case of a haptizing in a river any more than the case of a drovming in a river, and thus have no weight whatever as against the idea of immersion. A few words in regard to the baptism ' ' in the Holy Ghost and fire " (Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16). This was the exalted Saviour's special and higher baptism, as distinguished especially from John's water-baptism unto repentance ; and distinguished also, we may say, from the baptism which Christ enjoins in His great commission. Many commentators (Origen, Hengstenberg, Neander, De Wette, Mej^er, Lange, Hackett), interpreting this ^re-baptism by the "fire unquenchable " of the immediateh" succeeding verses, refer it to the punishment of the wicked ; some making it equivalent to the " Gehenna of fire." But viewed as a purifying power, and in its close connection with "in the Holy Spirit," which connection will explain the absence of the preposition, we are rather inclined to regard it as epexegetical, or explanatory- of the Holy Spirit's baptism as efiected b}- the great fire-refiner foi'etold b}" Malachi . (iii. 2, 3), even as the semblance of fire was one of the emblems STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 149 of the Spirit in the great Pentecostal revival. John the Baptist seems plainly to indicate that the same persons were to be baptized alike in both elements. " It [fire] is but the fiery character of the Spirit's operation on the soul, — searching, consuming, refining, sublimating, as nearly all good interpreters understand the word" (David Brown, D.D., in "The Portable Commentary"). "Of this double baptism [in the Holy Spirit and (in) fire] the text says nothing : it rather suggests a contrast between the baptism of John and that of Christ, each regarded as one " (" The Speaker's Commentary"). "The close connection [of 'fire'] with what precedes, and the actual appearance of ' fire ' on the day of Pente- cost, favor a reference to the powerful and purifying influences of the Holy Spirit " (Dr. Schaff, in "The Popular Commentary ") . "The miraculous eflftision of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the abiUty to speak in unknown languages was convej'ed under the significant emblem of apparent fiery tongues, was in- tended," &c. (Professors. H. Turner). "The antithesis between John's baptism and that of the H0I3" Spirit does not refer to the persons represented by you, but only to the two Irinds of baptism. . . . It is not, ' He shall baptize some of you . . . with the Holy Spmt, and others of 3"ou . . . with fire,' but ' He shall baptize you,' " &c. (Professor John J. Owen). Matthies thinks it certain, from Acts i. 5, that this fire refers to the Spirit, which '■'■ totum purificans liominem, naturam humanam darificat," &c. Ewald, Olshausen, and Alford take a similar view. Thomas Scott speaks of the cleansing iufiuence of the Spirit, " as purif^'ing water to wash away internal pollutions, and as a refining fire to consume all their dross and the remains of corrupt nature." Bishop Hopkins says, "Those that are baptized with the Spirit are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame whose searching energy devours aU their dross, tin, and base alloy." And Calvin remarks, that "to baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire is to confer the Holy Spirit, who in regeneration has the office asid nature of fire." Chr3'sostom, among the ancients, held a like view ; for he says, " By the addition of ' fire ' he points out the vehemence and effi- cacj^ of the grace." Dr. Dale would make the " Great Purifier," who is m the Holy Ghost and fire, baptize or purif}' the collective body of the Jewish people hy the Holy Ghost and fire ; but with him these baptizing agencies are whoU}' diverse, and the "col- 150 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. lective body " is divided into two classes, — tlie believing and the impenitent. The one class the "Great Purifier" baptizes or purifies by the Hol}^ Ghost : the other class He " will finally bap- tize " (purif}'?) "b3'fire." But this kind of fire-purification (for the baptism considered here is all purification, or none at all) savors too much of the Papal purgatory for Protestant acceptation. Nor does our author venture to say that " the righteous Judge of all will finally" purify^ but only ^'■baptize, the unpenitent" by fire. We have not the courage to say that " the outstaring fact as to definition and translation in ever}^ (Pedobaptist) writer is self-contradiction" ("Johannic Baptism," p. 183), Dr. Dale also makes the Holy Spirit the " executivfe agent " of this baptism, asserting that the apostles were baptized by rather than in the Spirit, and objects to regarding the Holy Spirit as a passive ele- ment in which men were to be placed. Yet to be " in the Spirit " is to be in no " quiescent medimn," and God's word declares that Christ is Pie who baptizeth in the Spirit and fire. Dr. Dale's explanation of the phrase, "baptizing in the Spirit," as above given, shows that with him the Spirit is not always a " quiescent element ; " for, in his theory, " influence is inseparable from within- ness." "Nothing can more fully develop influence than the infolding of an object within the influential agency : " and he puts Chi'ist the Baptizer in the Spirit " for the sake of influence ; " in other words, that He might be " invested with the power of the 'Spirit." But what of the baptism in the Holy Spirit ? As Jesus himself was pre-eminently and peculiarly in the Holy Spirit, He would have his apostles and disciples too, in a measure, baptized in the same Spirit, or immersed in the fulness of His divine and wonder- working influences. Dr. Dale saj's that " this phrase " (in the Holy Spirit) ' ' cannot denote a receptive element ' in ' which so.uls are to be baptized, because in that case there could be no diverse baptisms of the Spirit. All baptized in the same element must receive the same baptism, just as all vegetables baptized in vinegar must receive the same baptism," &c. "All vegetables," how- ever, are not afi'ected in the same way and to the same extent b}' a vinegar-baptism. But, if we could predicate sameness of baptism where there is sameness of physical elements, we vaay not be able to do so where "the element is God's free Spirit. The STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 151 specially-promised baptism in the Spirit (the phrase, " baptism of the Spirit," nowhere appears in Scripture) occurred, in the first in- stance, on the da}^ of Pentecost, and also at the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts ii. 1-4, x. 44-4G). Some, also, find an instance of it recorded in Acts iv. 31. The ordinary renewing and sanctify- ing operation of the Spirit's influences is never in the Scriptures termed a baptism in the Spirit. In the Spirit's baptism at the Pentecost there was that which was both audible and visible, — a wind-like sound, and fire-hke tongues. Ingham, in his " Hand- book on Baptism," supposes this sound to have accompanied the descent of the Spirit out of heaven, and that it did not enter the house. He makes the fire-appearance to be the sole emblem of the Spirit, and holds, that^ before it was distributed into tongues, the company were immersed in it as being one mass or bod}^, filling all the house where they were sitting. But, if we follow the most obvious construction of this passage, it would appear to be the wind-like " sound,' ^ the token of the Spirit's presence, which filled all the house ; the ' ' sound ' ' here being but another name for the Holy Spu'it, in which thej" were baptized, and with which the}" were filled. Our Pedobaptist friends, of course, find a chief sup- port for their sprinkling baptism in the out-pouring of the Spirit which tookjolace on this occasion. We hold to a pouring, and also to a subsequent immersion, and that the pouring was no part of the baptism proper. A person going to bathe will, perchance, first pour water into the bath ; yet no one will conclude from this that pouring is bathing, or bathing is pouring, or that pouring ex- cludes bathing. The PIol}' Spirit was indeed poured out, and in consequence the whole house was filled with His influence, so that all assembled there were baptized in the .Spirit ; and their immer- sion in the Spirit, which was occasioned b}- the Spirit's coming upon and flooding them with His divine influences, was just as real as though they had been actively intusposed in those influences. The Egj'ptians, we may conceive, might have been immersed by the Israelites in the Red Sea for" the purpose of destroying life ; but they were no less truty and fatall}' immersed in its waters by the ingulfing flood which overtook them. A man may be im- mersed, or baptized, i.Q.^put into tvater, bj^an overwhelming wave ; but this will not warrant any external application of water-pouring or sprinlding to be a proper baptism, or a proper mode of baptism. 152 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. unless, indeed, a sufficiency of water may be poured or sprinkled to effect a complete covering. But is this baptism in the Spirit a blessed baptism, in which we can in a measure share, and from which we would not emerge, but would abide in forever ? We are thankful that our theory does not necessitate, in this case, any "evanescent dip," or transient baptism, or brief immersion. If we would abide in the Spirit's baptism forever, and our "Great Baptizer" would have us to abide in it forever, why shall not this blessed baptism be an ever- abiding one ? And in regard to the expression, ' ' immersed in the Holy Spirit," this is certainly no harsher phraseology than " poured upon with the Holy Spirit," &c. In the Pentecostal revival there was, as we have seen, both an outpouring of the Spirit, and a baptism in the Spirit, the former being precedent and preparatory to the latter ; and, while both forms of expression indicate copi- ousness, the latter alone denotes an overflowing abundance. Chrysostom, on Matt. iii. 11, thus remarks : " He does not say, ' Shall give you the Holy Ghost,' but ' ShaU baptize j^ou in the Holy Ghost,' showing in metaphor the abundance of the grace." Theophylact, remarking on Acts i. 5, says (as quoted in Meyer), ' ' ' Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit ' signifies the Jlood and the riches of the supply." The same father also says, "The word ' be baptized ' signifies the abundance, and, as it were, the riches, of. the participation of the Holy Ghost, as also, in that per- ceived b}^ the senses, he in a manner has who is baptized in water, washing the whole body." And again: the phrase, "'He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit ' [means that] He will deluge you ungrudgingly with the graces of the Spirit " (C. 193, 199). Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, says, " Not in part the grace, but all-sufficing the power ! For as he who sinks down in the waters, and is bap- tized, is surrounded on all sides b}' the waters, so also they were completely baptized by the Holy Spirit " (C. 180) . And speaking of the ' ' sound ' ' of the Spirit (as of a rushing mighty 'wind) , which Jilled all the house where the^^ were sitting, he says, " The" house was made the receptacle of the spiritual water. The disciples sat within, and the whole house was filled. They were, therefore, completely baptized according to the promise" (Dale, "Christie Baptism," 556). "To baptize is to immerse, and in this sense the apostles are truly said to be baptized ; for the house in which STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 153 this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that the apostles seem to be plunged into it" (Casaubon). " Jf filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour calls baptizing the apostles with the Holy Ghost, as they who sat in the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were baptized with water were OA^erwhelmed and covered all over with water ; which is the proper notion of baptism ' ' (Archbishop Tillotson) . Professor Stuart, on Matt. iii. 11 (" He shall baptize 3'ou," &c.), sa^'s, " He will make a copious effusion of His Spirit upon a part of you; and another part — viz., the finally unbelieving and im- penitent — He will surround with flames, or plunge into the flames. Or perhaps baptizing with fire ma}^ have reference to the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when there appeared to the apostles cloven tongues as it v^ere of fire, and it rested upon every one of them." Robinson, in his Lexicon, defines the phrase, " baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire," as meaning " to overwhelm, richly furnish with all spiritual gifts, or overwhelm with fire un- quenchable." And, finally, a recent writer in "The Congrega- tionalist," Rev. N. G. Clark, D.D., speaking of the Pentecostal baptism, says, "Ten days of waiting passed, and the promised baptism came, fioocUng their minds and hearts with light and jo}*, and holy inspiration for their high commission." Surel}^ others than Baptists have uttered correct \T.ews of the baptism in the Holy Spirit ; at least, when they have not been engaged in con- troversy. 154 - STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XVIII. BAPTIZO WITHOUT THE PREPOSITIONS. "I indeed baptize you (in) water. ... He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and (in) fire." — Luke iii. 16. SIX times in the Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles, is John's water-baptism contrasted with Chiist's Holy Spirit (and fire) baptism ; and in three of these instances, if not four (Luke iii. 16 ; Acts i. 5, xi. 16 ; and probably Mark i. 8), the word for water is in the dative case without a preposition. This simple or "instru- mental " dative, as it is frequentl}' called, is usuallj^ rendered with; and, as we do not so commonly speak of immersing tvith as sprin- kling with, this fact alone of the use of the " instrumental dative" with baptizo wholly offsets its natural ease of construction with the prepositions, and to man}^ persons it has been the decisive proof that baptism is not immersion. It is further alleged, in confirmation of this view, that the three examples, according to our received text, all occur in the writings of LulvC, whose style of Greek com- position is supposed to be purer than that of Matthew and John, w^ho, instead of this " instrumental dative," employ the Hebraistic "m water," but in the same sense as Luke's ^^ with water." Hence the triumphant tone of assurance in Dale's assertion that " the simple dative with haptizo announces with authority the presence of agenc}', and not of element." And Dr. Hodge also affirms that "to be baptized hudati cannot possiblj' mean to be immersed i?i' water." All this looks and sounds plausible, and even formidable ; but perhaps the look and the sound are all w.e have to fear. It is to be noted that this simple dative in connection with hap- tizo occurs only in those passages where water is contrasted with STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 155 the Holy Spirit ; and that occurring, as in our textus receptus, alwaj'^s with the same pecuhar phraseology, and in the writings of one person, it ma}^ be said that there is really but one instance of such use of the dative in the New Testament. Again : since the preposition en with the dative occurs in all other instances where this phraseology is used, if we suppl}' in thought an}' prepo- sition with this simple dative, that preposition must be en. So De "Wette, in his " Handbuch," explains hudati of Luke iii. 16 by en hudati (in water) of Matt, iii, 11. TViner, on the "inter- change, &c., of the prepositions," saj'S, "Sometimes we find iu parallel phrases a preposition now inserted, now omitted, as (1 Pet. iv. 1, Acts i. 5, Matt. iii. 11, &c.), suffering (with) flesh, and suffer- ing in flesh; baptize (with) water, and baptize in water." The sense is not affected by this difference; but the two were originally conceived of diff'erentl}'. Suffering (with) the flesh is suffering bj^ means of the body, while suffering in the flesh is suffering in the bod}'. Baptizein en hudati is to baptize in water (eintauchend, immersing) : haptizein hudati is to baptize loith water. The iden- tity in sense here and in most other passages is obvious. Fur- thermore, we have seen that Luke uses in Hebraistically for tvitJi, as well as the other writers ; and he could have so used it here, notwithstanding any imagined purity of his stjde. As the matter now stands, whatever be the reason for Luke's choice of phi'ase- ology, the two forms of expression mean substantially the same thing. The immersing elements are strongl}' contrasted in both cases, but more distinctly and instrumentcdly, it may be, in Luke than in Matthew and John. These would make John sa}', " I bap- tize in loater : the Coming One will baptize in the Hoi}' Spirit." Luke, perhaps, would make him sa}', " I baptize b}' means of, mak- ing rise of, water:" or, "I baptize loith water; but the Coming One will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire." What we contend for here is, that even if the element should or must be viewed instrumentally, and if haptizo hudati must be rendered baptize with water (for which rendering, as we shall see, there is no neecssit}') , still the with does not exclude the in. Such a phrase as " immersed by (or with) grief," says the re^^ewer of " Classic. Baptism," in " The New-Englander," " is in accordance with Greek idiom, which treats the iramei'sing element as the means rather than the j^^^ce of immersion." And Dr. Dale more than 156 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. once concedes that agency is compatible with immersion ; that with or hy is compatible with in. Thus he says, " The tempering [of metals] is hy water and hy oil, whether it be in water or in oil, or otherwise." Of certain words in the nude ablative, used in connection with mersor, he says, "Although representing a fluid element [they] do not represent the element in which, but the means b}' which, the mersion takes place." And, " in general, . . . the ablative, in all cases of influence-mersion, represents the agencj^ bj- which, and not the element in which, the mer- sion takes place." As, now, the Latin nude ablative does not forbid a "mersion," even when agency is represented, so the Greek nude dative does not forbid the intusposition requii'ed by haptizo, even when means or instrument is represented. Thus, though ' ' mersion by water and mersion in water are two vastly' different statements," j'et b}^ Dr. Dale's help we can make them happily "agree in one." Yv'^heh Archbishop Tillotsou sa^'s that ' ' the}' who were baptized ivith water were overwhelmed and cov- ered all over with water," or when Bishop Hopkins affirms that "those that are baptized icith the Spu'it are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly* flame," will any one contend that the water and Spirit here cannot be regarded as elements? that the water, for example, being regarded as a means or instrument, must be applied b}- hand, and that the ivith excludes the in ? The phrase "baptized or immersed in water" would certainl}' be the more common and natural expression : but the archbishop was contrast- ing the two baptismal elements, water and spirit ; and so he uses the witJi, or our English "dative of instrument." Can we not, under similar circumstances, just as well speak of baptizing or immersing with water, as we can, and sometimes do, of hurying with water? We have elsewhere observed that these two prepositions, with and in, are kindred in meaning, and in all languages can at times be used interchangeabl}', with but slight difference of meaning. Thus we can speak of our Saviour's coming in or with clouds of glor}-, &c. We can sa}' clad in or with, enveloped in or with, drenched in or with, bm'ied in or with, soaked in or with, drovmed in or with ; and many other words construe equally well with in or ivith, and the with in no case precludes the in. With man^' Pedobaptists the term " wash " is a favorite s3'non3'me for haptizo, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 157 since it allows of different " modes," or diverse forms, of action. Still no one maintains that a washing v:ith water precludes a washing in water. So we can say, covered in and by, buried in and by, whelmed in and by, baptized in and b}', immersed in and by (but not sprinkled in and b}') ; and the by, like the vjith, does not exclude the in. If we should ask a blacksmith hoiv he tempers iron, he would probably say, " By putting it in water." If asked what element he uses in tempering iron, or with what he tempers iron, he would be likel}^ to repty, " I temper it with water." And the ivith in this case would not exclude the in. The word taufen, in German, means to immerse ; j^et in Luther's version we have taufen mit wasser (to immerse toith water) , because the element of water is contrasted with the Holy Spirit. Still this mit or with (our nude dative or ablative of instrument) does by no means necessarily preclude an immersion. Take the Latin, nato cequore (I swim i7i water) : the verb requires a good degree of intuspo- sition, and we render cequore as above, notwithstanding its look of '■'■ instrumental ablative." So TertuUian's ^wmwie diluatur (washed [in] the river) is followed by his in Jordane tinxit (dipped in the Jordan) ; and, had this in been omitted, the verb tinxit would still have required intusposition. There is a class of words which "demand intusposition," such as mergo, demergo, or tingo, in Latin, kataduo, bapto, baptizo., in Greek ; and the simple ablative or dative after them must generally be regarded as local rather than instrumental. Mergere., whether in aquam, in aqua., or aqua, demands intusposition in water in the last form as well as the first. Such examples in the classics as " nee me deus tequore mersit," " aqua languida mergi," and the like, do, for certain, in- volve the idea of intusposition in water. The " ter merge ndus aqua est" of Ambrose imports that the candidate is to be thrice immersed . (in) water. The ' ' plebs sere alieno demersa ' ' of Livy is the exact counterpart of Plutarch's " ophlemasi bebaptisme- non ; " i.e., " over head and ears " in debt, or overwhelmed luith debt. "Wlio will sa}' that this "with" antagonizes the idea of immersion? Gregor}', presbj'ter of Antioch, as quoted b}' Chr3-stal (p. 80), represents Jesus as sa3ing to John the Baptist, "De- merge me .Jordanicis fluentis his quemadmodum quffi me genuit infantilibus involvit pannis ; " that is, " Sinlc me (in) or cover me in (or with) the floods of the Jordan, as she who bore me wrapped 158 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. me in the clothes of infancy." Here certainly is intusposition in company with the seeming "ablative of instrument." Virgil (" Georgics," i. 246), speaking of the two constellations called the "Bears," says, " Oceani metuentes sequore tingi." "They fear ' ' — what ? Is mquore in the instrumental ablative ? and does tingo (TertuUian's favorite word for haptizo) here mean to tinge, " tinct," or dye? and do the " bears " indeed fear to be dyed with the waters of the hlue ocean? Only one who had a " theory- " to support would sa}" this. No ; the verb in its literal sense ' ' demands intusposition : ' ' the noun ' ' natural^ denotes the element ; ' ' and its ablative form, even without the preposition in, does not forbid the immersion. And Virgil, instead of saying that the "bears" never sink below the horizon, says, in the language of poetry, that the}' fear to be dipped in the ocean. So of the constellation Bootes it is said that at evening it is scarcely' dipped (in) the deep ocean : "alto mergitur oceano." Does not this mersing, even with the nude ablative, involve the idea of a physical enveloping in water? Let us for a moment imagine the piscina, or font, of Constantine's Baptistery at Rome, twenty-five feet in diameter and three in depth, to be full of water, and that our author, taking his stand beside it for the purpose of administering a patristic baptism, addresses the candidate in the words inscribed on its base : " Mergere, peccator, sacropurgante fluento " (" Immerse thyself, sinner, (in) this sacred, purifjing flood " ) . Had the author of the ' ' Inquir}- ' ' used the phrase in fluent um (into the flood) , he would, as we well know, have bidden the sinner to drown himself; but, in the absence of that phrase, what can we suppose that Dr. Dale expected this peccator to do? " Use," says Carson, " is the sole arbiter of lan- guage ; and whatever is agreeable to this authority stands justified bej'Ond impeachment." If, now, it can be shown from usage that bapto, haptizo, and words of like import, demanding intusposition, are followed by the local " simple dative " of element, our work, as far as this matter is concerned, is done, and our opponents' utterances in regard to the '•'' instrumental dative " with haptizo are but wasted breath. It so happens that we need not go beyond Professor Conant's Examples to find the needed argument which shall ' ' put ' ' our op- ponents " down." These examples we shall take from classic and patristic use. "That the Greek fathers," sa3's Professor Stuart, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 159 " understood the usual import of baptizo^ would hardl}- seem capable of denial." And he intimates that the same was true of the Latin fathers who were familiar with the Greek. And does anj' one doubt that Christian baptism, in the minds of the Church fathers, involved the act of intusposition in water? If so, let him read but sect. 5 of " Baptizein," — where are collected some sixt}' examples of usage of the Church fathers, " to which," saj's Pro- fessor Conaut, " man}' others of the same tenor might be added," — and, if a candid person, he will sa}' with Professor Stuart, " Plainly, the churches of Christ from a xerj early period construed the word baptizo in the New Testament as meaning immersion." That the " fathers " made much of Christian baptism, we ha^'e already* seen ; but even they knew how to distinguish between the act and the effect, which is more than some recent writers have done. Tertul- lian, in repl}^ to Quintilla, — a woman-preacher at Carthage, who held, with Dr. Dale, that water-baptism is unnecessary, and that faith alone is a sufficient sacrament, — saj's, "As of baptism itself there is a bodily (or ph^'sical) act, that we are immersed in water (in aqua mergimur) ; and a spiritual effect, that we are freed from sins" (C. 209). So C_yril of Jerusalem says, "Man's nature is twofold, — soul and body ; twofold also in his' cleansing, — the spiritual for the spiritual, the material for the bod}'. The water cleanses the bod}': the Spirit seals his soul." The oft-recurring phrases, "sinking down and coming up," the '■'• insiiiking^' and " inburying " in water, which they use as explanatory' adjuncts of the baptismal act, are alone sufficient to explode anj mere " com- pendium " or " influence " theory of baptism. We come, then, to this argument of the "simple dative," with the certainty that baptizo with the fathers, as in the classics, involved intusposition. That baptizo with the simple dative implies a physical envelop- ment is rendered altogether probable by comparing Exs. 73, 76, with 72, 75, of Conant's "Baptizein," where, in the latter in- stances, the soul is said to be baptized (en) in the bod}', while in the former it is baptized (in) the body (the nude dative b£ing used) . So, in Ex. 78, the sword is baptized (in) the throat ; while in 68 (77) it is baptized into the throat or breast. In reference to these examples. Professor Conaut says, " What is enclosed in the human body is immersed i7i (not tvith) it : a weapon is plunged m (not with) the neck." Another instance of the local 160 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. simple dative is seen in Ex. 125: "The congregation baptized (in) ignorance, and unwilling to emerge," &c. This cannot mean " imbued with ignorance, but whelmed, immersed in it ; " else there could be no possible emersion. In one Example (121 ; compare also 120) a city is baptized (in) sleep, Vv^hile other Examples (118, 119) speak of a baptism into sleep. A still more decisive example is the word kataduo (to sink), with the simple or so-caUed "in- strumental" dative (C. 185). " When we sink our heads down (in) the water as in a kind of tomb, the old man is buried, and, sinking down, is all concealed at once : then, when we emerge, the new man comes up again." ^ Here we have indisputably a case 1 The writer in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, referring to this passage of Clirysostom (p. 161), says, without regard to Dr. Dale's views or feelings, " Thrice dipping the head while standing in the water was the all but universal rule of the Church in early times." To think of dipping as baptism, and only " the head " at that! Yet the ancient writers often speak of dipping the head in baptism, Jerome says, "Jn lavacro ter ca- put mergitave" ("to immerse the head thrice in the bath"). So Augustine: " Tertio capita vestra in sacra fonte demersimus'''' ("We immersed your heads thrice in the sacred font " ). Lingard also, describing the mode of baptism in the Anglo-Saxon Church, says, " He" (the candidate) " then descended into the font: the priest depressed his head three times below the surface! " &c. (See Conant's Baptizein, p. 140.) If the administrators of the ordinance in the early churches used the formula of the modern Greek Church, — "This servant of God is baptized," &c., — this would furnish a partial relief to Dr. Dale. John the Baptist, v/e are sorry to say, could not use this convenient formula with all its permissive concomitants, since, according to Dale, he alone was commissioned to baptize; and this prohibited the people from walking down into the water, and thus immersing a part of themselves. Dr. Dale intimates in many places that a mere touching of the head, without any dipping of it, effects a baptism; and, in conflrmation of this view, he quotes John of Damascus as saying, " John was baptized by putting his hand upon the divine head of his Master, and by his own blood." Gregory Thaumaturgus also represents John as saying to Jesus, in the Jordan bap- tism, " Sink me in the waters of the Jordan. . . . O Lord! baptize me the Baptist. . . . Crown by Thy touch my head," &c. Yery likely the "patrists" might have deemed the effucacy of the Saviour's touch equivalent to that of baptism ; but this does not not explain the ancient custom of laying the hand on the head in baptizing. Most of the old frescos represent John's hand as resting on the head of Jesus, while He stands nude and waist-deep in the water. Dr. Dale objects to the idea that the hand " was put upon the head to press it down into the water." But this was the usual "mode" of ancient baptizing. Bunsen, in his Hippolytus and his Age, speaks of a STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 161 of the simple dative of element, and not of agency. One instance of the simple dative with bapto (to dip) is found in Ex. 228. " Simon also, the Magian, once came to the bath (loutron). He was baptized^ but he was not enlightened ; and the body indeed he dipped (in) water, but the heart he did not enlighten by the Spirit. And the body went down indeed, and came up (anebe) ; but the soul was not buried with Christ, nor was raised with Him." The Oxford translation gives the same rendering to soma ebapsen 7iu- dati; to wit, "His bod}' he dipped in water." I would like to have Drs. Hodge and Dale stop here, at this utterance of CjTil, Bishop of Jerusalem, and reiterate, if they can, their asseverations in regard to the instrumental dative. For Cp'il here assuredly could not mean that the Magician dyed his bod}' with water (though Dr. Dale asserts, without qualification, that bapto with a nude da- tive means, not " dip m," but " dyed by) : nor does he mean that he washed his body with water outside the bath ; for that body " went down " in the bath or water (was " buried ") , and " came up." Certainly Dr. Dale could not deny that here was a case of bodily " intusposition without influence," and — what to him is so abhorrent — that baptism and dipping are here regarded as equiva- lent terms. -^ We produce but one example more (C. 229) where Coptic canon or Alexandrian constitution which says that the baptizer "shall lay his hand on the head" of the candidate, " dipping him three tiraes." Dr. Brenner, describing the ancient mode of baptism, says (p. 12) that the administrator places his hand on the head or neck of the candidate, and thus bows his head under the water, and refers for illustration to the fabulous account of Constantine's baptism by Pope Sylvester: " Cum Sil- vester ejus caput tetigisset et eum in aquam immersisset," &c. ; that is, "When Sylvester had touched his head, and had immersed him in water,"' &c. An old hymn of the Antioch- Jerusalem Liturgy says, " Good was our Sav- iour's word which He spake to John, 'Place thy right hand on My head, and baptize Me.' John feared, and shrank back, seeing the river burn with a flame of fire abiding in it, and held back his hand ti'embling," &c. 1 Dr. Dale renders Strabo's chole bebamenois o'istois, arrows Imbued with gall, and Aristophanes' baptousi tJiermo, they wash (the wool) v:ith warm water; and he asks, "Of what use is it for a controversialist to translate baptousi thermo, ' they dip into warm water' ? " But was Professor Stuart a (Baptist) "controversialist" when he rendered Aristophanes, "They dip the wool i?r warmAvater;" and Strabo, "Dipped in the gall of serpents" ? (See Bib. Eepository, vol. iii. p. 316.) According to the Codex Sinaiticus, we have bapse hudati in Luke xvi. 24. Will Dr. Dale render this, "that he may 162 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the simple dative occurs with haptizo. Chrysostom says, " Christ called His cross and death a baptism, because by it He cleansed the world ; and not because of this only, but also because of the facihty of the resurrection. For as he who is baptized (in) water rises again with great ease, not at all hindered by the nature of the waters, so also -He, having gone down into death., with greater ease came up: for this cause He calls it baptism," &c. Is there now left in the minds of any a single doubt that the simple dative with haptizo may denote the recei^dng element, rather than agency? or that, in case of contrast of elements, it may denote both the means and the element of immersion ? The argument in favor of sprin- kling and pouring, derived from the use of haptizo with the " nude dative of instrument," is indeed sometimes put forth with great confidence, and is doubtless emploj^ed with considerable j)opular effect, but, when carefully examined, is found to have no weight, and proves nothing against immersion. wash tlie tip of his finger with water," or " that he may dye the tip of his finger with water " ? There are three possible versions of Virgil's lines, alii stridentia tingunt ^ra laeu, which Dr. Dale might accept; namely: Some wash the hissing brass with the trough; or, Some tinct (tinge) the hissing brass with the trough ; or, Some temper the hissing brass with the trough. A "controversialist" (?) like Theodore Alois Buckley, in " the Works of Yirgil literally translated," would render it, " Some dip the sputtering brass in the trough." The world, we think, would prefer the renderings of a "controversialist." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 163 CHAPTER XIX. BAPTISM OF THE MULTITUDES BY JOHN. "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judsea, and all the region about the Jordan, and were baptized by him in the (River) Jordan." — Matt. iii. 5, 6. OUR friends find any amount of difficulties insuperable, and amounting to impossibilit}^, against the idea of John's im- mersing such immense multitudes in the limited time of his active ministry, and not much less difficulty in regard to the simple matter of baptismal clothing. Eighteen months is about the longest period assigned to John's public ministry ; and a part of that time he was shut up in a prison in Macherus, beyond the Jordan. And then the numbers baptized, according to Messrs. Cooke and Towne, Wolff, and Hutchings, could not be Idss than five hundred thousand. Mr. Thorn of England runs the number up as high as two millions ; and Dr. Hibbard of the Methodist Church assumes that "John, in all, baptized three millions of persons." Methinks, in this latter case, the method suggested by Dr. Guise would have been expedient: to wit, "the people stood in ranks near to or just within the edge of the river ; and John, passing along before them, cast water upon their heads or faces with his hands, or some proper instrument," &c. We onl}' hope that Our Saviour was not thus baptized with others "in ranks," or with any "instrument." Mark mentions, that, on occasion of the miraculous feeding, the people sat down " in ranks ; " and John saj^s that the Saviour used a ' ' basin ' ' for washing His dis- ciples' feet. Other modes and "instruments," doubtless, are spoken of in the Gospels : but none of these things are referred to in connection with John's baptizing ; and we may suppose that he 164 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. dispensed with them all, as being unnecessary, and not suited to the dignit}' of the occasion. But our friejids find manj^ and great difficulties in the idea of John's immersing such vast numbers. "To have immersed one every minute," say Messrs. Cooke and Towne, "he must have stood breast-high in the water everyday for nearly two years. . . . We are fully satisfied that he could not have immersed eighty thousand." (We wish Messrs. Cooke and Towne had also estimated how many individuals, during the same time, could have made confession of sins, and have been sprialded " into repentance, and into faith of the coming Messiah," — not in crowds, with switch or broom, but separately, with pro- nunciation of formula in each case. For our part, we think that nearly as manj^ could have been immersed, provided the baptizer did not lead the candidates in and out of the water.) Mr. Hutch- ings says, " To have immersed so many in that time would have been more than two every minute for eight hours a day for that whole period ; which I venture to pronounce a simple impossi- bility. No man could have strength to do it; and, besides, just think of him as standing waist-deep in the river eight hours a day for eighteen months together ! The baptism b}^ John of all these multitudes hj immersion was just an impossibility. That, then, is one thing about baptism which I regard as settled. It could not have been done without a miracle." Yea, to this writer's mind the mere matter of clothes- " seems sufficient to decide the whole question." And this double settling and decision of " the whole question " is reached almost on the first page of his argument. Mr. Wolff, forgetting that John continued to baptize after Jesus had entered on His public ministry, limits the time to six months, and thus makes John to " lift dail}^ seven hundred and sixtj'-eight thousand pounds, while sunk up to his waist in water, and stag- gering in the current of the Jordan." And jei "John did no miracle" ! Dr. Dale joins with his brethren in pronouncing im- mersion under these circumstances "an impossibilit3^ " But our author's chief trouble is, that John could not lift so many people high enough for him alone to immerse their whole persons ; while, as we all know, John alone was commissioned to baptize. The Baptist theory, he saj^s, "compels us to add to the commission of John, that he and the people jointly were to baptize ; they immersing a part of their body by walking into the water, and he STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 165 clipping so mucli of the upper part of the body as the}' ma}' have left unimmersed. ... I can only sa}', that, if John was com- manded to immerse the people in water, John did not do it" (" Johannic Baptism," p. 271). But here we would ask if John's mind was not as fertile in suggesting and inventing expedients as Dr. Dale's. Could not he have availed himself of the aid of "ropes and pulle3's " and "clever management"? If so, we shall not yet succumb to this asserted impossibility. Against these real or imaginary difficulties Dr. Carson aims this single effective canon : ' ' When a thing is proved by sufficient CAddence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibilit}'." Before this '■'■impossi- bility" can be made out, our friends must prove three things, — what was the exact time of John's active labors, what was the exact number baptized, and that John could have no assistance in his work. And, while demonstrating these points, they might also show that John was always obliged to stand ' ' soaking waist- deep in the river ". in order to perform his immersions. The old frescos generally repi-esent John as standing on the bank; while Jesus stands nude, " waist-deep in the river." The administrators of baptism in tlie early churches, as we understand it, generally stood outside the bath, while depressing the head of the candidate slightl}' forward, beneath the water. This process requires l)ut little muscular effort, and not so much time, nor so " much water," as our backward immersions. Even Carson sa^-s, " There is no reason to believe that John the Baptist usuallj' went into the water in baptizing. The striking difference between the accounts of these two baptisms" (by John and by Philip) "leads me to con- clude that John chose some place on the edge of the Jordan that admitted the immersion of the person baptized, while the baptizer remained on the margin." Our opinion, however, is, that John, as a general thing, entered the water when he baptized in the Jordan : and that, in the hot climate of the Plain of Jericho and of the southern Jordan, he would find a position in the water, and in the shade, we may suppose, of overhanging trees, quite as comfortable as one outiide of the water. ^ 1 We fear that Dr. Dale's novel exegesis of Christ's baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire will not only put John in, but will drown him in, water; 166 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. There is no doubt that great " multitudes " came to Jolm to be baptized : but " multitudes " of them (Luke iii. 7) were Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers, whom John upbraided as a "brood of vipers," and whom he refused to baptize; nay, who themselves " rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not bap- tized of him" (Luke \T.i. 30). While, therefore, multitudes came to tlie Jordan for baptism, "multitudes" also were sent away. And yet John need not have sent them unbaptized awaj", since they were apparently willing to submit to the rite itself ; and the baptizer, according to Dale's definition of hajptizo, could have " controUingly influenced " them " with water into repentance." Another question, which, could it be decided, would throw some light on this subject, is, How many people did Jesus baptize through His disciples? Both John and Jesus were at one time baptizing together, — not, we suppose, at different "springs" near Salim, as Dale imagines, but Jesus probably at the Jordan (so Olshausen), and John at ^non, "because there was much water there," and was hence a suitable place for the immersion of great numbers. During this time some of John's disciples come (apparently from a distance) and teU htm that Jesus "baptizes, and aU come to Him" (John iii. 26) ; and after this the report is spread abroad among the Pharisees, that "Jesus makes and baptizes more disciples than John" (John iv. 1). How long this state of things lasted we are not informed ; but from these reports which were borne to John, and also to the Pharisees, it would seem that Jesus, through E[is disciples, must have baptized great multitudes also. Yet the largest number of His disciples prior to the Pentecost, that we ever read of, were the one hundred and for, according to Dale, "He shall baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire" means, " He who is in the Holy Ghost and fire will baptize hy the Holy Ghost and fire." Accordingly, the immediately contrasted yet parallel phrase, " I baptize in water," would naturally mean, "I, being in water, do baptize by water." In John's assertion, " I baptize you in water," the prep- osition, Dale says, "may denote only the position of the baptizer; in which case there is no provision left for putting 'you' in the water" (Johannic Baptism, p. 2'72). But the same author says, "If I am in water, I am drowned by water." Therefore John could not have baptized many before he himself was sufiocated. It should be stated, however, that the baptizer's position "i)i water" is taken by Dr. Dale, who is so hostile to "figure," only in a figurative sense. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 167 twenty brethren at Jerusalem, and the "over five hundred breth- ren" in GaUlee (many of which numbers, doubtless, were dupli- cates) ; and, judging from the occasions and circumstances of these gatherings, these numbers evidently constituted a consid- erable part of the Saviour's professed disciples. Another circumstance which tended to lighten the baptizer's labors is the fact that the multitudes did not all come at once ; but, as the tense of the verbs indicates, John was continuously baptizing the people : in other words, the different individuals con- tinued coming and receiving baptism ; and, as they kept coming, so, probably, they kept going. They came onl}' for baptism ; and this, accompanied with confession of sins, required but a small space of time. They did not come to the Jordan for a camp- meeting stay. Probably none of them passed a night there. And yet we are told that "much water" was necessary for culinarj'^, ablutionary, and drinking purposes, and for the use of camels and asses, and that this was the reason for John's choice of Jordan and ^non. Dr. Dale has discovered that " the presence of water, actual or imaginary, is unnecessary to a baptism," and that the Johannic like the Christie baptizo has ' ' no concern whatever ' ' with the use of water ; and perhaps he could prove that John, though " sent to baptize in water," did not use a drop of the Eiver Jordan or of iEnon's " many waters " in his baptism of the people "into repentance." Yet the Scripture records sa}', not that John en- camped at -^non, nor that he preached in -i3Enon, on account of its many waters, but that he bapitized at ^non on account of its much water, and that the people came there for baptism.^ The selection of place, as Professor Fee says, " was made in reference to facihties for baptizing, not the convenience of cattle and men." Doubtless immersion could be performed in a thousand other places ; but, for the immersion of multitudes, this place of many waters was the most suitable. Not the slightest intimation is 1 "It may be observed," says Stanley, "that the only other extensive baptisms" (than those of the Jordan) "recorded outside of Jerusalem are at Salim, where there was much water; and at Samaria, whose abundant streams have been described elsewhere." — See Lieut. Conder's Tent-Work in Palestine, vol. i. p. 91, seq. ; also Ingham's Handbook on Baptism, p. 419, seq., where references are given to the testimony of Robinson, Hackett, Kitto, and others, on this latter point. 168 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. given of any other motive for the choice of the place, or of any other use of the water, than for the purpose of baptism. People build factories at Lowell and Lawrence on account of their great water-privileges. Perhaps thej' do so that the operatives who live there ma3- have plenty of water for cooking and other purposes ! It may be that some of the people came on camels and asses ; but I doubt whether many did so. They did not come on long journeys with their families and little ones, as do the modern pilgrims. They did not come from so many and so far distant places as did the " gi'eat multitudes" that accompanied Jesus (see Matt. iv. 25 ; Mark iii. 78 ; Luke vi. 17, as compared with Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark i. 5), and who are commonty supposed to have followed Him on foot (Matt. xiv. 13 ; Mark vi. 33) . And yet the Scriptures nowhere state that Jesus resorted to places of ' ' much water ' ' for the accommodation of those vast multitudes. Nor have we but rarel}' heard it suggested that an}' women came to the Jordan for John's baptism : certainly there is no proof whatever of theii- com- ing or presence. August! (in Coleman's " Christian Antiquities," p. 259) says, "John's baptism excluded both children and the female sex." And Dr. Dale concedes that "there is no scrip- tural statement or fact showing with any certaint}'' that ' women ' were included in the ritual baptism of John. . . . The general featm-es of his ministiy . . . point to the conclusion that neither women, nor children, nor the family, as such, were embraced in the ritual baptism of John " (" Christie Baptism," p. 168) . Even if "camels and asses" were emploj-ed, the}^ could find water enough for a short sta}^ in other places than Jordan and ^non. Once, if not now, as Moses declared, and as the manj'^ places whose names commence with Ain or En still witness, Palestine, as compared, not with our well- watered New England, but with Egypt and Arabia, was a "land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of the valleys and mountains." And according to the testimony of Rev. W. M. Thomson, D.D., for twentj^-five 3'ears a missionarj' in the East, the same holds true of Palestine to this day. Speaking of the country around the sources of the Jordan, he sa^'s, " Certainl}^ this is a good land. I have never seen a better, and none where the fountains and depths that spring out of the vallej's and hills are so numerous, so large, and so beautiful. . . . The number of these fountains STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 169 and depths is prodigious : . • . the whole land is full of them." After enumerating some of the principal ones in the North, he says, "And thus we might go all through Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, and enumerate hundreds of them, — powerful fountains, — the permanent sources of every river in the country. I have visited them often, and always with admu'ation and aston- ishment. . . . Many single villages in the mountains have scores of smaller springs which run among the valle3"S, and give drink to everj' beast of the field. Some even boast of hundreds of these little sources of fertility." (See "The Land and the Book," vol. i. -pp. 405, 406.) Lieut. Conder, in his " Tent- Work in Palestine," makes mention of ' ' twelve considerable streams in the countr}' [of Palestine], which contain water even at the end of the drj* season, without counting the Jordan." (See also, in Stanley's " Sinai and Palestine," Appendix, p. 433, seq., a notice of some sixteen different Hebrew names of rivers, streams, &c., and some twenty for springs, wells, cisterns, &c ; also Robinson's "Bibli- cal Researches in Palestine," vol. iii. p. 644, for over sixt}' names of places beginning with Ain [fountains], which, as Stanley says, are the " briglit, glistening, life-gi\ing ' eyes ' " of the thirsty East.) • As to the matter of clothes (disrobing and enrobing, &c.), which troubles all our Pedobaptist friends so much, I opine that the Jews — who had to take so man}' and so long festival journeys, and make so long a stay at those yearly festivals (two out of the three lasting each a week) , and had to perform so vaany ablutions prior to participating in them — had learned how to manage this clothes business better than our friends would have us believe. In fact, they do not appear to have dreaded a wetting so much as we do. Multitudes, for a time at least, had to cross the Jordan, manj- of them doubtless on foot, before the}* could be baptized b}' John in Bethany. What they did with their wet clothing on these occa- sions I do not certainly know ; but they probably managed this matter without any exceeding difficulty. It would not be surpris- ing if persons subjected to the intense heat of the Jordan-Ghor, near the Dead Sea, retained, in many instances, the wet clothing (slight, of course, in amount) upon their persons, " and often," as Dr. J. P^'e Smith suggests, " with great comfort and pleasure." Ingham adduces the fact, recorded by Mr. Buckingham, " that, when travelling in the East, he frequently plunged overhead in his 170 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. clothes, and found himself greatly refreshed by it, although he suf- fered his clothes even to drj' upon him." Maundrell saj^s that the Jordan's inner banli: "is so beset with bushes and trees, such as tamarisks, willows, oleanders, &c., that you can see no water till you have made your way through them." Perhaps this dense copse, this " wild thicket," this "mazy jungle," of which we read, af- forded them sujQicient shelter, if they could get no better, for all the disrobing and dressing which they needed. If any one, how- ever, thinks this clothes difficulty renders their immersion an im- possibility^ its demonstration should at once be made known. Of one thing we are pretty sure, — that this difficulty has not, since the Saviour's time, hindered millions of pilgrims of every age and sex, and from every land, from visiting the Jordan, and baptizing them- selves beneath its waves. Dean Stanley (in his " Sinai and Palestine, p. 308) gives a de- scription of " the biathing of the pilgrims in the Jordan " (on Mon- day of passion-week at the Greek Easter) , which he regards as " presenting the nearest likeness that can now be seen, in the same general scenery, to the multitudinous baptisms of John" in that river "where," as he says, "began that sacred rite which has since spread throughout the world, through the vast baptisteries of the Southern and Oriental churches, gradually dwindling to the little fonts" (not founts now, but basins rather) "of the North and West, the plunges beneath the water diminishing to the few drops which b}' a wise ( ?) exercise of Christian freedom are now in most churches the sole representative of the full stream of the descending river" (p. 307).^ Perhaps, however, our 1 We may here remark, that even Alf ord, who finds in the baptism of proselytes a pattern for John's baptism, assents, consequently, to this bap- tism as being immersion. On Matt. iii. 6 he comments thus: "When men were admitted as proselytes, three rites were performed, — circumcision, bap- tism, and oblation ; when women, two, — baptism and oblation. The bap- tism was administered in the day-time, by immersion of the whole person; and, while standing in the water, the proselyte was instructed in certain por- tions of the law. ... It is most probable that John's baptism in outward form resembled that of proselytes." It is extremely doubtful, however, whether proselyte baptism (which was an invention of men; which was never ad- ministered to Jews, and only to Gentile proselytes and tlieir children when first admitted to the Jewish Commonwealth ; and whicli, like tlie ablution of the Essenes, noticed in Josephus' Wars, 2 : 8, 7, was ordinarily self-perf ormed) STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 171 readers would be as well pleased with a description of this pUgiim bathing by our own countrjTnan, Lieut. William F. Lynch, who was in vogue so early as the Saviour's time.- (See article on Jewish Pros- elyte Baptism, by Professor C. H. Toy, D.D., in Baptist Quarterly for 1872, p. 301 seq.) Dr. Wall, indeed, finds a pre-Christian proselyte baptism, and in it a model for Joliannic and Christian baptism, both as to mode and subjects. Bengel deems this early baptism to be initiatory, and not self- performed, though simply accessory, and not essentially necessary. Matthias regards this early jDroselyte baptism as an initiatory ablution or lustration, yet having no very special solemnity or force until after the destruction of Jerusalem and the abolishment of sacrifices. Schneckenburger, in opposi- tion to Bengel, finds no proper proselyte baptism until the end of the third century, and maintains, in unison with the testimony of Maimonides of the twelfth century, that even then it was ordinarily self-performed; yet he supposes that the pre-Christian proselytes, in connection with their circum- cision and offering, may have performed vipon themselves some one of the customary Levitical self-ablutions of that time. Dr. Lightfoot, who holds to the pre-Christian origin of proselyte baptism, yet declares himself thus plainly as to the mode: "As soon as the proselyte grows whole of the wound of circumcision they bring him to baptism ; and, being placed in the water, they again instruct him," &c. : whereupon " he plungeth himself, and comes up; and, behold, he is an Israelite in all things. The women place a woman in the waters up to the neck ; and two disciples of the wise men, standing without, instruct her about some lighter precepts of the law, and some weightier : while she in the mean time stands in the waters, and then she plungeth herself; and they, turning away their faces, go out while she comes up out of the water." "Now, what that plunging was, you may know from those things which Maimonides speaks of in Mikvoth: ' Every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And, wheresoever in the law washing of the gar- ments or body is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body ; for if any wash himself all over, except the very tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness.' " " According to the rabbis," says De Wette, " circumcision, an offering, and baptism were necessary to the reception of proselytes. Baptism, however, is probably a later institute; for it is not mentioned in the older writings " (referring here to the Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, the Targums, and Mishna), "but only in the Gemara, whose testimony speaks merely for the time after the destruction of Jerusa- lem, and in other later writings. Yet, connected with proselyte consecration, there may have been in ancient times a kind of lustration from which proselyte baptism (perhaps not without an imitation of the Christian) has arisen." (See Design of Baptism, by Prof. Irah Chase, D.D., p. 38.) Winer is of the opinion that proselyte baptism as an independent, initiatory rite, in inseparable connection with circumcision, and regarded as of equal value, did not exist until after the destruction of the second temple. Dr. 172 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. was the first really to explore the Jordan from the Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea : — " At three a.m. we were aroused b}^ the intelligence that the pil- grims were coming. Rising in haste, we beheld thousands of torchlights, with a dark mass beneath, mo^dng rapidl}^ over the hills. Striking our tents with precipitation, we hu^rriedlj'' removed them and all our effects a short distance to the left. We had scarce finished when thej^ were upon us : men, women, and chil- di'en, mounted on camels, horses, mules, and donke3''s, rushed impetuously by toward the bank. They presented the appearance of fugitives from a routed armj'. . . . The party which had disturbed us was the advanced guard of the great bod}^ of the pilgrims. At five, just at the dawn of day, the last made its ap- pearance, coming over the crest of a high ridge in one tumultuous and eager throng. " In all the wild haste of a disorderly rout, — Copts and Russians, Poles, Ai-menians, Greeks and Spians, from all parts of Asia, from Europe, from Africa, and from far-distant America, — on they came ; men, women, and children of every age and hue, and in every variet}' of costume, talking, screaming, shouting, in almost every known language under the sun. Mounted as variousl}' as those who had preceded them, many of the women and children were suspended in baskets, or confined in cages ; and with their eyes strained toward the river, heedless of all intervening ob- stacles, they hurried eagerl}^ forward, and dismounting in haste, Dollinger uses the following language: "St. John had just introduced the rite of immersion in the Jordan as a symbol of the repentance and renova- tion whereby the whole man must be purified. This was not borrowed from the Jewish custom of baptizing proselytes, which only came in after the fall of Jerusalem. St. John was sent to baptize for repentance : Christ adopt- ed the rite. . . . Like that of St. John, it was by immersion of the whole person; which is the only meaning of the New-Testament word." The bap- tism of John — was it from heaven, or of men ? Doubtless from heaven; and being peculiarly a baptism of repentance, and of faith in the coming Messiah, it necessarily excluded unconscious infants. Such was the only initiatory baptism with which the apostles and immediate disciples of Christ are knovjn to have been acquainted. And here we might ask whether their knowledge of the peculiar characteristics of this baptism might not aid them, if aid were needed, in interpreting the law of the "great commission." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 173 and disrobing with precipitation, rushed down the bank, and threw themselves into the stream. " The}'- seemed to be absorbed by one impulsive feeling, and perfectly regardless of the obsei-vations of others. Each one plunged himself, or was dipped hy another, three times below the surface in honor of the Trinity, and then filled a bottle or some other utensil from the river. The bathing-dress of many of the pilgrims was a white gown with a black cross upon it. Most of them, as soon as they dressed, cut branches either of the Agnus cast us, or willow, and, dipping them in the consecrated stream, bore them away as memorials of their visit." [We here quote a para- graph from Stanley, p. 310 : " They dismount, and set to work to perform their bath, — most in the open space; some farther up amongst the thickets ; some plunging in naked ; most, however, with white dresses which they bring with them, and which, ha\ing been so used, are kept for their winding-sheets. . . . The families which have come on their single mule now bathe together with the utmost gravit}'' ; the father recei\'ing from the mother the infant, which has been brought to receive the one immersion which will suffice for the rest of its hfe."] " In an hour they began to disappear, and in less than three hours the trodden surface of the latelj^ crowded bank reflected no human shadow. The pageant disappeared as rapidl}^ as it had ap- proached, and left us once more the silence and the solitude of the wilderness. It was like a dream. An immense crowd of human beings — said to be eight thousand, but I thought not so many — had passed and repassed before our tents, and left not a vestige behind them." — Lynch's Narrative, p. 260, seq. 174 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XX. BAPTISM OF COUCHES. — MARK VH. 4. IN Carson's polemical enginery we find this canon: "When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from diffi- culties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impos- sibility." And he brings this canon to bear against the idea of a supposed peculiar difficulty in the immersing of couches (rendered in our version " washing of tables," or " beds," as in the mar- gin) . Some have gone so far as to speak of the ' ' impossibility ' ' of the thing ; but this has never been and never can be proved. Professor Shedd (quoting in Lange's " Commentary," from Profess- or J. A. Alexander) ventures only to say that this passage affords, "if not conclusive evidence, at least a strong presumption, that beds (to say no more) might be baptized without immersion." So, under the shelter of Carson's canon, we need not, as jet, feel greatly disturbed. The word here used for couches sometimes refers to beds for sleeping, &c., which — often being but mats, quilts, or very hght mattresses — could be easily carried about in one's arms for quite a distance (Matt. ix. 2-6; also Luke v. 18; Acts v. 15). De Wette, in the passage before us, regards these Mined as being beds in general. In the latest edition of Tischendorf the word is omitted altogether, and it will probably be omitted in our forthcom- ing revised version.^ "We shall here, however, treat it as genuine ; 1 "It is omitted," says Professor Abbot, "by Tischendorf in his last critical edition, and by Westcott and Hort ; retained by Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, Weiss, and the commentators generally. They suppose it to have been omitted by accident. On the other side, it is to be said that the au- thorities which omit it — B. L., the Codex Sinai ticus, and the Codex San Gallensis — are just those which generally preserve the true reading in this STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 175 and, since the other vessels mentioned in the verse refer to eating utensils, we shall regard these klinai as referring to the couches on which people reclined for eating. There were generally three of them around a table (hence called triclinia) ; and each of them commonly was large enough for the occupancy of two, three, or more persons. These couches, according to Dr. John Lightfoot, the great rabbinical scholar, were, rendered unclean by persons affected with leprosy, blood}' issue, &c. The records do not state how often these were baptized ; but it would seem that the occasions for this thorough cleansing were quite unfrequent. Heaton says, "It is incredible that the Jews should immerse their couches be- fore each meal ; " and we agree with him. Nor is any intimation of such frequency given in the gospel narrative. Still the scru- pulosity of excessive Pharisaism would doubtless lead them to perform "incredibilities " and seeming impossibilities. In our ig- norance of the construction of these couches we may suppose that they consisted of a frame-work, with its different coverings. Per- haps the Mine proper — consisting of a light and easily portable mat or coverlet, on which, with the aid of pillows, men were accus- tomed to recline for eating — itself constituted the principal cover- ing, and this alone may have been baptized. Dr. Kitto goes so far as " to suggest that not the bed itself, but its covering, was washed." This, we thinlv, would be hardly enough to satisfy Pharisaic scru- pulosity. According to the custom of the later Jews, even the whole frame-work had to be taken in pieces and dipped. Mark has not told us how these superstitious Pharisees accomplished their couch-dipping ; he simply states that they baptized their couches, — i.e., immersed them in water : and no fancied difficulty connected with the operation should allow us to depart from the usual and established import of that word. Certainl}^ these couches might have been so constructed, that, if they could not be baptized whole, they might yet be taken to pieces, and so baptized. The Rabbi Maimonides saj^s that "every vessel of wood which Gospel. Volkmar adopts Hitzig's conjecture of klibanon, 'earthen pans' or * pots,' for klinon.^' Professor George R. Noyes, who in his translation fol- lows the Greek text of Tischendorf, renders the baptizo of Mark vii. 4, " un- less they bathe;" and the bcqMsmoufi, &c., of the same verse, "the dipping of cups and pitchers, and brazen vessels." Professor Eiddle, in SchaflTs Popular Commentary, likewise omits "couches" from his version. 176 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. is made for the use of man, as a talDle or bed, receives defile- ment. . . . And these were waslied by covering them in water." He farther says, "Abed that is wholl}^ defiled, if a man dip it part b}' part, it is pm-e. If he dips the bed in the pool, although the feet are plunged in the thick claj- at the bottom of the pool, it is clean." Dr. Dale " dechnes the offered intervention of a bed- screw to get them " (these couches) " to the dipping." Perhaps, however, this instrument was not needed ; but, if it were, exces- sive Pharisaism, so sternly rebuked hy the Savioui*, might gladly make use of it. Clement of Alexandria, in his " Stromata," or Miscellanies (bk. iv. chap. 22) , has, by Dr. Dale and some others, been sup- posed to refer to these couch-baptizings when he says, " This is a custom of the Jews that the}' should be often baptized {epi koite) upon bed," — an example, we believe, which is not noticed in Conant's " Baptizein." President Beecher renders this latter phrase, "baptized often upon their couches " ! This, I doubt not, would be going far beyond any tradition ever received from the elders. Knowing that water-baptism, to the mind of Clement, as of the church fathers in general, involved an " intusposition " in water, we cannot believe that the Jews were oft^n baptized " on their couches," or that Clement intended to convej' any such idea. They might thus be baptized upon " bed," if bed be regarded as used euphemisticall}' for sexual commerce (as in Rom. ix. 10), or for " chambering," or lewdness (as in Rom. xiii. 13). For such cases the Levitical rites provided ablutions, and it is to these that Clement evidently refers (see Lev. xv.). Indeed, Clement inter- prets himself in another passage, where he exphcitly affirms that " divine providence, through the Lord, does not now, as former^, command to be baptized from the conjugal bed." The phrase " upon bed" would then mean either on account of or after bed {post concubitum) , as it is rendered in the Latin version of Clement's works b}" Archbishop Potter of England, author of the once well- known " Antiquities of Greece." "With tliis accords the rendering which is given to this passage (by Rev. William Wilson of Mussel- burgh) in Clark's " Ante-Nicene Christian Library' ; " to wit, " It was a custom of the Jews to wash frequently after being in bed." We do not read of any customary baptizing or gwasi-baptizing of persons on beds or couches, literally speaking, till we reach that STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 177 period in early Christian history when baptism came to be regarded as indispensable to salvation ("Nemo adscendit in regnum coslo- rum nisi per sacramentum baptismatis," Ambrose), and "clinic baptisms," so called, came into vogue. Then the sick and dying, if unbaptized, were frequentl}^ affused on their beds : and this " divine compend " or abridgment of baptism would in such a case, of necessity', and through special divine "indulgence," answer for baptism, and insure their eternal salvation ; though, in case of recovery, they were precluded from the office of the ministry.^ It would seem, however, that Athanasius, " the father of ortho- doxy," did not tMnk much of these " clinic baptisms ; " for, when asked his opinion on the common practice of death-bed baptisms, he replied, " An angel once said to my great predecessor, ' Peter ' (a former bishop of Alexandria) , ' wh}' do 3'ou send me those sacks (wind-bags) carefully sealed up, loith nothing luhatever in- side? ' " Yet not all the clinic or bed baptisms were by pouring ; for where immersion was possible, as Dr. Brenner saj's (p. 15), "even clinics were immersed." " For thirteen hundred years," ssLjs this Roman-Catholic writer (p. 306), " was baptism generally and regularl}^ an immersion of the person under water, and only in extraordinary cases a sprinkling or pouring with water : the • latter was, moreover, disputed as a mode of baptism, na}', even: forbidden." (See the German original in Conant's " Baptizein,"' p. 141.) Similar also is the testimony of Dean Stanley in his "History of the Eastern Church" (p. 117) : " There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters,. and that, for at least four centuries, an}" other form was either un- known, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an. exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To this form the Eastern Church still rigidly adheres ; and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, absolutel}" repudiates ^ We may well feel a little hurt that Dr. Dale should speak of our " impov- erished condition as without any baptism," when we, just to save ourselves from drowning, adopt the " compend^' dipping for baptism. To some one who said in Dr. Johnson's hearing that he must live, the doctor replied that he saw no necessity for it. And perhaps Dr. Dale does not deem the preservation of our lives a thing of necessity! But will Presbyterians here- after admit us, though unbaptized, to church-fellowship and communion ? 178 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially in- valid." "We conclude, therefore, that the customary baptizing of the Jews " upon bed," spoken of by Clement, has no reference to any thing like these necessitous extraordinary Christian " clinic baptisms," nor to the baptism of couches spoken of by Mark, but to something of an entirely different nature from either. Yet let us listen to President Beecher: ''Our credulitj^ has been sorely taxed by the demand to believe that couches were habitually ( ?) immersed b}' the Jews ; yes, by all the Jews. Shall we go one step farther, and affirm that it was their custom frequently to be immersed upon their couches? Shall we believe that they had baptisteries below their couches, and an apparatus of ropes and pulleys for elevating and depressing men, couches and all? and that they were in the habit of doing this frequently in the course of one meal ? ' ' What a piling-up of difficulties is here ! — enough, surely, to tax anybody's creduHty ; and yet Beecher's interpretation of Clem- ent is followed by Dale and Stearns, even as they followed his more wonderful interpretation of Cyril, " baptized by the ashes of a heifer " ! . Another false representation of Carson by Hutchings may here be noticed. Carson remarks on Mark vii. 4, " Though it were proved that the couches could not be immersed " (so capitalized by Hutchings and Stearns), " I would not 3'ield an inch of the ground I have occupied." But he goes on to sa}^, "There is no absolute necessity to suppose that the Tclinai were the couches at table." He says they might have been beds such as" one could take up from the street, and carry to his house (Matt. ix. 6) . And, on the fourth page preceding this quotation, he lays down the canon which heads this chapter: "No objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility." Carson was nobody's fool ; and yet Hutchings would make him say, " Such is the meaning of the word, even if it be impossible " ! (See "Mode of Baptism," p. 204.) Should such aspersion as this be cast upon the dead? and is this ad captandum style of argument natm-ally promotive of that " Christian union " for which :this author so tenderly pleads ? STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 179 CHAPTER XXI. BAPTISM OF THE "THREE THOUSAND." "They, therefore, having received his word, were baptized; and on that day were added about three thousand souls." — Acts ii. 41. IN the River Jordan and in the many waters of ^non, the bap- tisteries which John emploj'ed, there was, confessedl}', no scarcit}^ of water ; though the time has been, when not only were JEnon's many waters regarded as small springs, but even the Jordan itself was deemed an insignificant streamlet, not deep enough for human immersion. Nor do our friends find any alarm- ing scarcity till the attempt is made to immerse in Jerusalem the large numbers converted on the day of Pentecost. To be sure, there were almost numberless reservoirs, cisterns, pools, and foun- tains in and around the city ; so that, as Robinson sa^^s, "in the numerous sieges to which in all ages it has been exposed, we nowhere. read of an}- want of water within the city" ("Bib. Re- searches," vol. i. p. 323). " Every one," saj's Professor Stuart, " acquainted with Jewish rites, must know that the}' " (the Jews) " made much use of ablutions, and therefore would pro%-ide many conveniences for them." "Considering," says Dr. Halley, "the multitudes in Jerusalem at the feasts, there must have been means of preserving vast quantities of water." "There was, it must be acknowledged, a great deal of water used in the temple ser- vice." " I must candidly, as I do cheerfully, acknowledge, that there must have been abundance of water in the citj' to have washed awaj' the blood of two hundred and fift}' thousand lambs slain at one passover." Still Professor Robinson has some doubts about the sufficiencj^ of water in that "well-watered" cit}-, as Strabo terms it, for the immersion of so many at one time. (See 180 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Note III., end of the volume.) " Against the idea of then- immer- sion there are," says Plutchings, "three insuperable objections: there was no place to do it in, no provision of baptismal gar- ments, and no sufficient time." Dr. Dale finds "difficulties as mountains upon mountains piled" against the idea of "dipping these three thousand into water within that day." He alleges in the Jirst place, that nothing is said about water, ^ and hence he infers a spiritual baptism, — a baptism " by," or "of," or even " with," but not in, the Holy Spirit (which last preposition is alone emploj-ed by inspiration), although Peter expressl}' distinguishes this baptizing from the recei^'ing of the gift of the Spmt ; secondly, that there is no intimation of the presence of water in or around the place where the}' were ; thirdlp, that the resen^oii's of water gathered for citj' purposes would not be available or suitable for the clipping of the three thousand, even if, fourthly, the enemies of Christ, who slew Him as it were but yesterday, and to-morrow will persecute His disciples unto death, could be so extraordinaril}' courteous as to throw open those reservoirs for the free use of the followers of the hated Nazarene ; and, fifthly, " what is to be done in the matter of dress ? " Here, at the re-occurrence of this clothes difficult}', we may well stop, although our author goes on with still other difficulties and ol^jections. Dr. Johnson said "there were objections against a plenum, and objections against a vacuiun ; but one or the other must be true. ' ' "While considering these objections and difficulties urged by our friends to prove an "impossibility," we have wondered why they have not written more largely on the seemingly ' ' insuperable duUculties ' ' attendant on the alleged keeping of so many national festivals at Jerusalem. It would be a fruitful theme, and they could make out- quite a stoiy. " TJiree times a year" — at the feast of the Passover, lasting seven days ; of the Pentecost, lasting one or two days ; and of the Tabernacles, 1 "Among the difficulties of the case is the fact that water is neither mentioned in the ijassage nor in the context." Neither is it mentioned in sice out of the eight water-rite examples which he finds in apostolic history. And elsewhere he cites the following, which we may regard as a valid rea- son for this " ellipsis of water: " " The doctrine of ellipsis is, that that which is the most essential requisite in any transaction may be omitted, on the ground that it cannot but be missed, and therefore will not fail to be supplied." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 181 continuing eight da3^s — all the male Israelites had to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem, — a place estimated to have been, in our Saviour's time, onl}' about a square mile in extent. At these feasts, and especially, perhaps, at the feast of the Passover, most, if not all, the members of the Jewish famihes were generally present. Jesus' parents went up to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover ; and He, when " twelve years old," went up with them (Luke ii. 41). Josephus (an author inclined, indeed, to exaggeration) tells us, that at one passover there were three million Jews present at Jerusalem, At another passover there were slain, by actual count, two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred lambs ; and he saj^s, not extravagantl}', that not less than ten persons usuall}' partook of each lamb. At our Lord's last passover, twelve besides Himself partook of the Paschal lamb ; and, at this average, there would be over three million persons at the passover. Where could thej get so many male lambs every 3^ear ? But again : it is well known that Titus' siege of Jerusa- lem began at the time of the passover, in April, and lasted nearly five months. At that passover, as Josephus states, innumerable multitudes flocked thither out of "the whole country, and from beyond its limits, even from the ends of the earth, in order to worship God and offer sacrifices at this celebrated place." " This vast multitude, collected out of remote places, even the entire nation, was now shut up by fate as in a prison, and the Roman arm^^ encompassed the city when it was crowded with inhabitants. Accordingly, the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world." (See Matt. xxiv. 21.) He further states that the num- ber of those that were taken captive in Jerusalem was ninety- seven thousand ; that the number of the poor who were buried at public charges was six hundred thousand ; and that the whole number of the slain during this five-months' siege was one miUion one hundred thousand, '"the greater part of whom belonged to the same nation, but not belonging to the cit}- itself; for the}' were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread " (" Wars " 2 : 14, 3 ; 6 : 9, 3, 4, &c.) . Think of such con- vocations at Jerusalem three times a year., when our rarel3'-occurring little missionary gatherings of a few hundred or a thousand well- nigh exhaust the hospitalities of our largest cities ! It will also 182 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. be recollected that the first great outpouring of the Spirit, when so many were converted and baptized, occurred at one of these festivals, — that of the Pentecost, — when there were dwelling at Jerusalem (having come for a two-days' celebration) "Jews, de- vout men, from every nation under heaven," &c. Now, could not our friends find in these multitudinous and real difficulties sufficient proof that never could such festivals have been held with such frequency in such a place as Jerusalem ? Methinks the matter of " clothes " would be found, if not " sufficient to decide the whole question," j'et sufficiently disturbing to their equanimity. Who can tell where or how they hved, what they could get to eat during their long staj^, or where find a place to sleep ? We have seen it stated that Dr. Jennings (in his "Jewish Antiquities") supposes the strangers in the festivals were turned into the fields . to sleep with the cattle ! At the seven-days' feast of Tabernacles they all dwelt in booths. Where could those millions find every year, in that sparsel}- wooded, "bare, and dreary" country, branches and boughs enough to make booths for them all to dwell in ? ^ How could the thousands of defiled ones find water accommo- 1 The country around Jerusalem, and so Judaea generally, may have been better wooded formerly than now : and yet there appears to have been, in David's time, a lack of timber-trees in Palestine for the building of the temple ; and Titus, we know, experienced the greatest difficulty in carrying on his brief siege, A.D. 70, through the scarcity of trees around Jerusalem. " The carriage of materials," says Josephus, when speaking of the latter part of the siege, " was a difficult task, since all the trees that were about the city within the distance of one hundred furlongs " (over eleven miles) "had their branches cut off already in order to make their former banks," or embankments, which the Romans built up against the enemies' fortifica- tions. Lieut. Conder (in his Tent-Work in Palestine) remarks concerning Jerusalem, " a stone town in mountains," that " the surrounding chalk-hills are barren and shapeless." He also states, that, while " the western slopes [of Palestine], exposed to the fresh sea-breeze, are covered with shrubs, the eastern are bare and desert. This natural phenomenon is no doubt un- changeable ; and a minute examination of the country tends to show that the eastern districts, which are now without wood, were also treeless in Bible times" (vol. ii. p. 322). "All the houses," says Dr. Yan Lennep (in his Bible Lands, p. 28), " were built, as they are still, of sun-dried bricks, or of stone. . . . Timber has now become even more scarce than anciently. From the want of beams and rafters, which once supported the roofs, the latter have to be arched; which peculiarity is strikingly seen in all large pictures of modern Jerusalem. It is a city of domes. " There was no such thing as a wooden house, except for a king; and STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 183 dations in Jerusalem sufficient to wash their flesh and their clothes, to say nothing of the countless lesser purifications, before partak- ing of the passover, or before going into the temple-grounds ? In John xi. 55 we read that ' ' many went .up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, that they might purify them- selves " (see also Num. ix. 10 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 17, 18). Josephus also mentions it as an aggravating criminal circumstance, that, during the siege, some soldiers who were engaged in strife, and who, as corpse-defiled men, naturally needed a very thorough ablu- tionary purification, were admitted into the inner courts of the temple-grounds without having first purified themselves, or, as Milman phrases it, ' ' without having performed their ablutions ' ' ( ' ' Wars " 5 : 3,1). And what about the poor ' ' camels and asses , ' ' that needed the River Jordan and ^non's "many waters" to slake their thirst ? ^ What will become of them during their pro- Solomon's house of forty-five cedar pillars, and cedar beams upon them, must have been more wonderful to the people than if built of marble, not merely on account of the quality of the wood, but from its being built wholly of timber. Then, too, as has already been observed, fuel was, and still is, scarce." ^ Charles Taylor, editor of Calmet's Bible Dictionary, in his immersion- pouring "theory," as developed in his Facts and Evidences on the Subject of Baptism, finds a special use for ^non's many waters, or "streams" as he is pleased to interpret it. While acknowledging that "plunging is one sense of the term baptism," he yet holds that the baptism proper was pour- ing, but that the rite consisted of two parts ; the baptism, whether Judaic, Johannic, Christie, or patristic, being generally preceded by immersion, or washing, as symbolical of death, while itself was significant of the resurrec- tion, or newness of life. "Thus John the Baptist might easily baptize a thousand persons in succession; but he required several streams in which many might be bathing themselves or others at the same time, to whom, as they approached him, he administered baptism by pouring. There is no difficulty in admitting that three thousand persons might thus be added to the church by baptism in one day; since those who administered the ritual pouring had no occasion to engage in the previous washing " (Apos. Bap., p. 143). How hard it is for some persons to learn that the Greek has words which mean specifically and properly to sprinkle and to pour, and that &apiti20 can legitimately do neither! In regard to the plain and usual im- port of baptizo, Rev. H. L. Gear truthfully says, "It is impossible to state in the Greek language the fact that Christ was immersed, supi^osing it to be a fact which the inspired penman desired to record, by the use of any word more clearly explicit than baptizo ; and equally impossible, in that language, to require immersion as a duty, if it were sought to be so re- quired." 184 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. traded stay in such a place as Jerusalem, where there is no rain for six months of the 3'ear, and the Ceclron is dried up, and the earth parched like ashes ? But we pass these and other diflficulties over to our friends, who, b}" long experience, know so well what to do with them ; simply remarking, that, nowithstanding all the difficulties thej could conjure up and set forth, the fact still re- mains, that all these numerously- attended festivals were thus ob- served, that the many defiled ones had abundant opportunities for ablution and lustration, that the many camels and asses doubtless survived, and that the three thousand souls, compared to three million, are, as it were, but ". a drop in the bucket." But providing there was plent}" of water at Jerusalem for im- mersing the three thousand, yet Dr, Dale thinks the deadly enemies of Christ and of His followers would hardly be polite enough to put the cit}' water-pools at theii" disposal ' ' for the administration of the distinctive rite of this hated sect." " If there were baths," say Messrs. Cooke and Towne, " the Jews would sooner have opened them to swine than to the followers of the hated Nazarene." But pohteness was certainly the order of the day during these great national festivals, else they never could have been held. Ever}- house in Jerusalem was thrown wide open, and hospitaUties were extended to all, without distinction and without reward. And Luke, moreover, teUs us (Acts ii. 47) that the believers at that time " Jiad favor with all the people." Professor Hackett, in his commentar}' on the Acts, sa^'s, "It is proper to add (against Alford), that the pools, so numerous and large, which encircled Jerusalem, as both those still in use and the remains of others testify at the present da}', afforded ample means for the adminis- tration of the rite. The habits of the East, as ever}^ traveller knows, would present no obstacle to such a use of the pubUc reservoirs." But Dr. Dale tells us that the apostles could not have immersed all the three thousand "within that da}^" "How," inquires Hutchings, " could the twelve immerse their two hundred and fifty apiece in one afternoon, and before dark?" "It would require miraculous "despatch," say Messrs. Cooke and Towne, "to get through with aU the essential preliminaries in less than half a da.y. Now, the apostles had two hundred and fift}' persons each. If we suppose them to have continued immersing without any cessation, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 185 and at the rate of one a minute, the da^^ must have ended before their task was done." Wolff, who seems to have a special fondness for the avoirdupois table, says that " each of the apostles would have had a load of six hundred quintals of human flesh" (two hundred and fifty persons at two hundred and fort}' pounds each ! Infants, surely, must have been excluded from this baptism ! But did his scales weigh correctly?) " to lift up in the space of a few hours. . . . Think of the whole apostolate and the whole church of Jerusalem sunk all the afternoon in water up to the waist, and at times up to the neck, in order to grasp in their arms the bodies of three thousand men, to throw them back, immerse them, and place them upright again ! " And Professor Stuart asks, " Would one da}', or rather some three-quarters of a da}', suffice to perform such a work ? On the supposition that only the apostles baptized, and granting, moreover, that Peter ended his sermon at nine o'clock in the morning (whereas he onl}' began it then) , the consequence would be, that for the remaining nine hours of the da}', or five hun- dred and forty minutes, each apostle must have baptized, on an average, one in about two minutes. . . . However, I concede there are some points left undetermined, and which may seem to aid those who differ from me, in reply to these remarks. It is true that we do not know that baptism was performed by the apostles only, nor that all the three thousand were baptized before the going-down of the sun. The work may have extended into the evening ; and so, many being engaged in it, and more time being given, there was a possibility that the work in question should be performed, although immersion was practised." This candid concession is all we need. All the difficulties, magnified to the utmost, do not "involve an impossibility," and hence are not "decisive" against immersion. We may here state that Dr. Dale finds another difficulty in the fact that "the dipping of females into water publicly by men was deemed by that age an impropriety." Well, if this were so, and if females were " dipped " on this occasion, then we ma}' suppose it was done privately. The question of baptismal clothing troubles all our friends, of course. Possibly, however, these festival-jour- neying and festival-keeping Jews knew how to manage this busi- ness better and easier than our friends imagine. Professor Stuart says, truly enough, that " some points are here left undetermined." The version which our friends use reads 186 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. plain enough : " And there were baptized on that day in Jerusa- lem, b}^ the apostles, about three thousand souls." Accepting our common version, we are left in some uncertainty whether all the three thousand were baptized then and there, and by the apostles. Meyer suggests that probably John's disciples may have been present, and we are not sure that thej' needed to be re-baptized. There is no evidence that any of the apostles who were baptized \)y John were re-baptized hj the Saviour. There is no intimation given that Apollos, who knew only the baptism of John, was re- baptized b}^ Aquila, but only that he and his wife PriscOla " ex- pounded the way of God to him more perfect^." * In Christian knowledge and activity, and in fervency of spirit, he stood on a far higher plane than did the twelve Johannean disciples at Ephe- sus, who, as is commonly supposed, were re-baptized. "In the whole New Testament," says Mej-er, "outside of this instance (Acts xix. 5) , there is no example of the re-baptism of scny disciple of John." "We have, therefore, never 3'et seen the proof, and we never shall, that all of the " about three thousand " who on " that day were added " to the number of Christ's disciples were baptized either on " that day," or in Jerusalem at all. The inspired state- ment as regards the baptism is simpl}' this : ' ' Then they that (gladly) received his word were baptized." This alone determines one thing concerning the baptized ; namelj^, that the}' were of sufficient age and understanding to exercise repentance and ' ' re- ceive " the apostle's word, and hence that no precedent can here be found for 6a6e-baptism. Again, as above stated, we do not know who and how many ad- ministered the rite ; and the knowledge of this is a vital point in our friends' argument. "Jesus baptized not, but his disciples." " Lay -baptism," sa3's a writer in Smith's " Dictionary- of Chiistian Biography" (vol. i., article "Baptism"), "would seem to have been authorized b}' Christ, and deacon-baptism by the apostles." There is at least no certain proof or e^ddence that the twelve them- selves baptized any one of the three thousand, or that thej' ever baptized anj' one after this. Thej' would have fulfilled their " com- mission" had the}' commissioned others to baptize, even as Peter commanded "the baptism of the Gentile converts, dcA'olving the •ser^4ce on his attendants" (Hackett). Dr. Doddridge thinks "the office was generally assigned to inferiors, as requiring no STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 187 extraordinarj' abilities, and as being attended with some trouble and inconvenience, especiallj' where immersion was used, as I sup- pose it often, though not constantl}^, was." From apostolic history we learn that the evangelist Philip baptized ; and, without doubt, the "devout disciple" Ananias baptized the apostle Paul. The apostle himself baptized a few of the Corinthian converts, Crispus and Gains, and the household of Stephanas. But Christ had " much people in that city." Who baptized the believing hoicse- liold of Crispus? Who baptized Fortunatus, Achaicus, the family of Chloe, and the " many " other Corinthian converts? Could not the apostle employ in this work not oxAy Silas and Timothy-, but Aquila and such eminent Christian laymen as he? And, if the apostles themselves could not baptize the pentecostal converts in a given time, could they not " authorize and appoint" some of the hundred and twent}^ brethren in Jerusalem, some of the seventy missionary disciples of Jesus, some of the "over five hundred brethren" (most of whom were doubtless present, and with many of whom the apostles must have been well acquainted) , to help them in this matter ? Others than Baptists have advanced a simi- lar view. Thus Buddeus : "When those three thousand persons that were brought to repentance in one day by the preaching of- Peter were to be baptized, they were led to another place, and might be baptized by the apostles, by others in company with them, and also by the seventy disciples ; for though Luke has not mentioned this, 3'et we cannot thence infer that it is not a fact, seeing many circumstances are frequently omitted for the sake of brevity." Dr. Samuel Davidson remarks, that " in Acts ii. 38-41, when thi'ee thousand were converted in a day to Christianity, . . . the number of the converts renders it probable that many of the hundred and twent}" disciples assisted at the general baptism." Olshausen, who supposes the baptism on this occasion was not administered publicl}', as aftei'wards, in rivers, fountains, &c., but by sprinkling or b}' immersion in private houses, yet speaks of the "help at baptizing" furnished hy these hundred and twenty disciples. He also states that the apostles themselves did not baptize any one after this Pentecost. Besides, have our friends estimated the time required for " any reverent application of water," pouring or sprinkling, performed upon each person, singl}', of all these three thousand, with the 188 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. pronouncing in each case of the full baptismal formula ? Perhaps not much less time would be needed, we should say, than for a full immersion. Matthies (in his " Baptismatis Expositio," p. 128) says that Reiche went so far as to assert that no formula could have been used in the baptism of the three thousand. With a scarcity of administrators, and lack of time, we fear our friends who use only a " compend " of baptism would be tempted to adopt the wholesale Sandwich-Island method, where, some years ago, a much less number (1,705) were on one occasion sprinkled in crowds with a brush or broom, and then the baptismal formula was pronounced once over them all, — a " mode of baptism ' ' which the Andover professors, as we have heard, thought " more honored in the breach than the observance." Some speak, as we have seen, of the needed time for the exami- nation and instruction of so man^^ previous to baptism. But their baptism was conditioned simply on their declared repentance, and their faith in Jesus as the Messiah ; while their further Chris- tian instruction, as Meyer says, was a subsequent matter. — See Acts ii. 42. We have seen some of the points, which, as Stuart concedes, are here left undetermined ; which undetermined points preclude the affirmation of the impossibility of immersion. Bloomfield says, " We need not suppose all (of the three thousand) were baptized." Rev. Lj'man Abbott (in his "Notes on the Acts") saj's, "The three thousand were not baptized uecessaril}- on the same daj^ ; " that there were in Jerusalem ' ' abundant pools for bathing (John V. 4, ix. 7) ; " and that we " cannot safety say there was not time or place for immersion." Dr. Starck, court-preacher at Darm- stadt, remarks (p. 9), that, " in the history of those converted by Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost, there is nothing which compels us to infer that all these were baptized on the spot, and on the same day." Bishop AVilson sa^-s, " ' The same da}',' — that is, at that time, on account of that sermon ; though they might not all be baptized in one daj', but were at that time converted." So Dr. Dollinger : " It is not said that the three thousand converts were baptized the same day, but onl}' ' on that day were added about three thousand souls : ' i.e., their conversion and belief took place on that da}'." Such, also, was the opinion of Venema and Bossuet. Professor Hackett says they were baptized, "not necessarily at STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 189 once after the discourse, but naturally during the same da}-, if we would unite the next clause closety with this. But the compendi- ous form of the narrative would allow us, with some editors, to place a colon iDetween the two clauses ; and then the baptism could be regarded as subsequent to prosetetJiesmi, taking place at such time and under such circumstances as the convenience of the par- ties might require." And, notwithstanding a few talk of the impossibility of the thing, we yet believe, that had Luke been endowed on the day of Pente- cost with the power to speak and write our language, and that in his English edition of ' ' the Acts of the Apostles ' ' he had plainly recorded these words, " The}', therefore, having received Peter's word, were immersed, and on that day there were added about three thousand souls," scarcelj^ a Pedobaptist Christian in the EngUsh-speaking world would think of offsetting the^e incon- veniences and difficulties against the established, usual, proper meaning of the word " immersed." But the native Greeks, who have ever known their language as we do ours, as also " the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek," — all of whom, as Professor Stuart says, undeniablj' "understood the usual import of the word baptizo.," — have ever regarded that word as simply and plainly- significant of immersion ; and all the inconveniences and difficulties, real and imaginary, which have so troubled our friends, even though augmented a hundred-fold, would not have in their minds the weight of a feather as against the settled, usual, and proper meaning of that word. History, it is said, repeats itself; and it is a singular and inter- esting fact that other three thousands since the apostles' time have been immersed in one day. Our first reference shall be to English history. La the centre of a remarkable fountain in the north of England, called " the Lad3''s Well," there stands to-day a large crucifix, on the base of which is the following inscription : " Li this place Paulinus, the bishop, baptized three thousand Northumbrians, Easter DCXXVII." A view of this fountain and crucifix is given in the frontispiece of Dr. Cathcart's "Baptism of the Ages and of the Nations ; " and a description of Paulinus' baptisms is found on pp. 26-32 of the same work. We now pass over to the continent, and go back in history some thirteen dec- ades of years. Gregory of Tours, in his " Historia Fraucorum," 190 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. lib. ii. cap. 31, tells us, that, in A.D. 496, Remigius, bishop of Rheims, baptized Clovis (Chloclovechus) , king of France, and "more than three thousand of his army." This heathen king, when engaged in battle with the barbarians, and about to be re- pulsed, thought of the God of his wife, and exclaimed, with eyes elevated to heaven, " Jesu Christe, quern Chrotechildis prsedicat esse filium Dei vivi," &c. ("Jesus Christ, whom Clotilda pro- claims to be the Son of the living God, ... if thou wilt grant me victory over these enemies ... I will believe in thee, and in thy name be baptized.") He gained the victor}^, and was baptized with more than three thousand of his army ; and this example was followed by the greater part of the nation. According to Dr. Sears (in "Christian Review," vol. iii. p. 92), Hincmar (a suc- cessor and biographer of Remigius) and other historians confirm in substance the statements of Gregory. — See further, on Clovis' baptism, Cathcart's " Baptism of the Ages," p. 82, seq. Neander (in his "Church Histor}'," vol. iii. p. 8) simplj^ says, "It is reported that more than three thousand of his army were baptized at one time." We now go back still earher, to the night preceding Easter Sun- day, " the great Sabbath," April 16, A.D. 400, when in Constan- tinople, and in troublous times, Clnysostom's presbyters, during his domestic imprisonment, baptized "about three thousand" catechumens. And as Chrysostom, in common with all the church fathers of that period, practised the trine immersion in baptism with all the then customar}^ renunciations, exorcisms, insufflations, responses, confessions, and manifold attendant ceremonies of con- secration, unction, signing of the cross, &c., we may say that virtu- aU}" more than three times three thousand were baptized during that night in the apostohc and modern Baptist iv&j. " On Easter Eve the church of Chrj'sostom and the friendly clergy met together, as was the custom, to spend the night in vigils, and to greet the first rays of Easter morning. With them were assembled three thou- sand 5'oung Christians who were to receive baptism. While they were engaged in singing and pra^'er, armed troops, without the knowledge of the emperor, and by whose command is not known, at nine o'clock in the evening, broke into the church, rushed upon the choir, and proceeded to thrust out the assembled church and clergy with such violence, tliat the font and the vessels of the altar STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 191 were overturned, and the blood of the wounded mingled with the baptismal waters. The congregation repaired to the halls of a neighboring bath, and the church on the next morning stood empty." ^ " It happened that the emperor went out that day to divert himself in a meadow adjoining the city, where he espied a field covered all over with white. These were the catechumens who had been baptized the night before, and had then (as the cus- tom was in the primitive chiu'ch) their white garments upon them, and were in number near three thousand. . . . The emperor was strangely surprised at the sight, and asked the guards who tiiey were ; who, the more to exasperate him against them, told him they were a conventicle of heretics. A party of soldiers were im- mediately drawn out, and ordered to go and disperse the assembly " (William Cave's "Lives of the Fathers," p. 496). "The em- peror," says Palladius (in his " Yit. Chrj's.," cap. 9), " was as- tonished at the sight of the newlj'-baptized ; for they were about three thousand." ^ Here, at least, is a veritable instance of the 1 See p. 185 of Perthes' Life of John Chrysostom (from wliich. tlie above extract is taken), translated by Alvah Hovey and D. B. Ford; also Mean- der's Life of Chrysostom, vol. ii. p. 225, and the works of Chrysostom, Montfaucon's edition, vol. iii. p. 618, and vol. xiii. p. 38; also the above- mentioned article of Dr. Sears. We have as yet seen no authority for Perthes' statement, that " the font was overturned " by the violence of the soldiers; although the overturning of the baths {kolianbethrai) was not, we suppose, an impossible thing. Chrysostom himself, describing this affair in a letter to Pope Innocent, says that " the baths were filled with blood; " and Palladius, a contemporary and biogi-apher of Chrysostom, records the testimony, as of an eye-witness, that "the font" (kolumbethra) "was stained with blood." 2 We give herewith the Latin translation of Montfaucon's edition, vol. xiii. p. 38: "Die sequent! egressus Imperator ut sese exerceret in vicino campo, vidit agrum . . . non consitiim et candentem et stupefactus adspectu coloris nuper baptizatorum (erant enim ad tria ferme millia)," &c. And we may here state that Palladius gives the number twice as "about three thousand." No well-informed jDerson will deny that Chrysostom's baptisms were immersions. — See Conant's Exs. 184-186, 229, 230. Professor Conant also gives some seventeen examples of classic usage from Chrysostom. For an account of the immersion of a still larger number in a single day by Otho or Otto, the apostle of the Pomeranians, see Christian Eeview, vol. iii. p. 92, seq., art. by Dr. Sears. That Otto used no " compend " when he baptized those great multitudes is evident from the following description of his profuse sweating during the process: " Licet solos mares pueros tin- 192 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. immersion of " about three thousand " in one night, and under greater difficulties than an}' which attended the Pentecostal bap- tism, as may be further seen in Note IV., end of the volume. geret, ssepenumero sudantem aspeximus, adeo profecto, ut alba ejus ab humeris usque ad umbilicum ante et retro, sudore manaret. Saspe etiam ipsius ministerii nimiete lassatus brevi sessione vires recuijerans modicum- que sedendo respirans, quasi animosus operator et strenuus denuo se suble- vabat in idem opus sibi dulcissimum, gratias agens omnipotenti Deo, quod ipsius prsestante dementia tot manipulos in ejus liorrea cum sudore ac lassitudine sua congereret." The renowned bishop of Milan, Ambrose, we suppose, would have taken it easier ; for it is related of him that he could baptize nearly five times as many in the same time as any other bishop who succeeded him. For an account of the baptism of other large numbers, we refer our readers to Dr. Cathcart's Baptism of the Ages. Note. — After this chapter had issued from the press, and most of the succeeding chapters had been placed in the printers' hands, we received a new work, kindred in general character to the one last mentioned, entitled " The Act of Baptism," by Eev. HEisriiY S. Bukkage of Portland, Me., and published by the American Baptist Publication Society. The author goes over substantially the same ground as Dr. Cathcart, only from an earlier starting-point, in chronological order, with a wider outlook, and with mi- nuter steps. It appears to be throughout a scholarly, able, and reliable treatise on " what has been the act of baptism in the history of the Chris- tian Church;" and we can only regret our inability to avail ourselves, to any considerable extent, of the benefit of its pages. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 193 CHAPTER XXII. BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH. "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water," &c. — Acts viii. 38, 39. DR. DALE translates this narrative somewhat ad sensum, and this, too, according to his own sense of the passage ; and hence his translation differs materially from that of Eang James' version, and probably from that which Queen Victoria's translators will give. The substance of it is this, — that, as Philip and the eunuch were journej^ng in the chariot, they came upon or over a little water ; whereupon they both stepped out of the chariot to or into the water ; and, after Philip had baptized the eunuch (into the name of the Lord Jesus, by pouring from his hand a little water on the eunuch's head), they both remounted the chariot, and Phihp was caught away out of the chariot by the Spirit, even. as Elijah before him had been caught up in a chariot, &c. (as see Dale's " Christie Baptism," 182, seq.) It will be noticed that the chariot occupies an important place in; this new version. " The position of the chariot in relation to the water is of vital importance." Both Wolff and Dale assert that the chariot " came upon or over a little water." It strikes me that the eunuch could not so well say, " See, water! " when the chariot was standing over it, as when approaching it, and at some little distance off. And again: neither the "desert" through- which the eunuch passed, nor the ti Jiudor which gladdened his vision, indicates any scarcity of water for immersion. The Judaean . deserts generallj^ were not sand, but wilderness, "without villages or fixed habitations; " and the ti Jmddr, according to Professor 194 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Hackett, means " a certain water, not some, as the genitive would follow that partitive sense." Dr. William M. Thomson, author of " The Land and the Book," in describing the country through which Phihp probably passed in his journey from Samaria to Azo- tus (Ashdod, near which place he locates the baptism of the eunuch), says, "Philip would then have met the chariot some- where south-west of Latron. There is a fine stream of water, called Murubbah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends. This (Murubbah) is merely a local name for the great wady Sm^ur, given to it on account of copious fountains which supply it." (See Note V., end of the volume.) Our readers, perhaps, will recollect the doctor's invariable transla- tion of ejn as upon or over; and so, according to his philology, we shall read in John yi. 16 that the disciples went down (epi) upon or over the sea, and then entered into a ship ! One great objec- tion, in Dale's view, to our interpretation, is, that it fails to get the eunuch either out of or into his chariot. But, b}^ placing the chariot over the little water, the dismounting and reaching the water required but one step. The verb Tcatabaino (to go down) being sometimes in Greek literature applied to dismounting from a horse or carriage, makes, according to Dr. Dale, no provision for walking down a slope into the water. Just one step is all that it will allow. Then Jacob, we must say, took a long stride when he went down into Egypt ; and the man who went down from Jerusa- lem to Jericho might seemingly have escaped the thieves ; and the publican who went down from the temple to his house justified, &c., must have had his domicile hard by the sanctuary ! At least, in the going-down of these two personages into the water there is, we are told, " no second step on record." And the same is true of the remounting from the water. No wonder that the chariot is made ' ' the determining interpretative element in important phrase- ology in this baptism." But this, we are sure, is quite enough to give our readers an insight into Dr. Dale's "interpretative" capacities. Professor Stuart, it would seem, has some doubt about his going down into the water. After referring to a going-down to (eis) Capernaum, to Egj^pt, to Attaha, to Troas, to Antioch, to Cassa- Tca (as though none of those places were entered), he sa3's, " On the other hand, I find but one passage in the New Testament STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 195 where it (eis with Txatahaino) means into ; \\z., Rom. x. 7, ' Who shall go down into the abj'ss ? ' But even here the sense to is good." Sometimes good Homer nods, and it would seem that Professor Stuart here was not quite so wide awake as usual. He certainly might have referred to one clear example (Mark xiii. 15) : " And he that is upon the house, let him not go down into the house ' ' (but make his escape b}^ an outwaj-) . No one, we presume, will maintain that the Greek language has fitter terms to express the idea of going down (not under, but) into and coming up out of the water than those which the inspired historian has here employed. Nor will any one maintain that it was necessar}' for both Philip and the eunuch to go down into the water merely that one might sprinkle a few drops of water upon the forehead of the other, while it will be acknowledged that this entrance into and exit out of the water was necessary in case of a full immersion. No Baptist, we presume, ever held that the de- scent of these two personages into the water constituted of itself a full and proper immersion. And hence we need not be told, as Dr. Miller and manj' others have told us, that " there is the same evidence that Philip was plunged as that the eunuch was." The evidence that the eunuch was ' ' plunged ' ' is the asserted fact that Philip "baptized him" after thej' had both descended into the water. Nor do we suppose that any Baptist holds that their de- scent into the water does of itself absolutely prove the fact of a subsequent immersion. The}^ might have both gone down into the water " even to the loins," as Professor Stuart says, in order that Philip might sprinkle a few drops of water on the eunuch's fore- head ; though the world, if present, would, methinks, have/eZ^ like laughing at such a needless effort, j-ea, at such a ridiculous per- formance. Rev. Mr. Heaton concedes that the phraseology will take them both into the water, if the sense of the passage rendered it self- evident ; and he further acknowledges, that, if there was any going into the water, it was probably for immersion. But, to make an entrance into water certain, he would have Luke prefix a different preposition {eis) to the simple verb, or use the adverb eso (within) before the noun. But I am not sure that these suggested improve- ments would not baptize both Philip and the eunuch ; and this would be adding to God's word, to say nothing of the dire fatality. 196 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. which, on Dale's theory, would attend this double immersion. The simple verb of motion with eis is amply sufficient to take baptizer and candidate far enough out into the water to effect a " complete intusposition " in the same, and it is the height of foil}' to imagine that eis (into) will onlj' take them to the water when such baptismal intusposition is required. Mr. Heaton him- self gives two very good reasons why Luke and ourselves maj^ rest satisfied with his phraseolog}'. One is, that the word baptizo — which, in its primary-, proper, physical, and common use, "demands intusposition" — makes the sense of the passage ^^self-evident " as requiring a complete immersion ; and, secondly, the verb katdbaino is ah'eady provided with a prepositional prefix, and cannot take another. He saj's, however, that Luke need not have stated the " very tri'^ial circumstance of going doion out of the carriage, or of going a few feet down a hill." But Baptists, the world over, always speak of going down into the vjcUer when administering the rite of baptism ; and Luke, as a consistent Baptist, could not have omitted it here. If one will but look at Conant's " Bap- tizein," he will see that this phrase, Jcatabaino eis to hudor, will not only take a man to the water and into the water, but will, under certain conditions, sink him beneath the water. Cjiil, bishop of Jerusalem, says, " So also thou, going down into the water, and in a manner buried in the waters as He in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of life" (C. 176). The same author also says, " You are about to descend into the baptisterj- in order to be plunged into the water " {eis to hudor katabainein) . The like phraseology is found in C. 226 : " Going down into the bath (loutron) of regeneration, ... he comes up (anerchomai) from the baptism," &c.^ Mr. Heaton may be well assured that the 1 " Katabaino, avford never signiijing to go under water " (Hutchings). An instance of a diving katabaino is adduced by Carson, p. 409, from ^sop's writings: ""When Mercuiy, compassionating tlie woodman who let his axe drop into the river, dived three times, one of the dips was by kata- duo, and the other two by katabas.^' Besides the 'above examples from Cyril, Dr. Dale (p. 587 of his Ch. and Pat. Baptism) adduces two others, in which there is, as he acknowledges, a "water-covering A;aia6airio." They are both taken as if from Clemens Romanus. " For this is the power of the imposition of hands: unless such invocation" ( prayer for the baptized person) " be made, he who is baptized only descends into the water as the Jews, and only removes the impurity of the body, not the impurity of the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 197 going down into the water and the coming up oict of (eJc, not ajxj) the water, in connection with baptizo^ renders an intusposition in water "self-evident" and " morall}- certain." I doubt whether any Greek teacher in the world would allow a pupil, in translating into Greek the phrase, went away from the shore or edge of the water, to use eJc instead of apo. Had it not been for the incidental mention of commanding the chariot to stop, one might have supposed that Queen Candace's chamberlain was pursuing his journe}" alone. But he was the treasurer of Ethiopia, a state officer, and probably travelled in state, and had a retinue of attendants and serA-ants ; and in his long journey of some eight hundred miles, much of the way through deserts and wilderness, he doubtless had an ample suppl}' of rai- ment, pro\isions, water, and tents, — exery thing, indeed, which a travelling caravan on such a journey would need. Does any one suppose that such a personage as he had no accommodations for change of clothing, or for sleeping, in all that long journe}'? An}' book of modern travels in Palestine will show the need that travel- lers have for full water-skins, provisions, tents, servants, &c., even in their comparativel}' short journey's. The}' will also show how refreshing is a cool bath beneath that cloudless sky, and under that burning sun. Mr. Noel intimates, that even if the eunuch's wet under-garments of linen were dried upon his person, pro%T.ded he had thrown around him other dr}' clothing, he would have suf- fered no great inconvenience. Perhaps, in the latitude of Southern Palestine, he M^ould have deemed this even a luxur}'. Of one thing concerning him we are well assured, " He went on his way rejoicing." soul" (Apos. Constitutions, vii. 44). And again: "This lie saj-s, because we go doioh into the water full of sins and impurity, and come up bearing fruit," &c. (see Epistle of Barnabas, x. 14.) All we seek for, however, iu our passage, is a water-entering katabaino. Cyril of Jerusalem uses, not katabas eis, but en, in describing the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. His language is, "The dragon was in the waters, according to Job" (xl. 18 of the Seventy), — "he that taketh up the Jordan in his mouth. Since, there- fore, it was necessary to crush the heads of the dragon. He, going doicn hi the waters, bound the strong one, that we might have power to tread on serpents and scorpions." For further examples, see Conant's Baptizein, 228, 229, &c. On anabalno, as emerging, &c, see Chap. X. of this volume. 198 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. If it be true, as some one informed Mr. Heaton, that it would take, to effect a certain kind of baptism, " less water than may be put upon a silver five-cent piece," then, methinks, there was no need for the eunuch to have delayed his baptism till he could say, "See, water!" and no need for their both going down, both Philip and the eunuch, either into, or even to, the water, for that almost infinitesimally small amount of liquid. If the water they had with them was not deemed so pure, and fit for baptizing- purposes, as the water of the wilderness, even thus there was no necessity for both to leave the chariot, and go down aujnvhere, since any one of the eunuch's attendants (of whom, if the travelling in that country was as dangerous then as it has been almost ever since, there must have been quite a compan}' to insure safety) could easily have furnished a sufficiency of this baptizing-water to serve the demands of any baptismal " compend," especially if it was so slight as that which om- friends practise nowadays. We suppose, however, that, at that early day, any water which was fit for drinking would well serve for baptizing. " It would be," saj's Doddridge, " very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water merel}^ that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage on such a journey, through so desert a country', — a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted b}" them." Carson says that this passage, "amidst the most violent perversion it can sustain on the rack, wiU still cr}^ out, ''Immersion! immersion!'" Whether it is put on the rack or not, it will still utter the same cry. It has been thought by some, that, as the eunuch had been read- ing from our fiftj'-third of Isaiah, he ma}' have read the immedi- atel}' preceding prophetic announcement concerning the servant of Jehovah, — "So shall he sprinkle many nations," — and that thus he ma}' have come to regard this sprinkling as somehow connected with baptism, or even as identical with it. It will be observed, however, that water is not mentioned in connection with the sprin- kling ; so that both the action and meaning of the word are left quite indefinite. It is, moreover, a remarkable fact, that, in all the Mosaic rites of purification, there is no sprinkling with mere water. This seems rather to be a modern, Pedobaptistic method STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 199 of purifying. Many commentators, as Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, and others, refer even the "clean water" spoken of in Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with which Jehovali would "sprinkle" the house of Israel, to the purifying heifer-ashes water of Numb. xix. 17. But, whatever this sprinliling in Isaiah may refer to, it would seem that the connection between the Messiah's sprinkling many (Gentile) nations and his own personal baptism at the hands of Philip could not have been very obvious to his mind. If he had got any such mistaken idea, the evangelist, without doubt, would have corrected his eiTor, and have instructed him as to the true nature and mode of Christian baptism. It is well known that commentators are divided in their opinions as to the true meaning of the word in Isaiah which is rendered " sprinlde " in our version. It is used elsewhere than in this pas- sage nineteen times in the Old Testament, and always in the sense to sprinkle, but always with a regimen which makes it to sprinkle something upon something. On account of this difference of regimen, and of a needed paraUeKsm or antithesis to the aston- ishment expressed in the preceding verse, most commentators (but not Hengstenberg, Wordsworth, or Alexander) give it the sense of leaping for joy, exulting, or starting with amazement, &c. And even Delitzsch, the chief of living Hebraists, adopts the rendering, exsilire faciet; i.e., cause to leap in amazement, to tremble with astonishment, to electrify. The Syriac and Vulgate versions, with our own, render it as meaning to " sprinkle ; " but the earlier Greek or Alexandrian version of the Seventy — the version most prevalent in Eg3'pt and the bordering kingdom of Ethiopia ; the version from which the New-Testament writers chiefly quote ; from which Luke in the chapter before us quotes at least almost verbatim ; and from which, according to the writer in Smith's "Bible Dictionary," ' ' the Ethiopian eunuch was reading " — is wholly silent as to any sprinkling, and renders it, "so shall many nations be astonished at him." According to Tischendorf's eighth and last critical edi- tion of the New Testament, Luke's quotation exactly accords with the Alexandrian manuscript of the Septuagint. But, after all, the meaning of this Hebrew word is not a decisive point in this contro- vers}' . Saj-s Albert Barnes, in his notes on this passage in Isaiah, "It may be remarked, that, whichever of the above senses is assigned, it furnishes no argument for the practice of sprinlding in 200 ■ STUDIES ON BAPTISM. baptism. It refers to the fact of His purifying and cleansing the nations, and not to the ordinance of Cluistian baptism. Nor should it be used as an argument in reference to the mode in which that should be administered." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 201 CHAPTER XXIII. BAPTISMAL BURIAL. "Know ye not that all we who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death ? We were buried, therefore, with Him by the baptism into the death, that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life." — KoM. vi. 3, 4. " Buried with Him in the baptism wherein ye were also raised with Him." — Col. ii. 12, ACCORDING- to a Pedobaptist writer, this sentence, " buried with Him in baptism," has made " more Baptists than any other passage in the Bible." "lvalue," saj^s Carson, " the e"v4- dence of these passages so highlj^, that I look on them as perfectly decisive. Thej^ contain God's own explanation of His own ordi- nance. . . . We have both the meaning of the word and the inspired explanation in our favor. . . . Death, burial, and resur- rection are all expressly in the emblem. . . . Twist and twist as you will, still there is a burial in baptism. . . . Buried with Christ by baptism must mean that baptism has a resemblance to Christ's burial. Were the angel Gabriel to hesitate, I would order him to school." This last utterance of Carson, perhaps not wholly un- objectionable, has disturbed Dr. Dale, we suppose, much more than it has the angel himself. We hardly need to inform our readers, that with a few excep- tions, scarcely worthy of mention by reason of their fewness, the great body of the most eminent Christian scholars, theologians, and commentators of the world, have seen, in the light of Paul's statements, a burial in Christian baptism^ — a burial derived from the practice of immersion. Dr. S chaff, the editor of Lange's "Bible- Work," concedes that " all commentators of note (except 202 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit, or take it for gi'anted, that in this verse . . . the ancient prevaihng mode of baptism by immer- sion and emersion is implied as giving additional force to the idea of the going-down of the old and the rising-up of the new man." We need instance, in this connection, but the names of Riickert, Fritzsche, Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Kahnis, Dollinger, Pressense, Alford (cautiously), Conybeare and Howson, Ellicott, and J. B. Lightfoot. For other references, see Booth's " Pedobaptism Examined. " A large part of Professor Conant's citations from the fathers has reference to baptism as a symbol of the Saviour's burial, or of the believer's burial with Him. No intelligent and candid person will now dispute, that with these fathers a proper baptism was always an immersion, or at least was never performed without immersion, and involved the two- fold idea of katadusis and anadusis (submersion and emersion). " In what manner," asks Professor Stuart, " did the churches of. Christ from a very earl}^ period, to say the least, understand the word baptizo in the New Testament ? Plainly they construed it as meaning unmersion." From whence did they derive this practice? President Beecher teUs us, in part from " a false interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12." "Our Baptist brethren," he rightly says, " regard these passages as an inspired exposition of the mode of baptism ; as proving irresistibly that the rite is designed, not merely to represent purification from sin, but purifica- tion in a way significant of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Him. . . . Nor are they without authority for interpreting these texts as referring to the mode of the external rite. Indeed, the opinions of the fathers, whatever they may be worth, are entirely with them." Let us listen now to some of these fathers on this subject of baptismal burial. " We celebrate in baptism the symbol and sign of His death and resurrection." " We repre- sent our Lord's sufferings and resurrection bj^ baptism in a font " (or pool, kolumbethra, swimming-place ; in Latin, piscina, or fish- pool) . — Justin Martyr, born about A.D. 90. " For b}' an image we die in baptism ; but we truly rise in the flesh, as also did Christ." " The pascha (passover) ofiers a more solemn season for baptism ; for then was fulfilled the passion of the Lord into which we are baptized." — TertuUian, born about A.D. 160. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 203 Dr. Sears remarks " that the great body of the ancient church reserved, except in cases of peril, all the baptisms of the year until the festival of the death and resurrection of Christ. . . . This sentiment prevailed to such an extreme, that Gregory Nazian- zen, Basil, and Clnysostom were obliged, as wise men, to labor to show that any other time, though less interesting, was nevertheless perfectl}^ proper for baptism. . . . Now, the whole ground of this universal practice was, that Paul, in their view, declared baptism to be an emblem of death and resurrection." It will be recollected that the baptism of the " about three thousand " by Chrysostom's presbyters at Constantinople occurred on the night preceding the Easter or " gi-eat Sabbath." ' ' You were led to a bath as Christ was conveyed to the sepul- chre ; and were thrice baptized, to signify Christ's three-da3's' burial." — Clement of Alexandria, born about A. D. 150. "We are, therefore, through this bathing (loutron), buried with Christ in regeneration." — Origen, born A. D. 184. "As the Lord's body, buried in the earrth, begat salvation for the world, so also om: body, buried in the baptism, begat righteousness for us. The likeness is this : As Christ died, and on the third day arose, so also we, djdng in the baptism, arise. For that the child sinks down thrice in the font and comes up, this shows the death and the resurrection, on the third day, of Christ." — Athanasius, born about A.D. 296. (See Dale's "Christie Baptism," p. 589, and C. 188.) " After these things ye were led by the hand to the sacred font of the divine baptism, as Christ from the cross to the prepared tomb. . . . And ye professed the saving profession, and sank down thrice in the water, and again came up ; and there, by a symbol, you shadbwed forth the three-days' burial of Christ. . . . And in the same je died and were born, and that saving water became to 3'ou a grave and a mother." — C3Til, bishop of Jeru- salem, born about A.D. 315 (C. 178, 179). " And what is more akin to it (baptism) than Easter Da^^ ? For the day is a memorial of the resurrection, and baptism is a power in respect to the resur- rection (or is a ground of our resurrection ") . "Then we come to baptism in water, which is a likeness of the cross, of death, bmial, and resurrection from the dead." " Wherefore the Lord, who dispenseth life to us, gave us the covenant of baptism, containing an image of death and life ; the water fulfilling the image of death, 204: STUDIES ON BAPTISM. and the Spirit giving the earnest of life," " Therefore, in three submersions, kataduseis, and as many invocations, the great m.ys~ •terj' of baptism is completed, that the emblem of death may be imaged forth." — Basil the Great, born about A. D. 316. (See Professor Chase's article on " Basil an Important Witness respect- ing Baptism in the Fourth Century," in " Christian Review," Octo- ber, 1858.) " Coming to the water, we conceal ourselves in it as the Saviour concealed Himself in the earth ; and this we do three times, to represent the grace of His resurrection performed after three daj's." "The old man is buried in water : the new man is born again, and grows in grace." — Gregor}^ of Nyssa, brother of Basil. " Christ is baptized : let us descend also with Him, that with Him we may likewise ascend. John baptizeth, and Christ approacheth, sanctif3-ing him also who baptizeth, but chiefly to burj' the old Adam in the waters, and, above all, that thereby the waters of Jor- dan might be sanctified," &c. " Let us, therefore, be buried with Christ b}^ the baptism, that we may also rise with Him ; let us go down with Him, that we may also be exalted with Him ; let us come up with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him." — Greg- ory Nazianzen, born about A.D. 320 (C. 189). " Naaman the Sj'rian dipped seven times under the law ; but thou wert baptized in the name of the Trinit}'. . . . Hold fast the order of things in this faith. Thou didst die to sin, and didst rise again to God ; and as though co-interred with Him in that element of the world, having died to sin, thou wert raised again to Hfe eternal." " For, when thou sinkest down, thou dost take on a similitude of death and burial." " Thou saidst, I believe, and thou didst sink down ; that is, wast buried." " So, then, also in baptism, since there is a simihtude of death, without doubt, whilst thou dost sink down and rise again, there is a similitude of the resurrection." — Ambrose, born about A.D. 340 (C. 210-214). " For to be baptized and to sink down, then to emerge, is a s^Tnbol of the descent into the under- world, and of the ascent from thence. Therefore Paul calls the baptism the burial." " Our first man was buried ; buried not in earth, but in water ; dissolved not by death, but b}' Him who dissolved death, and buried him not by the law of nature, but bj' the command of Authority' mightier than nature. . . . Nothing is more blessed than this burial, whereat all rejoice, both angels and men, and the Lord of angels. For this burial there needeth not STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 205 garments, cofflu, or the like. Would 3'ou see a sign thereof? I will show 3'ou a pool wherein one was buried, another rose. The Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, and the Israelites arose out of it. And the same thing whifh buries the one produceth the other. Marvel not that there is both birth and destruction in bap- tism."— Chrysostom, born about A.D. 347 (C. 184-186). "In this font before we dipped your whole body {antequam vos toto corpore tingueremus) , we asked you, 'Believest thou in God, the Omnipo- tent Father?' . . . After 3'ou averred that j^ou believed, we im- mersed (demersimus) three times j'our heads in the sacred font. For you are rightly immersed {mersi estis) three times who re- ceive baptism in the name of the Trinity. You are rightl}^ im- mersed three times, 3"ou who receive baptism in the name (m nomine) of Jesus Christ, who rose the third da}^ from the dead. Trine immersion is the symbol of the burial of the Lord, by which you are buried with Christ in baptism, and with Christ rise again b}' faith." — Augustine, born A.D. 354. " Baptism is a type of our Lord's death." " In hoi}' baptism we receive the tj-pe of the resurrection." "He that is baptized is buried with the Lord, that, taking part with Him in death, he may also be a partaker of His resurrection. But if the body is dead, and does not rise, why is it then baptized?"— Theodoret, born about A.D. 386. "This baptism, therefore, is given into the death of Jesus : the water is instead of the burial (or grave) ; the descent into the water, the dying together with Christ ; the ascent out of the water, the ris- ing again with I-Iim." — "Apostolical Constitutions," bk. \i. chap. xvii., fourth or fifth centmy after Christ. "The entire concealment in water fitl}- represents Christ's death and burial." — Dionysius Areopag. " Trine immersion represents the three-da^'s' burial of Christ." — Leo the Great, born about A.D. 390. Man}^ other quotations from the fathers may be found in Dr. Sears' " Review of Burgess on Baptism," Conant's "Baptizein," Dale's "Patris- tic Baptism," and Dr. Pusey's " Scriptural Views of Holy Bap- tism " (No. 67, " Tracts for the Times "). As we began with the time of Justin Mart3T of the first centmy, so we might come down through the ages, almost to the present hour, arrajing an ' ' unbroken phalanx ' ' of witnesses to the as- sured belief that Paul saw in Christian baptism an immersion- burial in water which was symbolical of Christ's death and burial, 206 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. and of the believer's death and burial with Christ. We will, how- ever, adduce only one more testimony, — that of Dr. William AVaU, the renowned author of the " Histor^^ of Infant-Baptism," and the ablest defender of that pmetice, though himself properly an immersionist in belief, as witness (in addition to his testimony heretofore given) the following words : ' ' This ' ' (immersion in the early churches) "is so plain and clear hj an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown and, show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English anti-Pedobaptists merely for their use of dipping. It is one thing that that circumstance is not ab- solutely necessary to the essence of baptism, and another to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent ; when it was, in all probability, the way by which our blessed Sa^aom', and for certain was the most usual and ordinar}?- way by which the ancient Christians, did receive their baptism. . . . It is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certaiul}" true, and may be proved so" (Part II. chap. ix. vol. ii. p. 297, fourth London edition). In his defence of the "History of Infant -Baptism" (vol. iii. p. 123) he says, " I have always held and taught, that, where bap- tism may with safety be administered in that way of dipping which St. John (the Baptist) and the apostles in those hot countries used, that waj* ought to be preferred ; in cases of haste, want of a quantity of water, or danger to health, pouring of water to be sufficient, and indeed, in the case of the danger of health, the best way ; for God will have mere}', and not sacrifice. As for sprin- Ming, I say, as Mr. Blake did at its first coming up in England, ' Let them defend it that use it.' " ^ And, in urging his " brethren 1 Dr. Wall uses the following dissuasives from sprinkling in favor of immersion, or, at least, of pouring: "To those who use sprinkling instead of dipping, or even pouring water (which last is enjoined by our church even in the weakest child's case), I would humbly represent the considera- tion of the duty of obedience which they not only owe to the rules of the church to which they have promised to conform, but also and chiefly to our Saviour Himself, whose word of command is. Baptize. I wish they would study the notion and emphasis of that word." After remarking that the word includes both dipping and washing in its signification, he adds, " They will do well to consider whether they shall be able to justify before our STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 207 of the clergy " to the practice of immersion, he says, a few pages farther on, " Our climate is no colder than it was for those thirteen or fourteen hundred jesirs from the beginning of Christianity' here to Queen Elizabeth's time, and not near so cold as Muscov}^ and some other countries where they do still dip their children in bap- tism, and find no inconvenience in it ; " that the mode (dipping) " which all our fathers in this island practised till a few years ago, without damage to their children's health, cannot be impracticable now ; " and that, if the coldness of the air or water is feared, this difficulty may be obviated by proper dressing, and by heating the water till it should be as warm " as the waters in which our Sav- iour and the primitive Christians in those hot countries which the Scripture mentions were baptized." And he sees but two serious difficulties in the way of returning to Scripture and ancient prac- tice. One is an inclination, on the part of the people who are " Presbyterianly inchned," to imitate Calvin and the Church of Geneva; and the other is the "struggle" with the midwives, nurses, and mothers, who " value themselves and their skiU much upon the neat dressing of the child on the christening-day, — the setting all the trimming, the pins, and the laces in their right order; and if the child be brought in loose clothes, which maj' presently be taken off for the baptism and put on again, tliis pride is lost, and this makes a reason" ("Defence," &c., vol. iii. p. 129) . In reference to the practice in the time of the Sa\'iour and the apostles, and to the passages in Paul which speak of a baptis- mal burial, he thus remarks : " As to the manner of baptism then generally used, the texts produced ... by ever}^ one that speaks of these matters (John iii. 23 ; Mark i. 5 ; Acts ^iii. 38) are un- deniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinaril}' into the water, and sometimes the baptist too. "We should not know b}- these accounts whether the whole body of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, which Saviour that a droji or a sprinkle or two of water can be so faii-ly under- stood as to be a ivashing of tlie i^erson in this sense as ponring water is . . . Suppose that such a washing by sprinlchng or a drop be sufficient in case of some necessity that may happen (as I liope it is) : shall we thereupon, in ordinary cases, go as near to the breaking of Christ's command as possibly we can ? ' Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are loe stronger than He?'" — Defence, &c., p. 352. 208 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. seem to me to put it out of question, — one, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive v^ay of speaking, call baptism a burial ; . . . the other, the custom of the Christians in the near succeeding times, which, being more largely and particularly dehvered in books, is known to have been generally or ordinarily a total imiviersion," &c. ("Defence of the History of Infant-Baptism," chap. v. vol. iii. p. 115, fourth edition.) Dr. Dale acknowledges, of course, that the patrists deduced from the passages in Romans and Colossians ' ' the idea of a sym- bol burial," and that they regarded the " momentary covering in water to be a sj'mbol of the covering of Christ's body in the sepulchi'e." Still, while he accepts the fact of a " momentaiy covering" in the ex-ordine, regular baptism of the fathers, he yet denies that " such covering is Christian baptism, or that there was a baptism in such covering," but maintains that " the water so used was employed as an agency to eflfect a baptism which was spiritual, and not physical." In other words. Dr. Dale, you mean that the fathers made much, very much, of the baptismal rite, call- ing it and esteeming it regeneration, illumination, the water of life, a healing medicine, the antitjq^e of the sufferings of Christ, the tunic of gladness, a robe of light, the garment of immortality, the seal of salvation, the key of the kingdom of God, a chariot to heaven, &c. ; while they regarded the baptismal act to consist in a Jcatadusis, a submersion, a sinking-down or burial in water, and an anadusis or coming-up from the same, and practised the triple immersion partly in honor of the Trinity unto whose name they were baptized, but especially in memoriam of Christ's three-days* burial in the tomb. As in Dr. Dale's (virtually Quaker) view there is, properly speaking, no ritual baptism in the New Testament, so he wUl see in Paul's representation no reference to immersion or to any external rite. There is no " water " in the text ; there is no baptism into water expressed, but only a baptism into Christ, and into His death ; there is no burial in water expressed or referred to, but only a burial with Christ. Besides, how could the receiving of water-baptism, even if not destructive of life, be a proof that those who had submitted to that rite could no longer live in sin ? These are Dale's strong points in this dispute. We grant, of course, that water is not mentioned in the text in connection with STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 209 baptism ; nor do we thinli its mention here anj^ more needful than, when speaking of breathing, we should mention the usual element we breathe. We come, then, back again to consider what is the right interpretation of the phrases "baptized into Jesus Christ," and "baptized into His death." Mej'er (on Rom. vi. 3) says, '■^Bapti- zein eis never means any thing else than to baptize in respect to, with reference to; the context alone giving the more special mean- ings. . . . Undoubtedly the name ' Jesus ' was named in baptizing ; but the conception of becoming immersed into Christ (Riickert and others ; and again in Weiss, "Bib. Theol.," p. 343) is to be set aside, and is not to be supported by the figurative expression in Gal. iii. 27. The mj^stic character of our passage is not produced by so vague a sensuous conception, which, moreover, has all the pas- sages against it in which baptizein is coupled with onoma, name (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Acts ii. 38, x. 48, xix. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 13), but is based simply on the ethical consciousness of that intimate apper- taining to Christ into which baptism translates its recipients." Confessed!}^ there can be a ritual baptism "with reference to" Moses, Paul, or Christ ; and there is no necessity for converting these names into a figurative " water-pool " or " verbal element." Our baptism unto Christ, as we have explained the phrase, imports " an intimate appertaining " or belonging to Him as His disciples and followers. And our baptism unto His death likewise imports a giving-up of ourselves to His death, a belonging to His death, a sharing or participating in His death ; in other words, our d3'ing with Him. "Into His death" signifies, says Alford, "into a state of conformity with and participation of His death." Thus the apostle sa5's that our old man is crucified with Christ, the body of the flesh is' dead, the body of sin destroyed ; and that we died to sin, and died with Christ. Hence the grand distinctive- initiatory rite of Christianity imports our dying and bmial with Christ; in other words, our death to self and sin. On the- phrase, " through baptism unto death," Meyer thus remarks : " It is not, however, speciaU}' the death of Christ that is again meant, as if autou [His] were again annexed ; but the description is generalized, agreeably to the context, in a wa}' that could not be misunderstood. Whosoever, namel}', as Paul has just set forth in. verse 3, has been baptized unto the death of Christ, has, in fact^. thereby received a baptism icnto death; i.e., such a baptism, that, 210 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. taken away by it from his previous vital activity, he has become one belonging to death, one who has fallen under its sway." But the apostle sees not only a burial with Christ in baptism, but also a rising again to "newness of life." The advance in thought here is in substance thus given by Mej^er (on Eom. vi. 4) : "Baptism unto Christ's death imports generally a fellow- ship with His death : the submersion (Jcatadusis) especially repre- sents our burial with Christ ; and the emersion (anadusis) , the rising to the new life with Christ." Matthies (in his " Baptismatis Expositio," p. 116) thus remarks: "In the apostolic church, in order that fellowship in Christ's death might be signified, the whole body of the one to be baptized was immersed in water or a river ; and then, that participation in Christ's resurrection might be indicated, the body again emerged, or was taken out of the water. It is indeed to be lamented (dolendum est) that this rite, as being one which most aptl}^ sets before the eyes the symboUc significance of baptism, has been changed" ("Baptizein," p. 161). The same author, speaking (on p. 362) of " sacra immersio," further ssljs, ^'- Immergitur autem homo quo indicetur eum per Christum debere exuere veterem hominem . . . mundo peccato- que renuntiare, itaque cum Christo mori ; itemque emergitur idem, quo significetur eum in Christo debere induCre novum hominem . . . itaque cum Christo resurgere." J. B. Lightfoot (on Col. ii. 11) says, " Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the behever buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins ; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ." For similar testimony from different writers, see the "Views of Scholars of Different Communions" in Conant's "Baptizein," pp. 150-157; also pp. 148, 160, &c. Some commentators, we observe, would make Paul say, "We were buried with Christ into His death by the baptism." But De Wette and Meyer more properly connect death with the baptism, in accordance with the apostle's assertion that " we were baptized into His death." St. Paul, in his Letter to the Colossians, also, speaks of a burial and a resurrection with Christ as figured in baptism: "Being buried with Him in the baptism, wherein ye STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 211 were also raised with Him." Meyer and Eadie make the word rendered wherein to mean in or by whom, referring to Christ ; but De Wette, Ellieott, Alford, and J. B. Lightfoot, prefer the usual rendering, and make baptism, in Colossians (Lightfoot prefers here baptismb to bapHsmati) as in Romans, to symbolize both a burial and a resurrection. In Peter's assertion (omitting the parenthesis) that " baptisiji now saves us also . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," there is, as many suppose, an implied reference to the idea of burial and of resurrection which belongs to baptism. " Illam sententiam," says Matthies (" Baptismatis Expositio," p. 153), " (^uam Paulus de sj^mbolica baptismi significatione habet (Rom. vi. 3-6) etiam hie Petri locus respicit ; etenim quum sacra immer- sio, baptizatos homines, quia Christus e mortuis sit resuscitans, resurrectionis esse particeps declaret, eo ipso Christianae religionis sectatores salvos prsestat . . . per resurrectionem Christi ; i.e., per communionem ejusdem resurrectionis." De Wette on this pas- sage thus remarks : " As we in the baptism with Christ die to the flesh and to sin, so we rise with Him, the risen one, to a new life." And Alford sa^^s, "This saving power of the water (of baptism) is by virtue of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, into whose death and resurrection we are baptized." Hence, also, the apostle Paul, having spoken a few verses previously' of a sacra- mental bm'ial and resurrection with Christ in baptism, saj's (in Col. iii. 1) , " J/ye, then, be risen with Christ," &c. We scarcely need to remind our readers how foreign is all this language respect- ing our dying, burial, and rising with Christ, in this sacred ordi- nance, to the idea of " infant and indiscriminate baptism." The question now remains, " How much of the apostle's repre- sentation is to be regarded as external and literal, and how much internal and spiritual? We regard the baptism unto Christ and His death as involving a ritual baptism ; that is, a literal immer- sion. Paul, the writer, was certainly ritually baptized, as also were those Christians whom he addressed. " Know ye not," says the apostle, "that all we who were baptized," &c. The aorist tense of the verb baptizo refers to some definite, and, as it were, momentary act in the past, — the act of outward visible baptism, which, being an initiatory, solemn, public act, an open pi'ofession of faith, and putting on of Christ, could indeed be ^'- known of 212 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ail men" much better than an}- inward state, than any spiritual regeneration or spiritual baptism. If the baptism " into Christ " (which differs not materially from baptism ' ' into the name of Christ") is outward and visible, so also is the baptism into or unto His death, as these are but different parts of the same bap- tism. Bishop Merrill of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, while maintaining that the burial is spiritual, yet acknowledges that the baptism refers to the "outward rite." He says, " The question will arise as to what baptism is intended, — whether the outward rite, or that of the Holy Spirit : but I cheerfully accept the state- ment that the word is to be taken in its most obvious sense ; that it means the ordinance established in the church, to be administered by the use of water, wherever the gospel is preached." If, how- ever, the baptism unto Christ and His death is outward and Uteral, then the burial effected by that baptism is also outward and literal : while at the same time it presupposes that which is internal and spiritual; since "real Christian baptism," in the words of Professor S. H. Turner, "is both internal and out- ward." We deem it to be' well-nigh a matter of certainty that this figure of a "burial" is founded on the fact of a Kteral physical baptism or immersion. In Col. ii. 11 Paul speaks of a circumcision which was spiritual, "not made with hands;" but he does not here speak in this way of Christian baptism. The idea, then, of the whole representation, is, that as Christ, having died for sin, was buried, covered over, and concealed in the sepulchre, so we, being dead to sin, were likewise buried, — buried even with Christ : not, however, in His rock sepulchre, but by baptism ; i.e., immersion, or entire concealment in water. Neither burial nor baptism is ' ' self-ending : ' ' yet Christ was raised from the dead ; and so we, as being alive with Christ, are in this rite raised from our " baptismal grave," henceforth to " walk in new- ness of life." The fact, and not the mode, of the two burials and the two resurrections, is the thing which is chiefly brought to view. "We are buried with Christ in and by baptism : a burial, however, which is not of unending continuance ; for in this baptism we are also raised with Him. The death, biurial, and resurrection of Christ were certainly literal or physical. But Paul says, "Like AS Christ was raised from the dead, so we," &c. "For if we have been planted" (or "ingrafted," "grown together," "re- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 213 lated," "united") "in the likeness of His death, we shall be also (in the lilieness) of His resurrection." Our burial and rising with Christ in baptism, if like Christ's burial and rising, should possess a physical character. But as the burial and resurrection of Christ may possess both a ph^'sical and spiritual character, so ours, by virtue of the "likeness" spoken of, may have both a physical and spiritual character. In a physical aspect, certainh', the immersion in water of the behever in Christ bears a "likeness" to Christ's burial in the tomb. " So thou also," sa^'s Cj'ril, bishop of Jerusalem, " going down into the water, and in a manner buried in the waters as He in the rock, art raised again," &c. "Not truly did we die, nor were we truly buried, nor trulj^ crucified with Clixist did we rise again; but the imitation was in similitude," &c. (C. 176, 177). " Imitating the burial of Christ by the baptism ; for the bodies of those baptized are, as it wei"e, buried in the water. . . . The water presents the image of death receiving the body as in a tomb." — Basil the Great (C. 181-183). Augustine, after sapng that "sacraments would not be sacraments if they had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments, and from this resemblance they commonly have the names of the things themselves," thus remarks : " So the apostle, on this same subject of baptism, sa^-s, ' We are buried together with Christ by bajitism unto death.' He does not say we signify a burial ; but he uses the word itself, — tve are buried." " For as His body buried in the earth bore for fruit the salvation of the world ; so ours also, buried in baptism, bore fruit, . . . unnumbered blessings, and, last of all, shall bear that of the resurrection. Since, there- fore, we indeed in water, but He in the earth, and we in respect to sin, but He in respect to the bod3', was buried, on this ac- count He did not sa}', 'planted together in death,' but 'in the likeness of death.' " — Chrysostom (C. 186) . "Thou didst imitate, in the sinking down, the burial of the Master ; but thou didst rise again from thence," &c. — Athanasius (C. 187) . Thomas Aquinas thus speaks to us from the middle ages, — an echo, though a faint one, of the creed and practice of the fathers : "In immersione expressius repraesentatur figura sepulturse Christi, et ideo hie modus baptizandi est communior et laudabihor." We make here but one more quotation, and this time from one of our old Eug- 214 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. lish divines, — Rev. Gabriel Towerson, D.D. : "For thongli that might (be), and was well enough represented by the baptized person's being buried in baptism, and then rising out of it, yet can it not be said to be so, or, at least, but very imperfectly, by the pouring out or sprinkling the baptismal water on him. But, therefore, as there is so much the more reason to represent the rite of immersion as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one that can answer the ends of its institution and those things which were to be signified by it ; so, especially if (as is well known, and undoubtedl}^ of great force) the general practice of the primitive church was agi-eeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek Church to this day. For who can think either the one or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite " (to be endured, however, but once in a lifetime), " were it not that they were well assured, as they of the primitive church might very well be, of its being the only instituted and legiti- aiATE one? " Still, as to the question, how much of the apostle's representation in this passage refers to external rite, and exactly how much is spiritual or moral, there may be, we will allow, honest differences of opinion. Perhaps the best exposition of this passage, and the one most likely to command general assent, would be, that the external and the spiritual were, in the apostle's mind, blended together in one. In the words of Rev. John Owen (translator and editor of Cahdn's Works, 1849), Paul " speaks of baptism here not merely as a sj-mbol, but as including what it sjTnbolizes." " The idea " (says Pressense in his " Early Years of Christianity ") " never occurred to "Paul that baptism might be divorced from faith, the sign from the thing signified ; and he does not hesitate, in the bold simplicity of his language, to identify the spiritual fact of conversion with the act which s^Tnbolizes it. ' We are buiied with Christ b}'- baptism into death,' he saj's. With such words before us, we are compelled either to ascribe to him, in spite of all else he has written, the materialistic notion of baptismal regeneration, or to admit that with him faith is so inti- mately associated with baptism, that, in speaking of the latter, he includes the former, without which it would be a vain form. The writers of the New Testament all ascribe the same significance to baptism. It presupposes with them invariably a manifestation of the religious life, which may differ in degree, but which is in STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 215 every case demanded." "We are willing here, however, to con- cede, for argument's sake, that the bm-ial is not in water, but is wholly a "moral" or "spiritual" bur3ang. We will go still farther, and allow that the baptism is not into water ; that it has here nothing to do with water, or with any external rite, but is a spiritual baptism "into the sin-remitting death of Christ." Even thus we maintain, in the words of Professor Fee, that " the spiritual must derive its imagery from the material, the figura- tive from the literal," and, of course, that this imagery is drawn from the act of baptism or immersion, and not from the act of sprinkling. And this we affirm, notwithstanding Dale's ipse dixit, that there is no the action belonging to baptizo, and that baptizo does not take out what it puts in. If sprinkling were the " mode " of baptism, and it were affirmed that Christians are " sprinkled into Christ's death," even then, methinks, we never should have heard from an apostle any such incongruous phraseology^ as ' ' buried with Christ in the sprinkling wherein ye were also raised with Him," &c. " We were buried, therefore, with Him by the sprinkling into His death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, so we," &c. Bishop Hoadl}' felt and acknowledged this when he said, that, " if baptism had been then performed as it is now amongst us, we should never have so much as heard of this form of expression, of dying and rising again, in this rite." President Beecher states that ' ' three positions have been taken ' ' in regard to this passage: first, that "baptism into Christ is external, and of course the burial and the resurrection ; " second, that ""the baptism is external, but the burial and resurrection are internal;" third, that "the baptism, burial, resurrection, &c., are aU internal," &c. Now, Dr. Dale has told us that " an argu- ment based on the harmony of words and of conception in thought would be perfectly legitimate" ("Johannic Baptism," p. 284). Basing our argument thus on the harmony or congruity of expres- sion in the apostle's language, we are indifierent which of Beecher's three positions is taken ; for the ' ' perfectly legitimate ' ' and correct argument would be, that as there is a natural burial in baptism, so baptism itself naturally implies an immersion. We cannot help feeling, that to regard such a phrase as ' ' into Christ," or "into the name of Christ," &c., as a proper baptis- mal element, and this, too, to the exclusion of a representative 216 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. water-baptism, is a most unwarranted and baseless assumption. We do not find an^^ plain Scripture teaching which makes the bap- tismal water-rite sj'mbolize a baptism of controlling influence, or a baptism into ideal elements, much less any which divorces abso- lutely and forever the true Christian baptism from all connection witli a baptismal rite. We grant, of course, that, in the passage we have considered, no express mention is made of baptism in or into water ; for this fuU phrase seldom occurs anywhere. In most of the diverss baptisms recorded in the New Testament, water is not explicitl}'' mentioned ; yet almost ever^'body finds it there. But, if there be no water in this baptism " into Christ " and " into His death," does it follow that a "real baptism" into "ideal elements " necessarily precludes a physical water-baptism, or all reference and allusion to such baptism? Dr. Dale allows that John's repentance-baptism " into the remission of sins " was sym- bolized b}' a water-rite. He concedes that the Samaritan believers who ' ' had already been baptized by the Holy Ghost ' into the name of the Lord Jesus ' ' ' were also ritually baptized into that name ; as also that Cornelius and the other beheving ' ' Gentiles were baptized first b}' the Holy Ghost, and subsequently by water." As he concedes that there is a "ritual s3'mbol baptism (with water) into the name of the Lord Jesus " and " into Christ," so he must concede the possible existence of a " symbol baptism with water" into His death and into other ideal elements. And if he can baptize into Christ, and into His death, " with water," by sprinMing^ wh}- are we forbidden to baptize into Christ, and into His death, " with water," b}' immersion? Most writers, so far as we have seen, make no special difference between baptizing into a person and into his name. While this may be true, we yet think that baptism into a name, as in the Great Commission and else- where, denotes a clearer reference to an external ordinance. With Dr. Dale, baptism "into the name of Christ" is equivalent to baptism "into the remission of sins; " while the believer's bap- tism "into Christ" and "into His death" denotes that "he is brought under the full influence of Christ as Lord and Atoning Redeemer, . . . and thus made partaker of remission of sins, and newness of life." Cannot, now, this baptism into Christ's death, embracing the twofold idea of burial with Christ and rising with Christ, be sjTubolized, or " exhibited," in the rite of " sacred im- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 217 mersiou ' ' ? "We can perceive no insuperable difficulty in the way of so doing. If it be said that this baptism into Christ and His death is never-ending, and hence cannot be sjTabolized by a per- petual immersion in water, which would indeed be " destructive of life," our reply, if ad homineyn, would be, that the Holy Spirit's baptisms ' ' into the name of Chi'ist ' ' and ' ' into the remission of sins," which were likewise unending, were confessedly- symbolized by a very slight water-rite performance, which was but momentary in duration. And surety immersion of the believer's person in water can s^Tubolize " eternity of condition " quite as well ; and most assuredly it can represent the baptizo idea of passing out of one state or condition into another infinitely better than the " non-natural servitors " of baptizo, — sprinkling, or pouring. "We are indeed sorry that perpetual immersion in water is not compati- ble with safet^^ of human life ; but, since Dr. Dale assures us that baptizo shares in the same misfortune, — " never taking out what it puts in," 3'ea, by its own force, inevitably drowning every one whom it intusposes in water, — we feel, as immersionists, somewhat comforted ; and, while we own the imperfection of the immersion- sjTiibol, we endeavor to console ourselves with the thought, that probably no earthty symbol can fullj^ represent spiritual and eter- nal verities. When Dr. Dale saj's, " There is no death, no burial, no resurrection, of the Christian, that can be exhibited," if he means hj spriiikling ov pouring, he is wholly right. We beheve, however, that but very few intelligent Christian belicA^ers are so controUingly influenced by bhndness or prejudice as to deny that the repentant believer's spiritual burial and rising with Christ is naturallj' and beautifully figured b}^ his immersion-burial in water, and his subsequent rising from the " watery grave." It is hardly too much to sa^' that the consensus of aU the Christian ages is in agreement with us on this point. But is the " baptism" in our passage used wholly in its secondary sense of " controUiug influence"? "We are also glad to be assured b}^ our author that immersion has also the same secondary' meaning, as is eA^deut from such phrases as " immersed in debt," " in grief," " in stud- ies," &c. On p. 16 of Dale's "Classic Baptism," we read that '•'•immerse is used to express thorougii influence of an}- kind." The author of " Johannic Baptism" (p. lOG) avers that "the word which is expressive of such intuspositiou " (as secures iuflu- 218 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ence) ' ' is the word fitted to the task ' ' of expressing ' ' a condi- tion which is exhaustive of influence." And again: "It is the indefinitely long continuance of mersion " (immersion) " which qualifies it to exert a controlling influence over objects physically mersed " (immersed) , " and which makes it the representative word for any controlling influence," &c. (" Classic Baptism," p. 258.) Should not, then, such a word as "immerse," which, by securing the " withinness," the "envelopment," the "intusposition," of haptizo, can alone create the idea of controlling influence, be also used to express that influence? Our author, we believe, thinks that " immerse into " does not so fully as baptizo eis convey the idea of passing out of one state or condition into a new one, and is not so clearl}" expressive of " controUing influence." We are doubtful respecting these diflerences ; but, barring these, can Dr. Dale suggest an}^ better rendering of Rom. vi. 3 than that which the so-called Baptist version gives : " Know ye not that all we who were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into His death? " But could Paul exalt the simple performance of an external rite, even though it be the initiatory and distinctive rite of Christianity, into a proof that Christians cannot live in sin ? But aU that he needed to prove, and all that he could prove, was, that Christians could not, consistently with the idea of their Christian conversion and profession, — with the idea and pm-port, especially, of their baptism " into Christ," — continue to live in sin.^ This outward, solemn baptismal profession of death unto sin the apostle could well appeal to as evidence that Christians as such cannot live in 1 When Paul tells his brethren at Kome that both he and they were baptized "into Christ," we are probably to regard this formula, as also the kindred one, " into the uarae of the Lord Jesus," as an abbreviated desig- nation of the full formiila of the commission, — " the most concise historical definition of the Christian baptism" (Stier, Lange). For, as Basil says, "The naming of Christ (the Anointed) is the confession of the whole Trinity ; for it declares God who anointed, and the Son who was anointed, and the Spirit the Anointing." Hence, as to be baptized into Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is to be baptized into His death; so a baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, will likewise include the same reference : in other words, while it denotes our devotedness and sub- jection to the entire Godhead, it also imports our dying and burial with Jesus Christ, who, in his humiliation, sufiering, and death, was yet "the Son of God." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 219 sin, and as a motive why they should not do so ; nay, could appeal to this much better than to any hidden state of the heart, of which, indeed, only the Omniscient One could take cognizance. The apostle could not know that his Roman brethren, who, though baptised into Christ's death, were yet planted only in the likeness of that death, or, in the language of the apostolical constitutions, only died with Christ "in type" or figure, were at any time actually dead with Him to sin, and were actually walking in newness of life. He could only know and tell them, that by their solemn public baptismal vow, and by the nature and purport of the rite itself, the}'^ professed to be dead to sin, and promised and obligated themselves, having been raised with Christ, hence- forth to walk in newness of life. When Paul tells the Corinthian Christians, "But ye were washed [in baptism?], but je were sanctified, but ye were were justified," &c., does this prove that thej^ were actually cleansed and sanctified in soul? Or, when he tells them that ' ' we were all baptized in one Spirit into (so as to be) one body," does this prove that the members of the " church of God in Corinth" were, as members of one body, all spiritually united, and that they duly S3'mpathized with one another? On the contrary, in that church there was " env3ing, and strife, and divisions ; " and its baptized members were stiU carnal, and walked as men. There were sore divisions also in the churches of Galatia ; and yet Paul tells them, "Ye are aU sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For all ye who were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male and female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." It is evident that many of the baptized disciples of Corinth and of Galatia failed to realize in their daily walk, and in their intercourse with each other, the idea of their baptism in one Spirit, into one body, into Christ, and into His death ;, and hence Paul appeals to their baptism in order to pro- duce in them a proper Christian s^-mpathy and spiritual oneness. "The very putting on of Chiist, which, as a matter of standing and profession, is done in baptism, forms a subject of exhortation to those alread}' baptized, in its ethical sense" (Alford, after Me3''er). "Baptized 'into Christ,' into union and communion with Him: . . . this is the true baptism (Acts ^iii. 16). But the thing signified does not alwa3-s or necessarily accompany the sign" 220 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. (John Eadie, D.D.). Hence, also, the apostle saj's to the Roman Christians, " We were buried therefore with Him, by the baptism, into the death ; that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walls in newness of life." " So also reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin, therefore, reign in jonv mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof; nor yield your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but yield 3' ourselves to God as being alive from the dead." And to the Colossians, who had been buried with Christ in the baptism where- in they were also raised with Him, the apostle says, " If, then, ye were raised together with Christ, seek those things which are above." To the same effect, substantially, is Hippolytus' coun- sel: " Keep steadfastly the engagement which ye took upon your- selves in baptism." " The very mystery of baptism," says Theodoret, "taught thee to flee from sin. For baptism hath an image of the death of the Lord ; for in it thou hadst communion with Christ, both of death and resurrection. It beseems thee, then, to live a new kind of Ufe, and conformable to Him with whom thou hast shared the resurrection." Cyprian says, "We, there- fore, who in baptism have died and been buried, as relates to the carnal sins of the old man, we who have risen with Christ by a new birth from heaven, let us think and do the things of Christ." Chrysostom says, that as " ' he who is dead is thenceforth freed from sinning,' abiding dead, so also he who ascendeth from baptism ; for, since he hath then once died, he ought to remain throughout dead to sin. If, then, thou hast died in baptism, remain dead." "What," saith Basil, " belongeth to him who hath been ' born of water ' ? That, as Christ died to sin once, so he also should be dead and motionless towards all sin ; as it is written, ' As many as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into His death.' " The same author (C. 183), or some one who writes in his name, says, " which we seem to have covenanted hj baptism in the water, professing to have been cruci- fied, dead, buried, and so forth, with Him, as it is written." And again : ' ' Baptized in water into the death of the Lord, we have, as it were, deposited a written profession of having become dead to sin and to the world, and of being alive to righteousnes's," &c. (see Chase's article on Basil in " Christian Iie\iew.") If STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ' 221 we find in a true Christian baptism more than this, as we jastlj* may, we shall, of course, find still stronger evidence that a Christian cannot continue in sin. Thus Olshausen saj^s, "In this place, also, we must b}' no means think of their own resolutions onty at baptism, or see no more in it than a figure ; as if, by the one half of the ancient rite of baptism, the submersion^ the death and burial of the old man, by the second half the emersion., the resurrection of the new man, were no more than prefigured : we must rather take baptism in its imvard meaning, as a spiritual process in the soul," &c. This is not necessarily baptismal regeneration. It onl}' supposes that a man has become a true Christian ; has experienced that change within him which baptism imports and symbolizes, — namely, a death to self and sin, and a rising to or entering on a new life ; or, as in the apostle's language to the Ephesians, that " God, being rich in mercy, on account of His great love wherewith He loved us, made us, even when we were dead in sins, alive with Christ, and raised us up with Him." Surely baptism, as expressive of such a change and such a spiritual condition, is something' " more than a mere dipping in water." 222 ' STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XXIV. , BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AND SEA. "And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in tlie sea." IN 1 Cor. X. 1, 2, Paul sa3's " that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized " (literallj' baptized themselves, or allowed themselves to be bap- tized) "into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Nearly all these prepositions have to be disturbed to get rid here of the semblance of immersion. The under, to correspond more closely' ( ?) to the historical statements of Exod. xiv. 19-22, must be made to mean behind, and the in must again mean by. Our opponents should find fault, not with us, but with the apostle rather, for representing all the fathers as being ^'- under the cloud," when, even before their entering the sea, it had merel}' passed over them from the front to the rear, and "stood behind them;" as also for repre- senting them as surrounded and enveloped, in close contact as it were, with the cloud and sea, and thus baptizing themselves unto Moses " in the cloud and in the sea," when the cloud, which jqX, was not a water but a fire cloud, was thus aloof from them and behind them, and the water- walls of the sea were probably but a few feet high (?), and several miles apart (?), to say nothing of their going through the sea on dry ground. 'How could Paul see any baptismal intusposition or immersion here ? It is said that " every comparison must halt somewhere." And Dr. Dale has told us that " ever}' metaphor " (and this, perhaps, wiU embrace figures in general) "presents to us terms between which there are many incongruities, and one, at least, point of resemblance : the incongi'uities are to be thrown aside as nothing to the purpose," &c. Perhaps Paul himself would here object to STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 223 exact measurements and strict literalness. His design, evidently, was to guard his Corinthian brethren from trusting in the use of religious observances while living in practical unrighteousness. He tells them that their fathers once enjoyed religious ordinances similar to theirs ; that the}' had a Mosaic baptism, and an eating and drinldng of spiritual food and drink, even as Christians have a Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper. But, while all the fathers participated in these outward observances, most of them failed to obtain God's favor. They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; yet nearly all of them, rejecting their chosen leader, rendered themselves displeasing to God, and their carcasses fell in the wilderness. They were all ^'- under the cloud, and they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Mej^er says, "Cloud and sea, as things analogous to the water of baptism, must, ac- cording to their nature, be regarded as homogeneous. . . . Both cloud and sea together is a ty^Q of baptism." The cloud., in fact, is never spoken of as a ^re-cloud ; though, on the night of the sea-crossing, it gave light to the Israelites, while it was cloud and darkness to the Egyptians. But even here the cloud and the fire are spoken of as distinct manifestations ; for Jehovah, in the morning watch, "looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud." It passed over, indeed, and went behind, the Israelites ; while it stiU enshrouded and covered them with its light-giving, protecting influence, "^e spread a cloud for a covering., and fire to give light in the night" (Ps. cv. 39). When they passed through the sea, "the waters" (which were ' ' made to stand as a heap " ) " were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. ' ' The circumstance that they went through the sea on dry ground, the apostle, as De Wette sa3's, " designedly overlooks." Dr. Dale may set this down as an in- congruity, " to be thrown aside " amid the manj' "resemblances " of immersion. The Israelites went down into the Red Sea, quit- ting forever the service of Pharaoh, and thenceforth followed Moses as their professed leader. Professor Fee, speaking of the bap- tism of proselytes, says, that, "if the proselj'te was to remain a servant, the relation was expressed thus : tahal bshem aved, baptized into the name of a servant; i.e., into the relation of a servant. . . . When the name is omitted, as it often is in our 224 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. version, the import of eis is often rendered by unto; thus: 'I indeed baptize you imto repentance ; ' ' baptized U7ito Moses,' not literally into him. The prosel}i;e servant was not brought by his baptism into another person, his master, but unto him, or into the relation of a servant to him." The Israelites baptized themselves unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and, while the Eg3qptians were drowned, they emerged in safety on the opposite shore ; and on their journe}^ they had been surrounded with enough of water, cloud and sea, for Paul to call it a baptism. Saj^s Professor Stuart, " The reason and ground for such an expression (baptized in the cloud and in the sea) must be, so far as I can discern, a surrounding of the Israelites on different sides by the cloud and by the sea, although neither the cloud nor the sea touched them. It is, therefore, a kind of figurative mode of expression derived from the idea that baptizing is surrounding with a Jluid." We might make many similar quotations from Pedobaptist authors, Turretine, Grotius, Witsius, Poole, Macknight, "Whitby, Fair- bairn, Olshausen, Bloomfield, &c., and even from Bengel and Alford, all of whom find, not a literal, but a figurative and " dry," immersion in this Mosaic baptism of the Israehtes. Bengel, who, in his "Gnomon," but slightly favors the immersion cause, yet says, "Paul very agreeably denominates it thus (baptism) be- cause a cloud and the sea are both of a water}' nature, therefore Paul says nothing of the &erj pillar ; and because the cloud and the sea withdrew the fathers from sight, and returned them almost in a similar manner as the water does those that are baptized." (See further testimonies in Ingham's "Handbook on Baptism," pp. 242, 243.) This may not have been designed properly to be a type of baptism ; yet Paul uses it as such, or rather as an image, or sj'mbol, or resemblance, of baptism, a " quasi-baptism " as De "VVette calls it ; even as their partaking of the spiritual food and drink was an image, sj^mbol, or semblance, of the Lord's Supper. Paul says these things happened to them as examples and warnings ; and beautifully does he make them answer his pur- pose, — of warning his brethren and ourselves, while participating in religious privileges and ordinances, to flee all unrighteousness. Most of the older Pedobaptist writers of this country — as Absa- lom Peters, John H. Beckwith, Edwin Hall, A. G. Fairchild, and many others — refer this baptism in the cloud to the sprinkling STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 225 of the raindrops falling from the cloud as it passed over them, and find a confirmation of this "\dew in Ps. Ixxvii. 17 : " The clouds poured out water," &c. So the baptism in the sea was effected by the sjjray from the waters which was blown upon them by the wind. Rather than regard this baptism as effected by such an application of water, we should prefer, with Carson, to call it a "dry dip." Dr. Dale resolves this cloud-and-sea baptism, as he does other baptisms, whether literal or figurative, into an intangi- ble ideal influence! By means of the cloud and of the sea, the Israelites, amounting to " two million men, women, and children," baptized themselves ideally into Moses ; and thus ideally secured a pervasive, assimilating Mosaic influence, which controlled them, after an ideal manner, "through an indefinitely prolonged period of time." In other words, they were so far controllingly influ- enced by the miracle of the cloud and sea, that they intusposed themselves into Moses (figuratively) ; and by this ideal imaginary intusposition a direct Mosaic controlling influence was imparted to them (ideally), which led, or should have led them to become subject to Moses for an " indefinite period," or a period of " un- limited continuance." Here, indeed, is an ideal " baptism of (ideal) influence ' ' ! But why could not thej'^ be controllingly in>- fluenced to become subject to Moses by their wonderful miracle- wrought intusposition ' ' in the cloud and in the sea ' ' ? Was this intusposition any more " ideal " and imaginary than their alleged ideal intusposition "into Moses"? Our author says that the Israehtes, before leaving Egypt, had "no established confidence - in Moses : " but, after they had been delivered so miraculously by the cloud and by the sea, they were controllingly infiuenced into subjection to Moses, and to an established faith in him ; in evi- dence of which he adduces Exod. xiv. 31 : "And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians ; and . the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and His servant Moses." In his view they were not baptized tiU after they had', passed through the sea ; but Theoph3'lact (C. 196) affirms that ' ' the being under the cloud and the passing through the sea was ■ a type of baptism." And Paul, if we let the prepositions remain unmolested, seems to say the same thing: " baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea." "VYe only remark fm'ther, as against the influence-view of this baptism, that the Israelites had faith ia 226 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Moses before they left Egj-pt (Exod. iv. 31), and that they lost •it soon after the sea was crossed ; for only three da^'s after this we find them at Marah's waters murmuring against 3Ioses. Not very thoroughly or controlling^ influenced were the}" by their baptism ; for, though all had been baptized, yet " in most of them God had no pleasure, for they were overthrown in the wilderness." Many of the fathers, we ma}- remark, saw in the actual immer- sion and drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red Sea, as also in the destruction of the ungodly world "by the deluge (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21), a figure of the drowning and destruction of the De"S"il and one's sins in Christian baptism. Chrysostom has already showed us "a pool wherein one was buried, another rose. The Eg3^tians were drowned in the Red Sea, and the Israelites arose out of it. And the same thing which buries the one pro- duces the other. Marvel not that there is both birth and de- struction in baptism." "The ancients," saj's Dr. Pusey in his " Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism " (p. 240), " saw in the flood of waters the baptism of the expiated, cleansed, and restored world" (see in "Tracts for the Times," No. 67, where manj^ references to the fathers are given b}^ this author) . As Paul finds a baptism in the passing through of the Red Sea, so Peter sees a type of baptism in the Noachian flood ; and for this reason we may here briefly consider this passage in Peter. This apostle asserts that " a few, that is, eight souls, were saved in the ark through ivater." The same water which drowned the ungodly upbore the ark in safet}", delivering thus the righteous from the companionship and from the doom of the wicked : and hence it can be said that Noah and his family were saved both in the ark, and through or b}' water; "which," i.e. water, generally (we here follow the textus receptus), in an "antitype," or as anti- typical of that saving water, now saves us (or you) also (not the outward washing and putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the eperotema, literally inquiry, perhaps here equivalent to the expressed desire of a good conscience, — eis theon, — with reference to God, or to obeying the divine will) " b}'' the resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ." Our authorized version makes this sa^dng baptism to consist in ' ' the answer of a good conscience toward God." The "Bible Union" version substitutes "requirement" for " answer." Pressense finds in it the idea of " engagement." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 227 Luther has it, ' ' The covenant of a good conscience with God ; ' ' Tyndale, "In tliat a good conscience consenteth to God;" the old SjTiac, " When ye confess God with a pure conscience ; " the Vulgate, " Conscientise bonse interrogatio in Deum." Others, as Bengel, make it the inquiry, request, or desii-e (for salvation, du'ection, &c.), directed to God, of a good conscience. Professor Cremer says it "is that pertaining to a good conscience which has been asked and obtained of God." Others, as Wiesinger, Hof- mann, "Weiss, and Professor Noyes, who make suneideseos (con- science) the genitive objective, regard this eperotema as a petition, or request, or earnest seeking for a good conscience. De Wette, in his " Exegetisches Handbuch," has " Angelobuug," a vow or promise to God of a good conscience, that is, to keep a good con- science ; a rendering which is adopted by Huther, the continuator of Meyer : but in his " Heilige Schrift" he gives the rendering preferred by Winer, Lange, and Alford ; to wit, the inquiry of a good conscience after God. Neander, De Wette, Huther, and many others, understand this word of the questions asked, and of the responses made in baptism. For criticisms on these and other interpretations we refer our readers to Matthies' " Baptismatis Expositio," § 18, p. 150, seg., and to the different commentaries on this passage; also to Dr. Hovej^'s "Manual of Theology." According to the latest expressed views of this author, baptism ia "the candidate's solemn and objective request (directed to God from the new moral nature) for the forgiveness of sins, which is promised to everj^ behever in Chiist ; submission to baptism being the prescribed and solemn confession of faith, and being, there- fore, said to seek and secure that which faith actuall}' seeks and receives." This interpretation has been charged with a leaning towards ' ' Campbelhsm : ' ' but the distinguished president, and professor of theology at Newton, avers that he has " no sympathy with the views of Alexander Campbell on this point;" and the above charge we must deem to be manifest^ baseless. We may here add that Dr. Hove}', after discussing in his Manual the ques- tion whether suneideseos is to be regarded as in the objective or subjective genitive, thus pertinently remarks: "But an}' view of the passage is unfavorable to i??/an^-baptism ; for infants neither seek nor obey a good conscience in baptism." Yet Dr. Pnsey asserts that the apostle Peter "held the flood, which covered the 228 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. face of the whole earth and the tops of the highest mountains, and prevailed upwards,- to be but a shadow and type of the baptismal stream" (why not basin?) "which each of our little ones enters as ' a child of wrath,' and arises ' a child of God, a member of Christ, an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.' " The fathers, as we have above indicated, saw a t;y"pe of baptism, not only in the deliverances, but in the destructions, effected by the waters of the flood and of the Red Sea. Their belief was, that " the water of baptism," to use De Wette's -remark on 1 Pet. iii. 21, "at the same time buries and saves." Luther, in his "Form for the Baptism of Infants," published in 1526, follows the patristic interpretation : " Omnipotens seterne Deus, qui pro judicio tuo severe, mundum infidelem diluvio perdidisti, et fidelem Noah cum octo animabus pro tua magna misericordia custodivisti, et Pharonem induratum cum suo exercitu in mari rubro submersisti, et populum tuum siccis pedibus traduxisti, quibus historiis lavacrum hoc Bap- tismi prsefigurasti," &c. This mention of the destruction of the Old World and of the " obstinate " Pharaoh by water is repeated in the Nuremburg Liturgy, 1533, in Hermann's Consultation, or Cologne Liturgy, 1543, and in the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., 1549. See Note I., end of the volume. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 229 CHAPTER XXV. BAPTISMAL BATHING. " r I iHE common way of Greek bathing was, not by immersion, . JL but by pouring : therefore the use of loutron ' ' (bathing or bath) ' ' in baptism does not imply that baptism was an immersion ' ' (Dale's "Christie Baptism," p. 504). "Generally the custom of bathing in the East, unless it were in a pool or river (and not always with that exception) , was performed by standing beside a bath, and having the water poured upon the bather by an attend- ant" (Hutchings' "Mode of Baptism," p. 82). And Professor Wilson of Belfast states that the " ordinar}^ system of bathing in ancient Greece knew no immersion, and embraced no covering of the body with water." Per contra, President Beecher derives the patristic practice of immersion, in part, from "Oriental usages, and the habits of warmer regions. . . . Did not Christianity begin in the warm regions of the East, and in the midst of a people whose climate, habits, costume, and mode of life, were all adapted to bathing? " Rev. Philippe Wolff likewise traces the practice of immersion back to the washings or immersions of heathen usage, and even finds one instance of heathen trine immersion in the Tiber. ^ And Doddridge says, " Considering how frequently bath- ing was used in those hot countries, it is not to be wondered that 1 "Et totum semel espiet annum, Hibernum fracta glacie descendet in amnem, Ter matutino Tiberi mergetiir et ipsis Vorticibus timidum caput abluet." Juvenal, Sat. vi. 521, See also in Persius, Sat. ii. 15 : • " Hsec sancte ut poscas Tiberino in gurgite mergis. Mane caput bis Jerque et noctem flumine purgas." 230 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. baptism was generally administered bj^ immersion." We leave these somewhat counter statements to neutralize each other. It is difficult for us in this Western and Northern world to realize that bodil}^ ablution in the ancient East was nearly as common as the washing of our hands and faces. We do not sup- pose that this bathing — whether expressed by the Hebrew rahats, the Greek louo, or the Latin lavo — always denoted an entire im- mersion, any more than our English word " bathe ; " yet we take it that the washing of the whole person, whether in rivers, pools, or other baths, is generally implied, at least where no limitation is expressed. The sevenfold bathing (rahats) in the Jordan, en- joined .upon the leper Naaman by the prophet, implied to his mind the necessity or expedienc}' or propriety of a sevenfold dipping (tabal) of himself in it ; and hence the Septuagint, or " Seventy," speaks, not of his purifying himself seven times, nor of his control- lingly influencing himself seven times, but of his baptizing himself seven times in the river. The baptism of the corpse-defiled man (in Ecclus. xxxiv. 25) is also called, as we have seen, a loutron, or bathing. In reference to Naaman's baptismal bathing, Mr. Noel, as quoted in Ingham's " Handbook on Baptism," p. 292, thus re- marks : " B}^ the word ' wash ' it is obvious that Elisha meant bathe, or dip : the whole body being leprous, the whole was to be washed. To dip, also, was a definite act which could be repeated seven times ; but any other washing would be indefinite, and the leper would not know whether snxj amount of washing at one time could be taken for seven washings. Elisha also clearly referred in this command to the Mosaic law respecting the leper, which was as follows : ' He that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave ofi" all his hau', and wash himself in water, that he vaaj be clean' (Lev. xiv. 8). As the leper was wholl}^ unclean, he must be whoU}' washed. The command, therefore, meant that he should bathe himself, and so the Jews correctly understood it. . . . When, therefore, Elisha said, ' Go and wash th^'self in Jordan,' he meant, ' Go and bathe thj'self, according to the law of the leper on the day of his cleansing.' Of course, Naaman, if he fulfilled the command of Elisha, must necessarily bathe himself in the Jordan seven times ; and the narrative accordingly relates, ' Then went he down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times.' " We remark further, that, in the New Testament (Tit. iii. 5 ; STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 231 Epli. T. 2G ; Heb. x. 22), the phrases, "bathing of regeneration," '•bathing of water in the word," and "bodies bathed in pure v»-ater," are commonly supposed to refer to baptism; and the very frequent use of louo and lavo, loutron and lavacrum, by the Chi'istian fathers, when treating of baptism, is well known (see in Conant's " Baptizein," Exs. 203, 226, 228, 230, &c.). Robin- son, as we have seen, defines louo (the especial Greek representa- tive of Q'ahats) " to bathe, to wash the person or whole bod}', not merel}' the hands or face, which is expressed by nipto." Such a definition is authorized by our Saviour's words in John xiii. 10 : "He that has bathed (louo) has no need save to wash the feet {nipto), but is wholly clean." A like contrast of bapjtizo and nipto is seen in Mark vii. 3, 4, where the use of the generic wash for both verbs renders the passage in our version well-nigh mean- ingless. For unless there be an advance of thought here, from the simple and customary washing of the hands before eating to the bathing of the body (after coming from the market) before eating, as also a hke advance of thought (not fuU}^ expressed) , from a slight and customary washing of pots, cups, &c., to their complete submergence in water, as demanded b}^ Pharisaic scrupulosity, then the explanatory statements of the evangelist here are in part wholl}- inept and forceless. Professor Wilson concedes that " the baptism referred to in Mark we consider a general ablution, because the occasion is more uncommon, and also because it is presented in contrast with a partial washing." Professor Xo^'es, who, in his translation of the New Testament, follows the Greek text of Tischendorf, thus renders ^^ bap>tisdntai," . . . '■'baptis- mous," &c., "unless they bathe" . . . "the dipping of cups and pitchers and brazen vessels ; " and Dr. E. H. Plumptre, com- menting (in Ellicott's " New -Testament Commentary for Enghsh Readers") on the phrase, "except the}' wash " (Mark vii. 4), says, " The Greek verb [baptisontai'] differs from that in the pre- vious verse [^mpsontai'] , and implies the washing or immersion . . . of the whole body, as the former does of part." A like contrast is found in the Mishna, one of whose regulations is that "men must wash their hands for ordinary eating, but for [eating] tithes and for the hea-\-e-off"ering [their whole persons] must be bap- tized." The Talmud does indeed speak of baptizing lando. but never as being synon}'mous Avith the ordinary washir.g of hai.Jo. 232 STUDIES OUT BAPTISM. Thus "in the heave-offering, if one of the hands be unclean, its fellow maj' he clean ; but in hoi}' things one must baptize both hands, because each renders its fellow unclean for holy things, but not for the heave-offering." Beckwith has a little work, entitled " Immersion not Baptism ; " and he certainly proves his thesis, if his rendering of this passage in Mark is correct. We give it as a remarkable specimen of a remarkablj^ original translation: "And when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unbaptized hands, they found fault ; for the Phari- sees and all the Jews, except they baptize (nipto) their hands, eat not. . . . Wh}^ walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unbaptized hands? " The trans- lators, he says, have rendered the word "baptize " in our Bible " wash " and "washed ; " ^'■but the origincd is as above " ! We may here remark, that the elder Lightfoot, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, and George Campbell, refer this after-market baptizing., of which Mark does indeed make mention, not to a bodily bathing, but to the immersing of their hands in water ; while Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, and Bleek, with the Syriac, Arabic, and other New-Testa- ment versions, make it refer to the cleansing of the food purchased in the market. We have no faith in any such interpretation. We believe, with Mej'er, that the word baptisontai "is to be under- stood of immersion., which the word in the classic Greek and in the New Testament everywhere means (compare Beza) ; i.e., here, according to the context, to talce a bath. . . . The representation proceeds in the wa}^ of climax : before eating thej' observe the hand- washing alwaj's, but bathing when they come from the market and would eat." Luke xi. 38, to which we shall presently refer, is to be interpreted in the light of Mark's full description. Recurring again to the Old Testament, we remark that the oft- enjoined ivashing of the flesh (" Seventy," louo to soma., bathing the body), especially when connected with the washing of the clothes, and distinguished from the washing of the hands and feet, natu- rally implies an entire bathing. Rabbi Maimonides, "the second Moses," says, " Every person baptized must dip his whole bod3\ . . . And, wheresoever in the law washing of the bod}' or gar- ments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body. For if an}' wash himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness. And, if any one hath STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 233 much hair, he must wash all the hair of his head ; for that also was reckoned for the bod3^ But if any should enter into the water with their clothes on, 3'et their washing holds good." We do not, of course, think that an entire bathing always denotes a literal immersion, but that it is equivalent to such immersion, and that a full immersion always involves an entire bathing, and is the most convenient way to effect such a bathing, especially the frequently required repetition of such bathing. Thus from Lev. xvi. 4, 24, we learn that the high priest had twice to bathe his person (" Seven- ty," his whole body) on the day of atonement, when he entered into the hoty of holies ; and in the later ritual of the second temple' (as we read in Smith's " Bible Dictionarj^," art. " Bathing") he had to bathe himself ^-we times, and wash his hands and feet ten times : and we cannot suppose the ablution on this most solemn occasion was any thing less than the bathing of the entire person. The leper for his cleansing had, in the course of a week, twice to shave off all his hair from his head, and his beard, and his ej^ebrows, even all his hair, and twice to bathe his body in water (Lev. xiv. 8, 9). The thorough bathing which the leper needed must have involved a complete immersion. Herodotus (ii. 37) tells us that the Eg}^tian "priests shave their whole body every thiixl day," and "wash themselves in cold water twice every da}", and twice ever}' night." And the Mystoe, on the second day of the Eleu- sinian mysteries, " marched in solemn procession to the seacoast, where they purified themselves by bathing." And Josephus says that one of the Jewish sects, the Essenes, about mid-day "bathe their bodies in cold water," and afterwards " go after a pure man- ner into the dining-room," &c. In Mark vii. 4 we have learned that the superstitious Pharisees, those " sticklers for outward cere- monies," were accustomed before eating to baptize themselves, or take a bath, after coming from the market. And one Pharisee (Luke xi. 38) wondered that Jesus did not baptize Himself before dinner, after His frequent contact with the thronging multitudes, to say nothing of His casting out a demon besides (see vers. 14, 27, 29) ; all of which, to the Pharisee's mind, was doubtless equiva- lent to a marA:ei exposure (Mark vii. 4), as above. "Jesus had just come from the crowd ; yea. He had just cast out a demon (ver. 14) : therefore thej^ expected that He, before breakfast, would first cleanse Himself by immersion; that is, by a bath " (Meyer). 234 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Dr. Plumptre, in Ellicott's " Commentaiy for English Readers," commenting on Luke xi. 38, says, " Here the word ' washed ' (hter- ally, though of course not in the technical sense, baptized) implies actual immersion, or at least a process that took in the whole bod3^" " There is no intimation in Luke xi. 38," says Professor Conant, ' ' that this was always practised before dinner : on the contrary', the full and minute statement in Mark vii. 3, 4, forbids this supposition ; and Luke xi. 38 must be understood accordingly. It was the case mentioned in ver. 4 of Mark's statement, the Sa^'iour having come from a crowd." Were it not for this unusual 'exposure to uncleanness, even Pharisaic ritualism would have been satisfied with the customary hand-washing before eating. So we read of a sect among the Abyssinians, called the Kemmont, who ' ' wash themselves from head to foot after coming from the market, or any pubhc place where they may have touched any one of a sect different from their own, esteeming all such unclean." Ritualistic self-righteousness or excessive superstition would do much more than this for outward purification. Yet, as I read ancient history, the taking of a bath, either as a means of health or as a luxury, before the principal meal of the day, was nearlj" as common as the meal-taking itself; and this bathing, moreover, was entirely distinct from the washing of hands immediately before and during the meal. In Smith's " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiqui- ties," art. "Baths," we read, that, " among the Greeks as well as Romans, bathing was alwaj^s a preliminary to the hour of meals : indeed, the process of eating seems to have followed as a matter of course upon that of bathing." Again : "It was the usual and constant habit of the Romans to take the bath after exercise, and previously to their principal meal." Castel (in his " Villas of the Ancients," p. 31) sa3-s, "The custom of bathing in hot water was become so habitual to the Romans in Pliny's time, that they every day practised it before they lay down to eat ; for which rea- son in the city the public baths were extremely numerous, in which, as Vitruvius gives us to understand, there were for each sex three rooms for bathing, — one of cold water, one of warm, and one still warmer. . . . The last thing they did before they entered into the dining-room was to bathe." (See also, in Smith's " Dic- tionar}', arts. " Coena " and " Deipnon," and Eschenburg's " Man- ual," third edition, pp. 139, seq., 479, 536-539, 628, seq.) Ac- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 235 cording to Tertullian, bathing was a daily practice of the people in his time; for he says, that, after receiving baptism, " we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week " (" De Corona," cap. iii.). On modern Oriental bathing see Dr. Van Lennep's "Bible Lands," pp. 483-496. Speaking of "booths" in another place, this author, referring to Layard (vol. i. p. 116), says that " the Arab is often driven bj^ the extreme heat to strike his tent, and erect instead a booth of reeds by the river-side, where he tempora- rily adopts ampJdbious habits." But it is said that the figures on some ancient vases represent the bathing as performed outside of, and not within, the bath. To this we simply remark, that ancient bathing was often a long and complicated process : and these few vases may well represent a part of the process ; namely, that of pouring water an the bathers after the use of the strigils. Hence this vase representation teUs but a small part of the story. It utterly fails to explain the names, the great size, the whole literature, of the baths. What wiU it do with the oft-recurring expressions, descendere in balneis, in fontem, in aquam, egressi de lavacro, and such like? In Smith's "Dic- tionary " (" Baths ") it says, " The cold bath was named indiffer- ently natatio, natatorium, piscina, baptisterium, puteus, loutron." Could the loutron or the baptisteriitm be a natatio, or natatorium, i.e. a swimming-bath? and did people learn to swim outside " the swimming-bath"?^ "It is worthy of remark," says Eschen- 1 " The word baptisterium is not a bath sufficiently large to immerse the whole body, but a vessel, or labrum, containing cold water for pouring over the head " (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Eoman Antiquities, art. Baths). In confirmation of his statement tlie writer refers to Pliny's Let- ters, V. 6, and ii. 17. We liave looked at these Letters ; and we find that Pliwfs baptisteria were at least large enough to swim in, and hence, we should say, " sufficiently large to immerse the whole body " ! Pliny, describ- ing his Tuscan villa to Apollinaris, speaks thus of its bath: " Inde apody- terium balinei laxum et hilare exciiDit cella frigidaria in qua baptisterium, amplum atque opacum, si nature latius aut tepidius velis in avea, Tpiscina, est," &c., — "From thence you pass through a spacious and pleasant undressing- room into the cold-bath room, in Avhich is a large and gloomy bath (baptiste- rium) ; but if you are disposed to swim more at large, or in warmer water, in the middle of the area is a wide basin for that purpose" (translation by William Melmoth, Esq.). In his letter to Gallus, giving a description of his Laurentian villa, Pliny says, "Inde balinei cella frigidaria spatiosa et eifusa cujus in contrariis parietibus duo baptisteria, velut ejecta, sinuan- 236 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. burg's translator (p. 628), "that the exercise of swimming was connected with the custom of bathing. ' This art,' it is said, ' was held in such estimation by the Greeks and Romans, that, when they wished to convey an idea of the complete ignorance of an individual, they would say of him, that he neither Jcneio how to read nor swim, — a phrase corresponding with our famihar one, that a person knows not how to read or write. Attached to and forming a part of the gymnasia and palcestrce. were schools for swimming ; and, according to Pliny, the Romans had basins in their private houses for the enjojTnent of this exercise.' " The "New American Cyclopaedia," art. "Baths," gives a description of the public- bath (a small one) unearthed in 1824 at Pompeii. The natatio (swimming or cold bath) was nearly thu'teen feet in diameter, and a little more than three feet in depth. The labrum, the vessel which was used for pouring or niptoing, (may I be par- doned !) and the one which is figured on the ancient vases, was eight feet in diameter (in Eschenburg "about five"), and not more than eight inches in depth.^ " The baths of Caracalla were fifteen hundred feet long by twelve hundred and fifty feet broad ; " thus fifty-five hundred feet, or more than a mile, around. ..." The natatorium, or swimming-bath, in the baths of Diocletian, was two hundred feet long by one hundred broad ; and it is calculated, that, in the whole establishment, more than eighteen thousand persons could bathe at the same time." The following brief description of the bathing process is given : " Previous to bathing, gentle ex- tur, abunde capacia si mare in proximo cogites," &c., — "From thence you enter into the grand and spacious cooling-room belonging to the bath, from the opposite walls of which two round basijis (baptisteria) project, suffi- ciently large to swim in." This translation by Melmoth is a very free one, but, in the main, gives the sense of the original. The abunde capacia, &c., of the last sentence of Pliny, literally rendered, would be, " roomy enough, if you bear in mind that the sea is hard by," that is, " where you can douse and splash to your heart's content." Liddell and Scott, we observe, also define baptisterion as a " swimming-bath," on the authority of this same Pliny. 1 That the labrum was much smaller than the piscina, or "fish-pool," may be seen from Cicero's expression, " latiorem piscinam voluissem," &c. I could wish for the larger piscina, where there is plenty of room to extend one's arms, &c. This piscina, in Latin, corresponds with kolumbethra, or "swimming-place" of the Greeks, — a term which the Greek fathers often used for the baptismal font. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 237 ercise was generally taken ; then it was recommended that the bather should remain in the tepidariuvi, or warm chamber, for a time previous to undressing ; after undressing ' ' (in the apodyte- rium) " he proceeded commonly to the caldarium, and, after sweat- ing some time in its heated atmosphere, he either graduall}^ im- mersed himself in the hot- water bath, or had hot water simply poured over the head and shoulders ; then cold water was poured over the head, or the bather plunged into the cold piscina. He was now scraped with strigils (small curved instruments made gen- erally of bronze) , dried and rubbed with linen cloths, and finally anointed. "When one bath alone was desired, it was taken just before the principal meal ; but the luxurious Romans bathed after as well as previous to their coena, and Commodus is said to have indulged in seven or eight baths a day." In Eschenburg (p. 140) it says, " From drawings on a vase found at Canino, it is inferred that the bathers, after the use of the strigils, rubbed themselves with their hands, and then were washed from head to foot by having pails or vases of water poured over them." Thus the advocates of immersion and of pouring can find warrant for their practice in the customs of ancient bathing. But how ridiculous to represent this ' ' pouring " as " the common way of bathing among the Greeks " ! Since, then, there was nothing unusual to the ancients in the practice or form of immersion, there is no sense in President Beecher's tracing the patristic practice of immersion to their " habit of ascribing peculiar virtue to external forms." When baptism with the fathers became a grace-conferring sacrament, and the water became salutaris, or sa^sdng, the mode of immersion would naturally rather become a matter of minor importance. " Com- pends," or abridgments of baptism, would then through divine favor answer all puiposes in case of necessity. Dale states it too strongly, however, when he saj's that " to the patrists it made no difference how the water was used. . . . The power to baptize, which belonged (in their view) to the water, had no dependence upon the manner of its use." The fact that the}^ invariabl}- prac- tised immersion, except in case of mortal sickness, shows, that, "in their view," immersion was essential to anj^ proper baptism. In their trine immersion there was, indeed, something of " exter- nal form," which was unusual ; but they do not ground this usage 238 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. in the Scriptures, or in tlie meaning of the word itself. And, with- out ascribing any peculiar virtue to this " mode " of baptism, they only practised it professedly in honor of the Three Persons in the Godhead, and in remembrance of Christ's three-days' burial in the tomb. The}^ speak of it as a tradition, or, in other words, as a human addition to the law of Scripture. Even Jerome conceded that ' ' many things observed in the churches by tradition have usurped to themselves the authority of written law, such as in lava- cro ter caput mergitare, — ' to immerse the head three times in the bath.'" Possibly TertulHan also may refer to the same thing when he sa^^s ("De Corona," cap. iii.), "Dehinc ter mergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in evangelio deter- minavit ; " i.e., "Then we are immersed tJiree times, answering somewhat more than the Lord has appointed in the gospel." But when the word baptizo by itself, in its literal, proper, and usual meaning, "demands intusposition," what is the need of tracing the practice of immersion to " heathen" usages and " the habits of warmer regions " ? STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 239 CHAPTER XXVI. INFANT-BAPTISM. WE quote here at the outset a few testimonies from those who uphold and practise infant-baptism, while they deny for it any express Scripture example or precept. " All traces of infant- baptism which one will find in the New Testament must first be put into it," — "Alle Spuren von Kindertaufe die man in neuen Testarhent hat finden woUen, erst miissen hineingetragen werden ' ' (Dr. Friedrich Schleiermacher's " Christian Faith," vol. ii. p. 283). " Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of infant-baptism to be found ; and we must concede that the numerous opposers of it cannot be contra- dicted on gospel grounds" (Professor A. Ilahn's " Dogmatik," p. 557). " There is not a single example to be found in the New Testament where infants were baptized. ... In household bap- tisms there was always reference to the gospel, as having beon re- ceived. . . . The New Testament presents just as good grounds for infant-communion. . . . The connection of infant-baptism with circumcision deserves no consideration, since there are physi- cal reasons which make circumcision more suitable and less dan- gerous in the case of children than in the case of adults " (" Geschichte dor Taufe und Taufgesinnten," — " Histor}' of Bap- tism and the Baptists," p. 10, seg., by Dr. J. A. Starck, Professor of Oriental Languages at Konisberg (1769), and Chief Court Preacher at Darmstadt) . ' ' All attempts to make out infant- baptism from the New Testament fail" (Professor L. Lange's " Infant-Baptism," p. 101). " We have not, in fact, a single sure proof- text for the baptism of children in the apostolic age, and the necessit}^ of it cannot be derived from the idea of baptism ' ' (Olshausen on Acts xvi. 15). "As baptism was closely united 240 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were alwa^^s connected with one another ; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed orAj in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant - baptism was unknown at this period" (Neander's " Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles," p. 101, Eyland's translation). The following, from Neander's " ApostoUc Age" (vol. i. p. 140), we quote from Dr. Sears' article in vol. iii. of "The Christian Re"vdew : " "Not only the late appearance of any express mention of infant-baptism, but the long-continued opposition to it, leads to the conclusion that it was not of apostolical origin." " The passages from Scripture which are thought to intimate that infant-baptism had come into use in the primitive church are doubtful, and prove nothing" (Dr. K. R. Hagenbach's " History of Doctrines," vol. i. p. 210). "In the first two centuries there are no docmnents that clearly prove the existence of infant-baptism at that time. . . . Both Wall and Bingham, in opposition to the testimonies of histor}' (invitis liis- torice. testimoniis) , trace infant-baptism back as far as to apos- tolic time" (C. L. Matthies' " Baptismatis Expositio," p. 187). " The baptism of children is not to be considered as an apostolic institution, but arose graduallj' in the post-apostohc age, after earl}^ and long-continued resistance, in connection with certain views of doctrine, and did not become general in the church till after the time of Augustine. The defence of infant-baptism tran- scends the domain of exegesis, and must be given up to that of dogmatics " (H. A. "W. Meyer's " Commentary on the New Testa- ment," Acts xvi. 15). "The Scripture proofs for the necessitj^ of infant-baptism are untenable ; for the passages (Matt. xix. 13- 15) , ' Blessing of little children,' and (John iii. 5) , ' Born of water and the Spii'it,' have no reference to baptism ; while the words of the commission in Matt, xxviii. 19 clearly express the hmit to its universality. The fact that new-born children were baptized by the apostles can in no waj- be shown : on the contrary, the man- ner in which the apostles everywhere speak of baptism, together with 1 Cor. ^di. 14 and the narratives of the oldest church history, put it beyond doubt that infant-baptism had no place in the apos- tolic church" (Julius Muller). "The Sacred Scriptures fornish no historical proof that children were baptized by the apostles" STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 241 (Hofling's " Sakrament der Taufe," p. 99). "The doctrine of infant-baptism is deduced inferentially, and by analogical reason- ing, from statements of Scriptm-e applj-ing more expressl}' to the case of adult baptism" (William Goode, in his "Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants"). "It must be admitted that the traces of infant- baptism in the first hundred and fifty years are but scanty, and that the CAddence of the New Testament is far from decisive " (Ed- ward H. Plumptre, Professor in King's College, London) . " Com- mands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to it [infant-baptism], I do not find" (Professor Stuart, "Bib. Repos.," 1833, p. 385). "Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly b}' immersion. "Whether infants were baptized in the apostolic age ... is a controverted question, on which the New-Testament writings furnish no direct information. The mention of the baptism of households is not entirely conclusive, since we are not certain that infant-children were contained in them" ("The Beginnings of Christianity^" p. 565, by George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical Histor}^ in Yale College). And so we might go on, and fill page after page with concessions such as these from Pedobaptist authors, even as we could fill a volume with their concessions that baptism primarily and properly denotes immersion, and that this was the practice of the ancient church. (See fiu'ther, on these points, Booth's " Pedobaptism Examined," and Ingham's works " On Baptism.") But it is better to appeal "to the law and to the testimony." And here we would remark, that if our unbaptized little ones are, in Augustine's language, "exposed to everlasting punishment ' ' {pcenm sempitemce obnoxios) , then it would seem to be both reasonable and right that the duty of giv- ing them baptism should not be left in the New Testament a mat- ter of inference ivholly, as it confessedly is, but of the plainest- possible command. If our Lord in His great commission had enjoined infant-baptism in the general phraseology of the law of circumcision, and said, " Every male (and female) child through- out all your borders shall be baptized on (or before) the eighth : day after its birth, and every unbaptized person among j'ou shall be cut off from his people ; " or (since God's " better " and more- merciful (?) covenant of baptism embraces, according tO' Ortho- 242 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. dos and Presbyterian pedobaptism, not all the little children of the "nations," but onl}^ the very few belonging to "confederate believers") had He but added a single clause to the commission, thus, " Go 5^e and disciple all nations, baptizing the discipled ones and their infant seed, . . . teaching the adults at the time of their baptism, and the infants when they shall have become old enough to receive instniction, to observe," &c., — this would have been plain enough, and none too plain. So, too, if our Lord had told Xicodemus that every one of our human race, even new-born in- fants, as well as older persons, must be baptized and born of the Spirit, or they could not enter heaven, this, likewise, would have made the dut}" of baptizing infants sufficientlj' plain. But, as it is, the New-Testament Scriptures are sileni as the grave as to any intimation of infant or babe baptism. No instructions are given as to whose infants are to be baptized, or what their state, or what the duties of baptized children, or what the obligations of their parents or " sponsors." (See Note VI., end of the volume.) Children are exhorted to perform certain duties ; but never are they counselled to improve their baptism, or ratif}' the covenant vows made for them in their infantile state. The duties of parents are repeatedly set forth ; but ' ' nowhere throughout the New Testa- ment," as Professor Ripley remarks, " is baptism even aUuded to as a parental duty." And 3'et, if the want of baptism debars our little ones forever from the kingdom of God, and sends them into eternal condemnation and the second death, this matter, methinks, should not have been passed over in silence. But, in- stead of a silence as to the duty of baptizing ' ' senseless and blame- less " babes (so termed by Basil), the indications are all strongly the other way. Christian baptism in the New Testament is ever}'- where connected with discipleship, with teaching, with believing, with repentance, with the new birth, with the washing-away and remission of sins, with the receiving of the Hoi}* Ghost, with a death to self, a rising with Christ thi'ough faith, a walking in new- ness of life, a putting-off the bod}^ of sin, a putting-on of Christ, the answer of a good conscience toward God, and such like con- scious, voluntar}', and actiA'e states and conditions. Infant-bap- tism reverses all this ; and the repentance, the faith, and the answer of a good conscience, which Chiistian baptism requires, and in which all its essence or saving power consists, are to be • STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 243 found, not at all in the cliild, but in the parent or sponsor, or in the "baptizing church." In the case of the baptism of large numbers, as in Samaria (Acts viii. 12), the inspired historian says, that when they believed Pliilip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, " the}' were baptized, both men and women;" while no mention is made of baptizing their infant seed, — an unaccountable omission on the brephobap- tistic theory. Pedobaptist missionaries of our day are careful, we beheve, to report in their journals not onl}^ the number of adults, but of infants, they have had the privilege of baptizing. Inspira- tion, when describing the miraculous feeding of the multitudes by the Saviour, could speak not only of the men and the women, but of the little children (paidia) , .who ate and were filled. And is it not something strange, that, if infant- children formed a part of the " multitudes " baptized in Samaria, no mention is made of their baptism, while that of ' ' men and women ' ' is explicitly' declared ? Were there no young children or little ones belonging to the ' ' mul- titudes " in Samaria? and were not these tainted with " original sin," and exposed to that "condemnation" which " came upon all men," for the removal of which the baptismal " laver of regen- eration ' ' was provided ? Did they not need to be regenerated and made " holy " or " saints " in baptism, or be baptized because of their holiness?^ If Philip was silent on this important matter, 1 Rev. F. G. Hibbard, in his worlv On Baptism, grounds the duty of infant-baptism on the assumed fact that all "infants are in a regenerated state," and that they " are, whether baptized or not, in a state of grace." This autlior advocates the Beecher or purifying idea of haptizo ; tliough we see no particular necessity for purifying infants that are already " regener- ated " and "in a state of grace." Dr. Summers, another Metbodist divine, grounds the right of infants to baptism in " their personal connection with the second Adam." The venerable Dr. Miller would baptize the children of Christians, not because they are " children of the covenant," and " fed- erally holy," and thus should be introduced into the church, but because they are church-members by birth, which membership is recognized by their baptism. The Episcopalians, if one may judge from the Book of Common Prayer, baptize infants, not because they are regenerated, but in order to regenerate them. F. W. Eobertson regards all men as by nature the children of God, whose divine sonship is publicly recognized and sealed in baptism. Calvin and Luther held that (elect) infants may have the germ or initial principle of faith as their qualification for baptism. We should prefer to this the view of Dr. Waterland, — that, in " case of infants, their 244 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. • could Peter have forgotten to assure the Samaritan believers that baptism " now saves you," and that the promise was unto them, and to their (infant) children? (1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Acts ii. 39.) Could Jolm possibly have failed to tell them that their infants dj'ing un- regenerated by the water of baptism could never see the kingdom of God? (John iii. 5.) Could these good and holy men have denied these httle ones, such as Jesus infolded in His arms and blessed, this easy and j*et all-important baptismal cleansing and salvation? or could the inspired Scriptures, designed to be our sufficient guide, have omitted the ver}' important fact of their bap- tism? "Is it not remarkable," saj's Carson, p. 180, "that the Holy Spirit should be so precise as to women, jet not say a word of infants? . . . How many volumes of controversy would the addition of a word have prevented ! " An appeal is sometimes made to the Sa\iour's words, " Suffer little children to come unto me, . . . for of such is the kingdom of heaven," as warranting or countenancing the practice of infant- baptism. But these children were brought to Christ (as, for a like purpose, Joseph brought his two sons to Jacob, Gen. sl^dii. 9), not for baptism, but "that he might put his hands on them and pray," and bless them (Matt. xix. 13 ; Mark x. 13). " Had man," saj^s Dr. Carson, "appointed an ordinance of imposition of hands on children from the authority of this passage, it would not have been so strange ; but to argue that children must be baptized because thej^ may be blessed by Jesus has no color of plausi- innocence and incapacity are to them instead of repentance wMch they do not need, and of actual faith which they cannot have," although this rule might easily be made to embrace idiots as proper subjects of baptism. In view of such specimens of the reasons for infant-baptism, Dr. J. M. Pendleton says, " How contradictory and antagonistic ! It seems that in- fants are baptized that they may be saved — that they may be regenerated — because they have faith — because their parents are believers — because they are involved in original sin — and because they are holy — because they ought to be brought into the church — and because they are in the church by virtue of their birth — and because of their ' personal connection ' with Christ." He suggests the calling of a general council to decide why infants should be baptized. But no decision of a council would remove this diversity and perplexity of views. As there has been inquiry and dis- cussion among brethren as to the grounds of infant-baptism ever since its rise (quod frequenter inter fratres quceritur, says Origen), so this inquiry and discussion will go on as long as this practice shall endure. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 245 bility." On the contrary, the natural inference from our Saviour's conduct in blessing and dismissing little children without baptizing them would rather be, that little children are not to be baptized. Our Saviour does not bid little children come to Him for baptism, nor by baptism. He also, in effect, bids all little children to come, and not simply ' ' holy ' ' ones belonging to pious parents ; and, when He speaks of receiving the kingdom of God " as a little child," this last phrase embraces aU little children, irrespective of parental piety. Our Saviour, then, does not say that the ' ' king- dom" is composed of "such" httle children only as have been baptized, but of little children as such (Bengel, De Wette, Pres- sense^), or of those who resemble them (Meyer), or of both 1 The following extract is from Dr. Hovey's translation of Pressense's Sermon on Baptism : — " If it be said to us that baptismal regeneration is necessary for the little child, because it bears on its brow the seal of the curse, we reply by this one word of Jesus Christ, ' Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.' They are His; for He has died for them, and they have not yet taken part against Him. He has the most tender love for them ; and the compassions of a father for his newly-born child cannot be compared with the compassion of the Saviour for these frail creatures which a breath over- turns. When He plucks them as flowers scarcely blown, when He takes them away from ovxr tenderness, do not imagine, that, before introducing them into His heaven. He demands of them whether the baptismal water has passed over their brow. Higher than all the protestations of a theology without bowels resounds the voice of Jesus: 'Suffer, suffer them to come unto me; and forbid them not.' How, then, can you succeed in preventing them ? What means have you, sombre theologians, for removing them from His arms, when He stoops down to them with matchless love ? Do you think He will contract His heart to the measure of yours, and that He will permit you, with your systems, to say to His infinite charities, 'Thus far shall ye come, and no farther ' ? I would believe that the mother could spurn her new-born child, before believing that Jesus Christ could reject little chil- dren. Hrs benediction rests on every cradle; and those whom He draws on high with a smile are blessed, though they have not received baptism. It is in His arms that we love to place them when He calls them back from us ; it is there that we will seek them. The God who could spurn them could not be our God; for He would not be justice and love. No: neither the justice nor the love of God permits the condemnation of a little child. We recognize in him the marks of the forfeiture ; we discover, amid the naive grace which enchants us, the fatal germ of sin. He is heir of a race rebel- lious and condemned ; but so long as he is in this state of ignorance, so long as he has not ratified the evil by a voluntary act, he is not responsible before God, and involuntary sin is removed by the aid of salvation not yet received." 246 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. classes, " tarn parvulos quam eoriim similes " (Cahin) . The refer- ence here, we think (favorecl as it is hj the use of toiouton, " such," and not toutbn, "them"), is chiefl}' to those who resemble little children ; to those who are childlike in spirit, unassuming, artless, humble, teachable (Matt, x^iii. 3-6) : and hence Christ speaks of His disciples as " little ones that believe in Him," and as "infants," in contrast with the worldl}' ' ' wise and prudent ; ' ' and Peter com- pares them to "new-born babes," &c. " j^s on qui setate," says Matthies, " sed qui mente tamquam pamilus est, regnum ingredi- tur coeleste ; itaque, ex ejusmodi Christi dictis psedobaptismi necessitas neutiquam potest probari." Our Lord does not, per- haps, j)ronounce here upon the moral state of little children, nor upon their relation to His kingdom above, but b}" implication ; for it would seem, that, if the heavenlj^ kingdom is composed of such as resemble them, they themselves, if dying in infancy, could hardty be excluded from that kingdom. Through the power of Christ's redemption they maj^ become fitted for His society' in heaven, though incapable of the duties of church-membership on earth. Man}' writers, however, regard this " kingdom " as sj'non}-- mous with the Church of Christ. Albert Barnes says, "The kingdom of heaven evidently means here the CliurcJi. (See Matt. iii. 2.) In Mark and Luke it is said He immediately added, ' Who- soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a httle child shall not enter therein.' "Whosoever shall not be humble, unambitious, and docile, shall not be a true follower of Christ, or a member of his kingdom. ' Of such ' — that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is the Church to be composed. Pie does not sa^', of these infants, but of such persons as resemhled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up." But whatever was the age, character, or parentage of the little chil- dren that were brought to Chiist, or however clear their title to entrance within the heavenly kingdom, it is certain that our Saviour neither baptized them, nor counselled their baptism, but allowed them to depart unbaptized, though not unblessed ; and we trust that oui' Lord, in thus denj-ing them baptism, did not, as Dale says our " theory" does, exclude them fi'om the kingdom of God. Dr. Dale, as others have done, refers, in support of his ^aew, to Peter's utterance on the day of Pentecost : " The promise is given STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 247 to you and' 3^our children," &c. But this "promise" has refer- ence to the outpouring of the Holy vSpirit, in which unconscious infants could not participate; and the phrase, "your children," corresponding in Joel to ' ' your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," has no express reference to infants, but to one's descendants generally. Dr. Hammond, "a strong asserter of pedobaptism," pertinently remarks of " some men, whenever they meet with the word children, it immediately runs in their heads that infants must be meant." "We cannot believe that any man in his senses would ventm-e to assert, that, in this great Pente- costal revival, unconscious infants " gladl}^ received the apostle's word, and were baptized." Most evidently the baptism which the apostle Peter preached, and which was received on this occa- sion, did not differ in character from that baptism of which he afterwards wrote (1 Pet. iii. 21), — a baptism which required in its subjects the possession not only of a good understanding, but of a " good conscience." Many Pedobaptists have inferred the duty of baptizing infant children of pious parentage from the asserted holiness of such children by Paul, in 1 Cor. vii. 14 : " The unbeheviug husband is sanctified, or made hol}^, by [in] the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else your children are unclean ; but now are the}^ hoi}'." Augustine and most of the fathers held that these children were sanctified, or made " holy " or " saints," by and in baptism, and not (as most modern Pedobaptists do) that thej' were baptized because of their holiness, or their right to church-membership by \drtue of pious parentage. On the other hand, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, and others regard this pas- sage as conclusive evidence that infants were not baptized in the church of Corinth. For Paul could not well reason from the case of a baptized child to that of an unbaptized, unbehe^'ing, heathen parent ; and, if the children had been baptized by reason of their holiness (arising from their connection with pious parentage) , this fact would certainly have been referred to. Augustine, we know, regarded the word " sanctified " as equivalent to " baptized," and supposes that ' ' some wives had been brought to the faith b}' their beheving husbands, and husbands b}' their belie-^-ing wives." But the apostle does not say, with Dr. Wall (who here follows Augus- tine), "You commonly see the unbelieving part}- sanctified, or 248 STUDIES ON BAPTISM, brought to faith and baptism, by the believing one ; " but he speaks of it as an invariable iTile, that the unbelieving partner is sanctified in the believing one. And he also declares the unbelieving and unbaptized companion to be " sanctified," and to be as "holy,'* by virtue of connection with a pious consort, as are the unbaptized and unregenerate children b}' virtue of their pious parentage ; and thus the " sanctified," though unbelieving, heathen and idolatrous parent is as much entitled to baptism (justly so, on Dale's view, as we shall see) as are the "holy," though unregenerate, unbe- lieving children. The truth is, the hoUness or sanctiflcation has no reference whatever to moral purity. Thus Paul, in 1 Tim. iv. 5, speaks of every kind of food created of God as good, and nothing to be refused as unclean, if it be received with thanksgiv- ing ; for it is ' ' sanctified ' ' by the word of God and praj'er. You concede (thus reasons Paul with his Corinthian brethren ; and the reasoning holds good in part, whether one parent only is supposed to be a behever, or both parents are regarded as Christians) that your unbaptized, unconverted children are not unclean. You live with them, nurture them, and love them, and 3'ou do not regard their touch as defiling : in like manner should believing husbands or wives live with, love, and cherish their unbelieving and unbap- tized consorts. This, substantial^, is the view of Olshausen, De "Wette, and Mej'er, aU of whom regard this passage as having reference to children of Christian parents generally. Matthies, on the contrary, though denying that infants were baptized in the apostolic age, jQi sees in this passage a reference to the children of mixed marriages only, and makes Paul advise the believing parents of such children to regard their unbelieving consorts as sanctified, i.e., hoty, though unbaptized, even as they regard their children, born of such unbelieving consorts, as holy, i.e., sanctified, though not baptized (see his "Baptis. Expos.," § 18, p. 143). Paul, the great apostle " of justifying faith and evan- gelical freedom " (S chaff), the uncompromising foe of all merely outward and empty formalism in religious concernments, and more especially of ever}^ thing which had the idea or look of a mere opus operatum efficacy, who asserted of himself that he had ' ' no confidence in the flesh," or fleshly outward ordinances, did not and could not counsel the Corinthian believers to bring to bap- tism their unconscious, unbelieving infants, though deemed not STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 249 "unclean," but "holy," any more than he could counsel the "sanctified" or holy consort, though a heathen, and idolatrous unbeliever, to be baptized. ' ' Just as with the childi-en nothing but the special connection with Christians (their parents) is the sanc- tifj'ing means, so also must the same connection in the mixed marriage" (the connection with a Chiistian consort) "have the same influence. Had infant-baptism at that time ah-eady existed, Paul could not have drawn such a conclusion, because the hoUness of the children of Christians would then have had another gi-ound ' ' (" Meyer's Commentary " on 1 Cor. vii. 14). Similar is the lan- guage of De Wette : ' ' The children of Christians were not yet received properly into a Christian community, were not j'et bap- tized, and did not take part in the devotional exercises and love- feasts of the church : accordingly^, they might have been regarded as unclean with as much reason as the unbelieving consorts could be so regarded. In this passage, therefore, we have a proof that children had not begun to be baptized in the time of the apostles." "The 'holiness' of Christian children," says Pro- fessor Plumptre, in Smith's " Christian Antiquities," art. "Chil- dren," " is made to depend, in 1 Cor, vii. 14, not on baptism, but on the faith of one, at least, of the parents." It is but justice to Dr. Dale to say that he does not adduce this passage just considered in proof of the propriety or dut}'^ of infant- baptism (though why he has not done so we cannot imagine) ; nor does he, as many others, base the duty of giving baptism to infants on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant and the rite of circumcision. Indeed, what the Augustines and Calvins of a former age, and the Hodges of the present day, chiefl}^ rely upon for support of infant-baptism, he makes no reference to whatever. We have no idea, however, that he would take his stand on Dr. Emmons' ground, and maintain with him that the ordinances of the gospel should be ascertained from the gospel itself. Perhaps he, like many others, does not clearly see the substantial identity existing between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism. Car- son, while serving in the Presbyterian ministry, sought from these two sources to make out a consistent scheme, but failed in the attempt. He had a prettj' clear mind ; but he virtually confesses that he could not full}- comprehend that matter, and intimates that a good man}'' others, even Pedobaptist authors, "who have been 250 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. all their lives engaged in the study of it," were in the same pre- dicament. He says, "When the most ilKterate heathen or the most ignorant savage believes the gospel, five minutes will be enough to prove to him the duty of being baptized as a believer ; but, if he has children, when will he be able to baptize them by his knowledge of the covenant of Abraham ? ' ' We should pity the man, even if not illiterate, who would have to wade through, with the endeavor to understand, all the ponderous treatises which good and learned Christians have written on this subject, before he could clearly ascertain his duty in this matter. God's covenant with Abraham (see Gen, xvii.), to give him a numerous ofispring, to make him a father of kings and of manj^ nations, and to give to his seed the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and to be a God to him and to his seed after him, is plain enough. And .the law of circumcision, the token of the covenant, is plain enough: "Every male child among 3'ou that is eight days old, whether he be born in the house, or bought with money of (or even) any stranger who is not of thy seed, shall be circumcised ; and every uncu'cumcisecj male shall be cut off from his people." And what Paul says in Rom. iv. 11, that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of Abraham' s faith, " the faith which he had being 3'et uncircumcised," is also plain enough. But to see how a rite compulsoril}' performed on all the natural seed, or rather on all the infant male descendants, of Abraham, on all hig male servants, and on all of every nation who would join the Jewish body politic or commonwealth, is substantial^ identical with the initiatory ordinance of Christ's spiritual bod}", the church, composed professedly' of renewed and penitent believers ' ' sancti- fied in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," — this is difficult indeed. Place the law of circumcision as above given alongside of the law of Christian baptism, truly a law of liberty, involving con- scious duty and voluntary obedience: "Go, make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them." " He that believe th and is baptized shall be saved." " Repent and be baptized, every one of you. . . . They, therefore, having received Peter's word, were baptized." "And when thej' believed Phihp . . . they were baptized, both men and women." "See! water! What doth hinder me to be baptized?" "And now wh}' tarriest thou? Arise, be baptized, and wash away th}' sins, calhng on STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 251 His name." "Can anyone forbid the water [of baptism] that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? " " And when they heard this they were baptized," &c. How utterly different in spirit is the law of baptism from that of circumcision ! And not less different are the things which are signified by these rites. Circumcision is indeed once called a seal of the righteousness of the faith : but this faith was Abraham's, and while he was in uncircumcision ; and it is never spoken of as a seal of any other person's faith or faith-righteousness. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it spoken of as a grace-conferring, saving ordinance, or as an ecclesiastical rite, the " door " into the Jewish church, or even as a parental "dedication" of one's infant off- spring to Jehovah. The first-born males alone were dedicated to Jehovah, 3'et not by the rite of circumcision. The Jewish infants were not circumcised " unto the name " of the God of Israel ; nor were the sacred priests commissioned to perform the rite (which for ^^ physical reasons," as Dr. Starck remarks, was performed in infancy) , nor in any wa}^ to confer on it a special rehgious sanctity. Of course the exhortation, " Repent and be circumcised, every one of you," was never spoken in Israel, or, if it had been, unconscious babes would not have been expected or required to obey. No ' ' sponsors , " or " godfathers " and " godmothers , ' ' were ever present at an infant's circumcision to profess for the httle one that he had believed in God, had repented of his sins, had renounced the world, the devil and his pomps, and had turned to God, and would no longer ' ' follow or be led by the. sinful desires of the flesh." Nor was the young babe's circumcision (which, unlil^e infant-baptism, left a permanent mark upon one's person ; so that there was no need for others to inform him in after-life that he had been circumcised-^) deemed so incomplete that a rite of " confirma- tion" was invented, whereby the circumcised one, having arrived to 3'ears of understanding, could renew and ratif}^ for himself the vows made for him by others at the time of his circumcision. And though the rite has had a spiritual import assigned to it, and 1 When Dr. Pusey speaks of " our baptismal morn, an oasis, it may be, in a wilderness, but a spot on which our memory may without misgiving repose," &c., does he not draw somewhat on his imagination for alleged facts ? 252 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. though, as the token of the covenant, it was doubtless attended with obligation, yet, as a matter of fact, it had nothing to do directly with any person's faith, piety, or general character. It was a fleshly ordinance ; and, for the Jews, its only indispensable prerequisite was flesJi inherited from Abraham. Its subjects were born of blood and of the will of the flesh. It involved no person- al possession, profession, or promise of piety ; it .conferred no personal character ; it expressed no personal character ; it did not constitute the Jew a true child of Abraham. The ' ' token of the covenant ' ' was borne by aU. the male population of the Jewish nation, and, of course, not onl}- by individuals eminent for piet}', but for wickedness. It was borne not only by individual trans- gressors, but hj whole classes, communities, and generations of disobedient, rebellious, and idolatrous men ; by those whom John upbraided as a "brood of vipers ; " by the scribes, Pharisees, and unbelieving Jews whom our Saviour denounced as "sons of the devil;" by the betrayers and murderers of Christ; and by those, who, after the rejection of Christ, continued " to fill up their sins alwa}'." Yet all these were " children of the covenant," and sealed with its seal, and were, during their whole hves, members of the Jewish national church. Was, now, the national theocracy of the Jews designed to be a pattern of the Christian Church ? We trow not. Yet this is what the Judaizing teachers of our time affirm, who hold that the Abrahamic circumcision-covenant " is the same covenant of grace, for substance, with that which subsists under the gospel-administration," and has not been supplanted by a " new " and a " better." How man}- of the promises made by God to Abraham under that special covenant do such persons, or do we ourselves as Chiistian believers, now claim? And here we may properly inquire what are the pecuUar promises which God made to Abraham, and which are tied to the Abrahamic covenant or covenants. And, first, did God, according to Scripture teach- ing, make more than one covenant with Abraham? We know that Paul not only speaks of "covenants" and "promises," but of the " covenants of the promise," as appertaining to the Israehtes. We know also that Peter, in Acts iii. 25, saj's, " Ye are the sons ... of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saj-ing to Abraham, And in thj^ seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed" (see Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18). This great and special STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 253 promise, which, on the authority of Peter, we may term the Jirst Abrahamic covenant, was first made to Abraham, in the land of the Chaldees, while "in uncircumcision," and over a score of years before the covenant and rite of circumcision were given. Christian believers are, of course, greatly interested in this prom- ise, which was indeed the " gospel preached before unto Abraham " (Gal. iii. 8) , and which is substantially identical with the gospel or " new " covenant. And yet has God covenanted with each Christian believer to give him a " seed," a numerous offspring, as the " stars of heaven " and as the " dust of the earth" for mul- titude ; to make his ' ' name great ; " to make of him ' ' a great nation ; " and that from him shall come the Messiah, in whom " all the families of the earth shall be blessed " ? The next, or second, specified covenant with Abraham, is recorded in Gen. xv. 18 (com- pare xii. 7, xiii. 15), and specially promises to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan and its bordering countries for an ever- lasting possession. This is the " covenant before confirmed by God," which, by its wording in the Seventy (Gen. xiii. 15; so xvii. 8, but not x-vii. 7) , furnishes Paul's quotation in Gal. iii, 16, — "And to thy seed, which is Christ" (thus not the infant seed of believers) ; which covenant, as Paul sa^'s, " the law, which came four hundred and thirty- years after, does not annul to make the promise (of " inheritance ") of no effect." ^ We hardlj^ need ask whether this promise of the earthly Canaan for an everlasting in- heritance belongs now to the Christian believer. While, however, we must answer this in the negative, we do not deny that there is a sense in which those who are " Christ's," and thus "Abraham's seed" (Gal. iii. 29), are, with Abraham, not only heirs "of the world" (Rom. iv. 13), but "heirs, according to the promise," of God's heavenly Canaan and His everlasting kingdom. The tJiird covenant with Abraham, recorded first in Gen. x\ii. 10, is 1 On this " seed " of Abraham, Ellicott thus remarks: " Here, in its mys- tical meaning, it denotes not merely the spiritual posterity of Abraham, but Him in whom that posterity is all organically united, — the pleroma, the kephale, even Christ" (Gal. iii. 16). And on verse 18 he says, " ' The inher- itance,' here used by the apostle, in its higher meaning, to denote that in- heritance of the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom — the inheritance of the heavenly Canaan — Avhich M'as typified by the lower and primary mean- ing, the inheritance of the earthly Canaan." 254 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. that which, hy Stephen (Acts vii. 8), is called "the covenant of circumcision." This is that which is commonly called the Abra- hamic covenant, and which, by manj'' persons, is supposed to embrace all the promises which God previously made to Abraham in the course of some thirtj" j'ears. We leave our readers to decide for themselves this matter. The peculiar promises attached to this covenant seem to be, that God, in making " Abram " to become "Abraham," would make him to be the "father," not only of a great nation, but of '■'■many nations," as also a father of " kings ; " and that He would be "a God " in a special sense to him, and of his seed after him. How man}' of these promises do humble Christians now appropriate to themselves? Man}' Christian professors, we know, by interpolating the word " infant " before " seed " in the last-mentioned promise, think thus to claim it, in substance, for themselves and their infant offspring (if they have an}'), and find in it a warrant for the baptism of their (infant) seed, even as circumcision was given to the (male) infant seed of Abraham, and of his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. This indeed might and would be the Christian's duty and privilege, had God so willed and ordered it in His Word. Me- thinks, however, even this one promise which they cling to, that Jehovah would be the God of Abraham and of his seed (Gen. xvii. 7) , as that promise has been verified in Jewish history, is not all that Christian believers now wish for and claim. The Jews were, indeed, adopted as God's peculiar people ; but this adoption was national, rather than individual and spuitual (see, in " Baptist Quarter^ " for July, 1871, " The Abrahamic Covenants," by Rev. T. E,. Palmer). The Rev. T. T. Perowne (Episcopalian) con- cedes that '^ circumcision was made a necessary condition of Jewish nationahty." If this be the state of the case, how can a Christian be satisfied to regard the ' ' covenant of circumcision ' ' as the ' ' covenant of grace " ? In a far higher sense than this ma}^ we, if we are " of Christ," the " Son of God," and " son of Abraham," and thus the true spiritual children of Abraham, the " father of believers," humbly claim Jehovah to be our God and Father, and the God and Father of our " seed" after us. But, under the gospel dispensation, even the "seed" of believers, whether Gentile or Jew, must be actuall}' partakers of the "faith of Abraham ; " must, b}' the new birth, and by personal consecra- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 255 tion to Chi'ist, become spiritually related to Christ, and thus " sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus," — before they can properl}* be called the sons, or the seed, of Abraham, and, as "heirs accord- ing to the promise," be entitled to the "seal" of the Christian covenant. In view, thus, of what we deem Scripture representation, we feel ourselves obliged to distinguish between the gospel covenant or promise, which was announced beforehand to Abraham, that in him and in his seed ("which is Christ") "shall all nations of the earth be blessed," and the subsequent " covenant of circumcis- ion," first made with Abraham, but, centuries after, renewed and confirmed by Moses and the Children of Israel, and which is so far identical with the legal Sinaitic covenant, that the " circumcised," as Paul declares, " are debtors to do the whole law ; " and " cir- cumcision," and the " law of Moses," the " custom of Moses," and the " Jews' religion," are used as convertible terms. Yet the Hodges of our daj' tell us that the ' ' visible church is identical under both dispensations." ^ If this be so, then it follows that at 1 Some Pedobaptist writers — by making the "good olive-tree" (from which, according to Paul in Rom. xi. 17-24, some " natural branches," i.e., unbelieving Jews, were broken off, and into which the believing Gentiles were grafted) synonymous with the Mosaic national theocracy, or political "commonwealth of Israel " — think thus to prove the sameness of the Jew- ish and Christian Church. But this would amount only to a Judaizing of Christianity, and would make Paul's aim to be simply to proselyte the Gen- tiles, or make the Gentile converts to become virtually Judaizing Christians. But the apostle of the Gentiles had a different estimate of .Judaism from this, and a far different view of the Christian scheme. Yet Paul, for cer- tain, recognized a true church, or people of God, loitldn the Jewish nation, consisting of those who were "Jews inwardly;" who were "not only of the circumcision, but who also walked in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham;" who were "of faith," and thus the true "sons," or spiritual seed of Abraham. " For not all they are Israel who are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." " The physical Israel," as Olshausen remarks, " had ceased to be the true Israel," and became merely " Israel after the flesh; " yet there was " a rem- nant according to the election of grace." In some sense the physical Israel belonged to the "good olive-tree," or the true church, even as fruitless branches are said ( John xv. 2) to be "in" Christ, "the true vine." The connection in either case was simply outward and nominal, not real and vital ; yet it was sufficient to justify Pavil in speaking of a breaking-off, and Christ of a takincj-away, of fruitless branches. 256 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. least all the male inhabitants of our land should be deemed church- members, and should be recognized as such b}^ the " seal " of baptism. Surely our American people are as truty " sanctified" to the Lord, and as justly entitled to the name of "believers," as were the Jews. And if all the Jews were born " of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man," into church-membership, or were, by virtue of fleshly birth, entitled to church-membership and the " seal of the covenant," shall any selfishness of ours exclude one of our whole people from the visible church of Christ ? Nay, if the Abrahamic circumcision-covenant and the gospel-cove- nant are identical, as is \erj ingeniously maintained by Rev. Peter Clark of Salem (A.D. 1752) in his Reply to Dr. John GiU ; and if the Christian Church be but an extension of the Jewish, embracing all nations instead of one; and the " covenant of circumcision" be now in force throughout the Christian world, its " token " only being changed in form, and applied, not now to the male infant of eight days, but to both sexes, and as soon as maj^ be after birth, even within the second or third daj^, as Cj'prian and his sixtj'-six confreres in council would have it, rather than on the eighth, "that no soul be lost," — then, methinlcs, our National Congress, at the very start, and every other National Government which pretends to be Christian, should have enacted a law, that every infant, without exception, of the respective "nations," should be baptized, and that every unbaptized person should be cut oflf from his or her people. And why has not Jehovah long ago " cut ofi"" all Chris- tians and all Christian nations, and swept them oflT from the face of the earth, for their disregard and contempt of " the covenant of cir- cumcision " ? Or can we go on, and make such further alterations of that covenant as we choose, merety retaining enough of it to warrant the baptism of the infant seed of confederate believers, provided such believers deem it fitting and best ? Plow gingerty and feebly does even the Protestant-Episcopal Church in Article XXVII. enforce the obligation of the covenant of Abraham, when all she ven- tures to say is (according to the English edition of 1571), "The baptisme of young children is in any wyse to be retaj'ned in the churche, as most agreeable with the institution of Christe " ! To like purpose the minister, in his exhortation before baptism, says, ' ' Nothing doubting but that He favorably alloweth this charitable work of ours in bringing this infant to this hoty baptism," &c. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 257 Still feebler is the echo of this doctrine in Article XXVI. of the ' ' Eeformed ' ' Episcopal Church : ' ' The baptism of 3- oung children is retained in this church as agreeable to ancient usage, and not contrary to Holy Writ." Surely such hesitating, mincing, half- hearted declarations as these respecting one of Jehovah's com- mands and our bounden duty must be displeasing to Him, They who would admit the unregenerate children of believers into the visible church tell us, furthermore, that the church of Christ was designed of God to be a mixed community of good and e\il, wheat and tares, and that the separation is not to be made until the end of the world. But because there are and always will be in the church of Christ unworthy members, deceivers, or self-deceived, is this a reason why that church, which is Christ's body, designed to be a spiritual house, built of living stones, a communit}^ called out and separate from the world, composed of renewed, believing.,, justified, and saved souls, saints, and faithful brethren, and sub- ject unto Christ, — why such a church should purposely make itself one with the " world," and incite the " Enemy," who is the Devil, to come in and sow tares among the wheat? or why the " sons of the kingdom " should seek for and welcome the incom- ing and fellowship of the " sons of the Evil One " ? " How un- wary," says Professor Stuart (" On the Old Testament," p. 395), " are many excellent men in contending for infant-baptism on the ground of the Jewish analog}' of circumcision ! Are females not proper subjects of baptism? And, again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized because he is? Are they church-members, of course, when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between in- grafting into a politico-ecclesiastical communit}', and into one of which it is said that it ' is not of this world ' ? " " There is a difference," says Dr. Sears (" Christian Review," vol. iii. p. 217), " in the two dispensations. In the Mosaic dispensation the the- ocracy was designed for a particular nation, and was hereditary : an external sign could, therefore, be applied to those who were members of the theocrac}' by birth. But in the Christian dispensa- tion it is wholly different : the participation must be internal, a free, conscious reception, a regeneration, of which baptism is the sign. Hence the difference in the two dispensations shows of itself that baptism presupposes an internal change." But it may be asked, " What advantage, then, hath the Jew? or 258 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. what profit is there of drcumcision ? ' ' Our answer, like that of the great preacher of " the gospel of the uncircumcision," would be, "Much everj" waj', chieflj' because that unto them were com- mitted the oracles of God." They enjoyed not onl}' many temporal blessings, but the means of grace ; and especiallj^ blessed were they in the possession of God's revealed will. The}' thus had mam" and great means of improvement, man}- and great religious advantages and external blessings. But all these pri^ileges did not confer grace in the heart, or a time faith ; nor did circumcision sjTiibolize the actual possession of grace and of faith. " Scrip- ture," saj's Dr. Pusey, "has nowhere the slightest hint of what moderns so often assume, that it imparted any spiritual benefit." The New Testament, he sa^'s, speaks of it, "for the most part, to disparage it." And the writings of most of the fathers, and the liturgies of the early church, which make so frequent reference to the tj^ical baptism of the flood and of the Red Sea, are almost wholly silent as to an}- such baptism in the fleshlj' circumcision made b}' hands. " See," said Justin Mart3T, " how* God rejects this circumcision which was given as a sign ; for it profits neither the Egj-ptians, nor the children of Moab, nor of Edom." He avers that the patriarchs were saved without it ; that Abraham re- ceived it for a sign, and not for justification ; and that women could not receive it in the flesh, " showing that circumcision is given for a sign, not to work righteousness." "I cry aloud," he adds, ' ' the blood of that circumcision hath been done away, and we have believed in the saving blood : now there is another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion " (see, further, in Dr. Puse^^'s tract on "Baptism"). There is, indeed, some resem- blance, and it has been justly acknowledged by Baptist authors, between circumcision and Christian baptism ; and we feel no hesitancy in calling baptism, as some of the fathers did, "the Christian circumcision." Pengill}- obsen^es that " the}' were both initiatory ordinances, — the one into the body politic of Israel of old, the subjects of which rite are all the male inhabitants; the other into the body of Christ, luMch is His church, and the subjects of which are all believers in Him." Wiberg ("On Baptism," p. 201) says, '■'-As circumcision in the Old Testament belonged to the natural seed of Abraham by -vdrtue of fleshly birth, so baptism belongs to his spiritual seed by \irtue of regeneration through STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 259 faith." Professor G. D. B. Pepper also asserts that " circumcis- ion does point to the proper subjects of baptism. As the national Israel typified the spiritual Israel, the circumcision which immedi- atelj' followed, not preceded, natural birth, bids us baptize chil- dren, not before, but immediately after, spiritual birth. As the spiritual facts pointed to b}' circumcision and the passover were essentiall}^ the same with those symbolized by baptism and the supper, the reasons which required the undeviating order of sequence in the observance of those hold also of these." But how strange it is that any in this Christian land need now to be told, that " in Chiist Jesus neither circumcision availeth an}' thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" ! " The only circumcision of the gospel," sa^^s Lange, "is, according to Paul, that of the heart." And this spiritual circumcision made without hands, and wrought in and through Christ, tliis putting-off, not an insignifi- cant part, but the whole "bod}' of the flesh," as in death, is the proi^er prerequisite of Christian baptism, and is symbolized by the same. And if Paul, in Col. ii. 11, 12, implies, as some sup- pose, that this spiritual circumcision is not oul}' represented, but in some sense is realized, in our baptismal burial with Christ, where- in the old man, the body of sin and of death, is buried, and we rise with the risen Saviour to " newness of life," we will gladly hope for and rejoice in the same. One thing, however, is certain, that neither here, nor elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures, is it taught by the inspired wiiters that baptism was appointed to take the place of an outward and hand-made circumcision : on the contrary, the apostles and elders, after considering in council this very question of the continuance of circumcision, not only do not tell the " zealots of the law " that baptism b}' divine appointment has taken the place of circumcision (which they as wise men would have declared, had it been true, and thus have settled the whole matter at once) , but the}^ decide that Gentile believers, at least, shall "observe xo such thing" (see Acts xv. and xxi.). "What miserable debaters," says Alexander Campbell, in his discussion with Dr. N. L. Rice, " were the apostles, that they did not at once settle the dispute by saying, ' Brethren, do you not know that baptism now stands in the place of circumcision, and therefore it is preposterous to circumcise those persons who have received it akeady in the Christian form? ' ! " When Paul, also, was 260 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. accused (Acts xxi. 21) of teaching all the Jews who were among the Gentiles "that they should not circumcise their children," how fit an opportunity was this to replj^, that, under the gospel dispensation, the infant seed of believers, whether Jews or Gen- tiles, were to receive baptism instead of circumcision ! ^ Thus the apostles individual!}^, and in council assembled, have declared cir- cumcision abolished ; and neither they nor their di^ane Lord ever spoke of baptism as a substitute. The fact, moreover, that circum- cision continued to be practised in the apostohc age along with baptism, proves that baptism was not regarded as having taken the place of circumcision. " A co-observance of circumcision," as Dr. Hovey remarks, " has no meaning, if baptism had entered simply into its place." 1 " He who says of Mmself, that Christ sent liim, not to baptize, but to preacli the gospel ; he who always kept bis eye iixed on one thing, justifica- tion by faith, and so carefully avoided every thing which could give a handle or support to the notion of a justification by outward things, — how could he have set up infant-baptism against the circumcision that continued to be practised by the Jewish Christians ? In this case, the dispute carried on with the Judaizing party, on the necessity of circumcision, would easily have given an opportunity of introducing this substitute into the controversy. The evidence arising from silence on this topic has, therefore, the greater weight." — Neastder's Planting and Training of the Church, p. 102. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 261 CHAPTER XXVn. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. IT is from the household baptisms of the New Testament, and from God's family constitution of society, that Dr. Dale (who here closely follows Dr. BushneU) derives the chief support of infant-baptism (see his "Christie Baptism," p. 219, seq.). This household baptism as set forth by Dr. Dale, and a proper cii'- cumcision-baptism, are in some respects much alike ; yet they differ in two or three points besides those which we have pre- viously indicated. Infant-circumcision was not grounded on the piety of parents, but on a physical descent from Abraham. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab and Jezebel, was as properly the sub- ject of this rite as a son of Josiah or of Daniel would have been. Dr. Dale, we think, allows of household baptisms only on the ground of piety in the family head ; and thus even he leaves a large majority of children " under the covenant of death." This family head, moreover, in Dale's scheme, ma}^ be either father or mother ; while in the ancient economy the father alone was the head and representative of the family, and males onl}^ were cir- cumcised. Again: everyone of Abraham's " three hundred and eighteen trained servants " (if then living) , and " every male," old or young, "among the men of Abraham's house" (a ver}' large number, doubtless ; too large, some may think, for Abraham, in Jiis critical situation, alone to circumcise in one day, unless he practised a " compend " of that rite, or had some persons to assist him), had to be circumcised, nolens volens, with faith, or without faith; but, in the case of "household" baptisms, only those servants could be baptized on the ground of their master's or mistress's faith who properly belonged to the " household." It will be perceived, moreover, that this household scheme of bap- 262 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tism — as performed solely on the faith of the family head, and because there is a " unit}' of life between the family head and its members, making it obligatory upon the head to receive God's commands and promises alike for his family as for himself" — will include not only the unbelieving infants, but the unregenerate adults, of such household. Consequently, had Dr. Dale been in Paul's place when writing his first letter to the Corinthians, he would have said, "If any brother has a wife that believes not, let her be baptized without delay. His faith, as the family head, is the faith of his house. See, then, that 3'ou do not exclude, as will some heretics who shall arise in the last times, God's family constitution from the kingdom of God, and give it over to Satan. For I would not have 3'ou ignorant, brethren, that the constitution of the gospel kingdom is in harmony with God's constitution of the human race. Not only so ; but the promise now is to j^ou and your consorts, as well as 3'oiu: infant-children ; and the law of baptism in Jesus Christ is, she and her houseJiold, he and all his. Know ye not, brethren, that at Philippi I baptized ' Lydia and her household,' the 'jailer and all his'? And have you forgotten that in 3'our own city I baptized ' the household of Stephanas ' ? I wonder that you haA'e so soon forgotten these things, and that, instead of bringing 3-our unconverted heathen wives to baptism, you are thinking of putting them away." Yes, Dr. Dale would decide, in the words of Professor A. C. Kendrick (" Christian Ee- view," 1863, p. 288), " that a wife fresh from a sacrifice to Juno, that daughters who had just been rendering their vows to Venus, that sons whose hands were reeking with offerings to Mars, that servants who daily invoked Mercury, the patron god of thieves," — that all these " should be baptized because of the faith and piety of the ' family head.' " Surely the apostles, if they practised by this rule, would have poured " a fresh tide of unrepented heathen- ism into the bosom of the infant church." " It cannot be," says Dr. Dale, " but that, sooner or later, all good and wise men will be shocked by any system which places the kingdom of God in antagonism with the famil}' constitution of the human race." But society, states, or nations, are composed of families, and are of God's ordaining ; and why should not Dr. Dale (in harmou}^ with our Lord's commission, as some Pedo- baptists interpret it) include God's national constitution of the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 263 human race in tlie kingdom of God ? ' ' "We have Abraham for our father," said the unbelieving Jews. But how emphaticall}' do both John and Jesus impugn this idea of hereditary salvation ! Jesus tells those Jews who believed not, — Jews outwardlj", but not inwardly, yet ever boasting of their descent from the father of believers, — that they, nevertheless, were the children of the father of lies. So strong is Dale's dislike of " naked individualism " in the kingdom of God, that he allows no room for the " fire " and the "sword'' of Christ on earth, no division of "one house," — "three against two, and two against three, the father divided against the son, and the son against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother," so that " a man's foes shall be they of his own household." " We believe," says Dale, "that the constitution of God's gospel king- dom is in harmony with God's constitution of the human race. We do, therefore, accept the statements, ' Lydia and her house- hold,' ' the jailer and his household,' ' Stephanas and his house- hold,' at the normal value of their terms, and as declaring that ' households ' are received into the kingdom of God as embraced in a covenant relation established between the family head and the God of the familj' ; and we do reject as the profoundest of errors, essentially vitiating the constitution of Christ's kingdom, and as antagonizing every covenant formed b}^ God with the human race from the beginning of time until now, the idea that individualism has supplanted and excluded the famil}' as an organic element in the kingdom of God and in the covenant of redemption" ("Christie Baptism," p. 238). But is Dr. Dale, as an evangelical Protestant, altogether pleased with "the con- stitution of Christ's kingdom "as it exists, for example, in man}' nations of Europe and the Old World, where the Saviour's com- mission, disciple and baptize, is wholly reversed, and virtuallj' abolished ; where nearly all the inhabitants are church-members, baptized and made members of Christ, children of God, and in- heritors of the kingdom of heaven, in infancy', at which time, as in the Greek Church, or siibsequently, as in the Roman, they were " confirmed," and qualified to receive the eucharist as disciples of Christ, while perhaps a vast majority of said church-members are, in the judgment of charit}', destitute of spiritual life, man}' of them being shamelessly profane and dissolute, while many more 264 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. are professed deists, pantheists, materialists, atheists, open scoff- ers of the religion of Christ? Let Dr. Dale go among these people as a missionar}^, and urge upon their attention the impor- tance of personal religion, the need of a new heart, and of a living faith : will the}^ not indignantly^ exclaim that they were baptized and regenerated in infancy, and made the children of grace, and members of the onl}^ true church, — the church which was the first, and which will be the last, — and that they are perfectly sure of heaven ? And being thus obliged to regard aU the people as con- verted, and being thus forbidden to separate them into two classes, the renewed and unrenewed, will not our missionary, through the actual workings of this constitution of the kingdom of Christ, be exceedingly discouraged, as many another has been, in his attempt to convert them full}' and truly to Christ? And is not infant-baptism to-day, throughout the earth, lulling counties* numbers into a fatal indifference and unconcern as to spiritual and eternal things? Perhaps Dr. Dale, as a Presbj'terian, would ob- ject that these untold mj^riads of baptized households had no pious "family head," and ought not, therefore, to have been baptized. But are all the infant members of such households to be debarred from the kingdom, and, if they die in infancy, be for- ever lost on this account ? This view of things would be about as bad as the "theory" (of Baptists, we suppose) which, as Dale sa^'s, "excludes little children from the kingdom of heaven" ("Christie Baptism," p. 234) . What an imputation is this ! And a like one, cast upon somebody, is found on p. 224: "When the Bible shuts out infants from the richest blessings of the cross, and precludes parents from prating in their behalf for these blessings, then, and not till then, men may shut them out from the seal of those blessings which belong, tlnrough covenant grace, alike to parents and children." But, though this familj^-baptism theory of Dr. Dale's is mainly spun out of his own brain, he yet thinks to find some Support for it in certain occurrences recorded in the Old Testament. In favor of his view, he especially emphasizes the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb on the lintels and doorposts bj^ the household heads (was it not by the elders of Israel? — Exod. xii. 21) as the means of saving the first-born from death, and says, "Little children of the households, symbolly redeemed b}- the blood of STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 265 sprinkling, through the faith and obedience of the family head, was the truth written in blood, and taught in every household of Israel for a thousand and a half- thousand years." But were these first-born (sons) all "little children" necessarily? We suppose, that, in many of these households, there were no little children, but that the first-born might, perhaps, have been one of the adult members, or even the " family head." We grant, with our author, that it would have been folly and sin for the parents of Israel to sa}^, " This sprinkling by us can do our children no good ; they cannot repent, they cannot believe, they cannot obej', the}^ cannot understand an}' thing about it ' ' (we were not aware that these mental efibrts were required of the " children") ; "we will not observe such a service : ' ' for this would have been direct disobedience of God's plain command. And, had Christ as plainly commanded believing parents to baptize their infant offspring, it would be criminal disobedience, and a wrong to those little ones, to refuse them this rite. But when we are not commanded, but virtuall}' forbidden, to do so, and j-et do the same, are we not doing our best, consciously or not, to annihilate the onl}^ baptism appointed by Christ's commission, — the baptism of discipled and repentant believers? And do we not wrong our children also, by depriving them, if ever converted, of the privilege of obeying the Lord's command for themselves, as also the sweet remembrance forever after of a great duty cheerfully performed for Christ ? " Another illustrative case is found," says our author, " in the co-baptism of a half-million parents and children ' into Moses ' at the Red Sea. Never was there such a procession of families going (as Paul, 1 Cor. x. 2, tells us) on the wa}' to baptism." The principle on which all these infant-baptisms were performed is not stated. Baptism, then, for certain, had not taken the place of cir- cumcision ; and even Dr. Dale, I ween, would hardly say that these " half-million families, more or less," all had a pious famil}' head. Moreover, I have m}^ doubts whether Paul, when he as- serted that " all ouv fathers" baptized themselves unto Moses, and all ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, and were finally overthrown in the wilderness, had an}' reference to infants. But this baptism was of an unusual character, and is altogether too ' ' figurative ' ' and unique to derive therefrom any solid argument bearing upon the point in question. We pass, therefore, to consider, next, — 266 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. THE HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. In all the New Testament there are explicitly mentioned, or plainly implied, six believing. God-fearing households. This number includes the baptized household of Lydia, though little is said directl}^ respecting its character. The other five households embrace that of the nobleman at Capernaum, of the centurion Cornehus, of the jailer at Philippi, and of Crispus and Stepha- nas at Corinth (John iv. 53 ; Acts x, 2, xvi. 15, 34, xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 15). Other believing households are perhaps fairly implied ; to wit, those of Onesiphorus, Aristobulus, and Narcissus (2 Tim. i. 16 ; Rom. xvi. 10, 11). Of these households, those of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, are expressly mentioned as hav- ing been baptized. Other households, doubtless, were also bap- tized. Crispus himself was baptized by Paul : and probably his household were baptized at the samfr time ; for they were all believers. So the devout Gentile Cornelius, doubtless, was bap- tized with his God-fearing household; for "on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit: " and Peter answered, " Can any man forbid the water [i.e., baptism], that these should not be baptized, who received the Holy Ghost even also as we? " ^ 1 Alford says that "this expression, 'forbid the water,' &c., is interest- ing, as showing that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates, and not the candidates to the water. This, which would be implied by the word under any circumstances, is rendered certain when we remember that they were assembled in the house." We simply remark, on the other hand, that this is not the practice as generally indicated in the New Testament and on the page of earliest Christian history. Besides, the distinguished commentator, whose body now rests, as his epitaph declares, in the deverso- rium viatoris Hierosolymam projiciscentis, did not distinctly tell us whether the water which was to be brought in was to be used for sprinkling, pour- ing, or immersion. What a pity that our friends cannot find the words meaning " to be brought" in some one of all our Greek manuscripts! In our opinion, the query of Peter means no more than that of the eunuch. The latter asked, " What forbids me to be baptized?" while Peter inquires, " Who can forbid the water ? " Even were sprinkling the " mode," we can hardly think Peter's question amounted merely to this, " Can any one forbid a basin of water to be brought in ?" &c. Besides, as one writer remarks, if this (sprinkling) were all the ceremony, and to be performed on the spot, there seems to be no reason why Peter should have left its performance to others. No : the whole history of baptize proper, whether Classic, Judaic, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 267 " Anti-Pedobaptist " ministers at the present day have also the j)rivilege, perhaps as often as the apostles did, of baptizing whole Joliannic, Christie, or Patristic, shows that persons were led to the water, and then were completely intusposed within it, for baptism. The first voice (of Barnabas) which has reached iis from post-apostolic history is, " Kata- bainomen eis to hudor," &c., — "We go down into the water full of sins and pollution, but come up again bringing forth fruit." " Blessed are they who put their trust in the cross [the tree planted by the rivers], and descend into the water'" (Barnabas 10: 10-14). The next voice, perhaps, is that from the shepherd of Hernias: "Aqua in quam descendunt homines . . . ascendunt vera," &c., — "The water [of baptism] into which men descend bound to death, but come up appointed unto life," &c. (Hermas III., Similitude IX., 153, 151). See also Vision III. 41, 42, 75, 76, for Hennas' description of "the tower" (the church) "built upon the water," and of the stones " which fell by the water, and could not roll into the water;" which stones represent "such as have heard the word, and were willing to be baptized," . . . but " withdrew themselves, walking again after their wicked lusts." Justin Martyr, born A.D. 89, says, "Then they" (the persuaded and believing ones) "are led by us to a place where there is water, . . . and make their bath in the water." And again: "Leading to the loutron [the bath] of baptism the person to be bathed." He also says, " We represent our Lord's sufferings and resurrection in a pool." Ireneeus (born about A.D. 110), who sat at the feet of John's disciple Polycarp, speaking of some of the heretical Valentinian Gnostics, says, " Some bring the party to the water," but use a strange, uncouth formula. And "some of them say that it is needless to bring the person to the water at all," (Ba^jtists, cer- tainly, are not their successors!) " but, maldng a mixture of oil and water, they POUB (!) it on his head," &c. ; " by which words of bis," says Wall, " and by a thousand other instances, it appears that the Catholics did ordinarily put the whole body in water." The theory and practice of Ter- tullian (born A.D. 160) are well known. Compare his " Aquam adituri," "coming" (from the church) "to the water," with his "Aqua mergimur, ter mergitamur, homo in aqua demissus et inter pawca verba tinctus, . . . resurgit. Nos plsciculi . . . in aquis nascimur," &c. ; that is, "We are (thrice) immersed in water. A man let down into the water and dipped , . . rises again. We little fishes, like our Ichthxts (Jesus Christ), are born in water," &c. " After these things ye were led by the hand to the sacred pool of the divine baptism as Christ from the cross to the prepared tomb. And each was asked if he believes, &c. And ye professed the saving profession, and sunk down thrice into the water, and again came up" (Cyril of Jeru- salem, born about A.D. 315). What Professor Stuart has remarked on the above assertion of Justin he probably would not hesitate to apply to other passages cited. His language is, " I am persuaded that this passage, as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion; for whj', on any other ground, should the convert who is to be initiated go out to the place where 268. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. families together ; though, of course, the number of such simul- taneously believing and baptized houses is not large, especially in Christian lands where the gospel has long been preached. In newly-visited heathen regions such occurrences are much more common, as our foreign missionary journals bear witness.^ And there is water ? There could be no need of this, if mere sprinkling, or partial affusion only, was customaiy." Dr. Dale, we suppose, would be willing to concede the same; for even he unhesitatingly acknowledges the fact of a momentary water-covering in the ex ordine regular patristic baptism (see Patristic Baptism, pp. 544, 545). Yet holding, as he does, that the patristic baptism consisted in a " spiritual effect," he would deny any necessity for leading the candidates " out to the place where there is water; " that is, for the sake of immersion. The patrists, however, saw a necessity for doing this whenever it was a possible thing. And it is a noteworthy fact, that Dr. Dale has not, for the best of reasons, attempted to show that the " spiritual effect " sought after in baptism by the patrists could not be secured by the ritual act or usage of immersion in water. This " in aqua mergimur," or immersion in water, should, therefore, be ac- knowledged by every one as the "mode" of patristic baptism whenever it was possible ; and we can think but little of any man's intelligence or hon- esty who would deny this. And, in view of the above-given earliest utterances of the Christian Church after the apostles, what could we expect Dr. Lyman Coleman, author of Christian Antiquities, &c., to say, but that exclusive immersion in his view "was the first departure from the teaching and example of the apostles on this subject"? (See his Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 19, sect. 4.) 1 It has been asserted by some of our Pedobaptist friends, that, when we Baptists report the baptism of households, we are (unlike the historian Luke) very careful to state that they were all believers; and that the Scrip- ture method of reporting such baptisms better corresponds with Pedo- baptistic practice. We shall see, however, that insijiration has, in general, been veiy careful to state or indicate the fact that these baptized hoiises were repentant and believing. And, if there be any difference between Luke's method of reporting and our own, it must be borne in mind that circum- stances theri were not the same as ours now. There were no infant or indis- criminate baptisms in Luke's day: consequently, he needed not to be so guarded in his statements as we are obliged to be. As we have here touched upon the " Scripture method of reporting bap- tisms," we will subjoin what the "venerable Booth" says on this subject: "Were my reader to peruse a narrative of baptismal practice penned by a foreigner, or by any anonymous author of whom he had no knowledge but what was obtained from his writings ; were he to find him speak of choosing a place for the administration of baptism, in preference to others, because there was much water there ; of his baptizing in a river; of going down with STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 269 we are persuaded that very many more instances of baptized houses would have been recorded in the New Testament, had it been the custom in apostolic times for whole families, little ones and all, to be baptized with the " family head." But the question now is, Were the individuals of these three baptized households all believers ? We think so. We are sure, that, when Paul preached at Philippi (where Lj^dia and the jailer resided) and at Corinth (where Stephanas had his home) , he counselled and exhorted them all to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls. As the result of his preaching at. Corinth, " many of the • Corinthians," we are told, " hearing, believed and were baptized." Crispus believed on the Lord, "with all his house." Stephanas was one of the " many" believers ; and we learn (from 1 Cor. i. 16) that Paul baptized his house or famil}' (oikos) , and (from 1 Cor. xvi. 15) that his household (or oiJcia) were the "first-fruits of Achaia unto Christ, and that they devoted themselves to the service of the saints." The "little ones" of Stephanas' house- hold must have grown up very quickly ! C. Taylor maintains that oiJcos means one's family, and "imports children;" while oiJcia embraces domestics or servants, and that only the former were baptized with the family head. This, if proved true, would only show in this instance that the family proper of Stephanas, as well as his domestics, addicted themselves to the ministrj^ of the saints ; for Mr. Taj'lor himself tells us that " the term oikia includes the house." The Greek lexicons, however, do not warrant any such distinction, but rather seem to indicate, that, if there be any differ- ence, the oikia is, in some respects, the more limited term. To the jailer at Philippi Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Chiist, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house " (oikos). This supposes the candidate into, and coming up out of, the water; were he to find him re- minding baptized persona of their having been buried and raised with Christ in baptism ; and were he to observe that the author always uses a word for the ordinance, which, in its primary acceptation, signifies immersion, but never talks of bringinr/ water to the candidate, or of using a basin, as preparatory to the administration, — he would, I presume, be ready to say, ' This author, whoever he be, writes like a Baptist. He speaks the language of one that considers baptism as nothing short of immersion. If, however, contrary to all appearances, he practise aspersion, and intended to inform the public of that particular, he has chosen a very singular method in which to do it, and has expressed himself in the most awkward manner imaginable,' " 270 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. that his house or family were to beheve, as well as himself, iu order to their salvation. "When Peter proclaimed the gospel mes- sage to Cornelius (Act xi. 14), whereby he should be saved, and "all his house" (oiVcos), it is taken for granted that "all his house," as well as himself, would hear and receive the words of salvation. And from Acts x. 2 we learn that "all his house" (oven to the youngest babe) feared God, as well as himself, and were ready to welcome the words spoken. And the little ones in Crispus' oiJcos or family (if there were any) beheved in the Lord as well as himself; for " all his house " believed (Acts xviii. 8). And again: the "whole household" (oikia) of the nobleman, including, of course, his little infant, believed, together with their father (John iv. 53). How singular that all the " whole houses " of the New Testament are named believers ! And two, at least, of the three baptized houses or families, are plainly indicated to be believers. But let us look again at the jailer's house or house- hold ; for there belonged to him both oikos and oikia. " And they spoke to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his {oikia) household." Infants may have been there ; but, if so, they were not, as auditors, embraced within the "all" to whom Paul and others "spoke the word." After "himself and all his" were baptized, we read that he "rejoiced (panoiki) with all his house, having believed in God." Rev. William Hodges (in his " Infant Baptism ") saj's he rejoiced " in the midst of his family." But did he rejoice nowhere else? and did not his " saved " family rejoice with him too? Rev. Mr. Heaton says, he rejoiced "re- specting his house." But this is a makeshift rendering, without authority or evidence, and is unworthj^ of notice. The truth is, that he rejoiced especially respecting himself; and the reason of his rejoicing was that he had become a believer. So De Wette, Meyer, and others. Mej'er connects panoiki {with all his house) to the word rendered 'believing^ by which construction all his house are direct!}^ named believers. We prefer to connect it with the verb, he rejoiced with all his house : and we affirm that the reason of their rejoicing was the same as his ; namely, because they, too, had become believers, and were " saved." But, if they rejoiced on the ground of his believing, this indicates a right state of heart in them. Certainly neither unconscious infants nor unregenerate adults would have rejoiced much at his conversion. Another STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 271 Philippian household which was baptized was that of L3-dia. She was a merchant- woman, a seller of purple, from the city of Thya- tira. She had a dwelling-house, and also a household, in Philippi, where she was then residing, consisting, it maj- be, of those who assisted her in business. Many infants from first to last have been assigned to her family' ; but this is the sheerest guess-work. If she ever had a husband, the probability is that he was long since dead. Paul spoke to her and other " women " at the place of prayer bj' "a river's side," and the Lord opened her heart to attend to the things spoken. After she and her household were baptized, she said to Paul and his companions (Silas, Luke, and Timothy), " If ye have judged me to be a believer in the Lord (thus emphasizing faith in Christ as the important thing) , come into my house and abide" (see Acts xvi. 13-15). As all these guests seem to have tarried there "many days," her "house" would appear to be quite an establishment, and she must have had considerable adult help in her various work. In verse 40 we read that Paul and Silas, after their release from imprisonment, entered into the house of Lydia, where the}^ saw and exhorted " the breth- ren," doubtless the recent converts, some of whom may have been her associates in business, or (if we must have her a mar- ried woman) possibty her own sons! " See," said Chr3'sostom, "how she persuacleth aU " her house! And these are all the instances commonly relied on of infant-baptism in the New Testa- ment. When we take into consideration, not onh' the character, as above indicated, of these respective households, but the requisi- tions of the great commission, and what we must term the gist of the apostle's preaching, ever requiring as the " first principles of the doctrine of Christ . . . the foundation of repentance and of faitJi," together with the man}- plain examples of believers' baptism, we cannot think it possible that infant-baptism could be an apostolic practice. A word further in regard to Taj'lor's theory of the oikos, or family. Surelj^ it is in vain to prove, as he has endeavored to do, that oiTcos denotes " the nearest degree of kindred," and has "special reference to children," "imports childi-en," "implies infants," &c. What he needed to proA'e was, that " house " al- ways "means infants," or "implies infants;" that there, conse- quently, were infants in these particular houses, and that these 272 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. infants were themselves baptized. But as the term " house," or " family," may or may not, in special instances, include infants, we can only conjecture that there were infants in these households. On such a conjecture respecting the jailer's house the Rev. Mr. Heaton bases not only a " probable confirmation of m/an^-bap- tism, but a moral certainty." If this conjecture, however, were in accordance with the facts, it must still further be shown that these infants were by Scripture law and precept capable of receiving Christian baptism, and that they did in fact receive it. "Quamquam,"says Matthies ("Bap. Expo.," p. 102), "totafamilia sacrse lotioni esse immersa fertur, nihilominus valde dubitandum est, num in ilia famiha infantes fuerint, numque, iidem infantes, si affuerint, sint baptizati ; " that is, though " a whole family is said to have been immersed, yet it is ver}' doubtful whether there were any infants in it, or, if there were, whether thej were baptized." Paul, or some of his companions, we will suppose, may for a time have taught some of these baptized houses, in which, we wiU also suppose, there may have been infants. But would this prove that they actually taught unconscious and speechless babes? Very justly, we think, does Professor Plumptre concede that " the mention of ' households ' as baptized is, at best, a precarious foundation for a wide generalization. If baptism were thought of as limited to those who could make a confession of faith, it would not be deemed necessary to mention infants as not included in the ' household ' that was baptized, any more than it would be neces- sary to except them if one were speaking of a whole household going forth to fight against the enemy" (see art. " Children," in Smith's " Christian Antiquities "). STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 273 CHAPTER XXVIII. INFANT-BAPTISM AND THE "COMMISSION." WE have already noticed what the " influence theory " of Dr. Dale has done with our Lord's commission as a whole, and the exceedingly blind manner in which he derives from it, or insinuates into it, the duty of infant-baptism. "We will now attempt, very briefly, to show how some other Pedobaptist writers have extracted from it, or inserted in it, their Pedobaptistic theory. Dr. Wall, of course, finds manj' infants scattered up and down among the " nations,'^ which, or whom, the apostles were instructed to disciple, to baptize, and to teach. No doubt there were infants among the " nations," and so there were profligate unbelievers too ; but this does not prove that either class, as such, were to- be baptized. If the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are- genuine, our Saviour commanded the apostles to preach the gos- pel "to every creature." But does this imply the dniy of actually proclaiming it to new-born babes, or to the lower animals, even^ as St. Antony is said to have preached to the fishes? Infants,. indeed, are comprised in the " nations ; " but they cannot possibly be taught to observe aU the Saviour's commands, and hence there- can be no baptized and instructed infant disciples. Nor can the}'' properly be baptized "into the name of the Father, Son, and-. Holy Spirit; " for this implies one's professed faith in, and per- sonal devotedness to, the Triune God. "To be baptized in the- name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, implies," says Pro- fessor Hodge (in " The Way of Life"), " a voluntary dedicatiouj of ourselves to God, as our Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier." Neither can infants in any proper sense be made " disciples " w learners of Jesus. But a "disciple," with Dr. Wall, does not 274 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. always denote a present learner, but one who has been taught, or who is to be taught in the future ; and an infant disciple is one who is placed in the school of Christ, or entered as a scholar, to be taught subsequently, when capable of recei\ing instiniction. Still he owns that "learning and teaching are correlatives," and "that the word, maldng disciples., is far oftener used by authors in the case of such as are at that time actually begun to be taught; " and would also, probabl}', concede that one is not com- monly entered as a scholar till he is capable of learning ; and that the dut}^ of teaching the baptized disciple seems, in the commis- sion, to follow immediately upon their baptism ; and furthermore, that, according to the commission as given in Mark xvi. 16, the disciples which are to be baptized must first be believers^ and, as implied in Luke's wording of the commission (xxiv. 47), must be penitent believers ; and that almost ever3'where in the Xew Testa- ment KEPENTAXCE AND FAITH are sct forth as prerequisites for baptism : and therefore it would seem that even he could derive but a doubtful argument from the commission for the baptizing of " senseless and blameless babes." If, moreover, the Lord's commission makes, without any ex- ceptions, requisition of repentance and faith, must not the issue be most sad which would result to infants by including them in such a coromission? For they most certainly cannot repent, and have their sins remitted thi'ough repentance. Nor can they be- lieve, and thus be saved by faith. Must thej' not, then, if dying in infancy, be classed with the unrepentant and unbeheving, and thus be consigned by this commission to condemnation and ' ' eter- nal sin " ? . Dr. Leonard Woods, Dr. Ralph Wardlaw, and others, following the example of Dr. Wall, make the commission to include infants b}' putting into it the words " prosel3'te," or "circumcise," — thus, "Go, proselyte all nations, baptizing them;" or, "Go, disciple all nations, circumcising them," &c., — and then asking us if this form of co mm ission would not naturally embrace infants. But what a jumbUng together of incongruous elements, — disci- pling, cu'cumcising, teaching ! Never was such a command relat- ing to infants ever heard in Israel. Still our friends have to do but one thing to render the argmnent from their interpolated com- mission cogent and con\-incing ; and that is, to show that the law STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 275 of proselyting and circumcising was identical with the law of discipling and baptizing, — an undertaking, we should suppose, which would be somewhat difficult to accomplish. And here we . would observe, that those who would administer infant- baptism only to the " infant seed of confederate believers " (such infants alone, according to the Westminster Confession and correct Presbj'terianism and Orthodox}', being born "within the covenant" and "within the church," and thus entitled to the "seal of the covenant" and to the badge of church- membership) cannot, for certain, derive their infant-baptism from the commission ; for, if this commission embraces one infant of the "nations" as a proper subject for baptism, it will embrace all the infants of "all the nations" as proper subjects of baptism. If, as Eev. Alexander Campbell, Drs. Stacey and HaUey, and many others, maintain, the nations were to be discipled by baptiz- ing them, or by baptizing and teaching, even this method of disci- pling would presuppose, in the case of adults, some preparatory- counsel and instruction prior to baptism, and perhaps might in- volve or impty the requisites of repentance and faith ; though to us it seems to accord rather with the principles and practices of some of the early Jesuits, who made disciples, at times, b}^ bap- tizing (sprinkhng) individuals in a clandestine or surreptitious manner. The word for "them," however, in the original of the commission, being preceded b}' the verb matJieteusate, " disciple," does not of necessity directly- refer to " nations " (with which it disagrees in gender, although this of itself would not be decisive) , but has reference to discipled ones among the nations ; that is, to Christian converts or believers. And the idea of the commission is, first make converts to Christ,* and then baptize and teach them. Sa3'S the Eev. N. M. Williams (in his "Notes on the Gospel of Matthew," xxviii. 19), " Supposing the three acts to have been expressed thus, ' Go ye, therefore, and, having baptized aU nations, disciple them, and teach them to observe, &c.,' it would have been perfectl}^ clear that baptizing should be first in the series. That would have been authoritj' enough for baptizing unregenerate persons. But such is not the order of the words ; and, if the order of the words is worth ixwj thing as a guide to the order of the acts, then the first act should be 276 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. discipliug, the second baptizing, the third teaching." Jerome right!}' understood the Lord's commission to His apostles when he said, " Primum docent omnes gentes, deinde doctas intinguunt aqua ; non enim potest fieri ut corpus recipiebat baptismi saora- mentum nisi ante anima susceperit fidei veritatem," &c. : that is, " that they first teach all nations, and then immerse tJie taught in water ; for it cannot be that the body should receive the sacrament of baptisin unless the soul have first received the truth of the faith. . . . The order is important : He commands the apostles first to teach all the nations, then to baptize them with the sacrament of faith, and, after faith and baptism, to teach them the things which are to be observed." Athanasius, likewise, maintains the Baptist doctrine, ^'- First instruct, then baptize ; " which Stier and Olshau- sen, and, indeed, all Pedobaptists, peremptorily reject. His lan- guage is, " For this cause our Saviour has not .simply commanded to baptize ; but first He said, ' Disciple,' and then ' Baptize,' . . . so that faith might come from learning, and the perfecting of bap- tism be added to faith." Basil the Great, in a chapter whose opening proposition is, "that it is requisite first to become a disciple of the Lord, and then to be accounted worthy of the holy baptism," after quoting the Saviour's commission, remarks, "The Lord commanded first, ' Disciple all the nations ; ' and then added, ' baptizing them,' &c. . . . We have thought it necessary," he says, "to recur to the order prescribed by the Lord, that thus also, knowing fii'st the import of the command to disciple, then subsequently receiving the reason of the superlatively glorious baptism, ye may be well conducted to the completion, being taught to observe all things whatsoever the Lord commanded His own disciples." So in the apostohcal constitutions we read, " You must first remove from them all their ungodliness, then instruct them in all godliness, and so make them worthy of baptism." We can, moreover, scarcely think that any Christian interpreter would make the "them " of the commission exactly equivalent to "nations," or that any Christian ministers or missionaries either would or COULD baptize nations as such, and just as they are. Untold numbers among the nations would resist the baptism ; and what a vast amount of strength would be required to immerse all these resisting ones ! The only way this commission could be earned out would be to adopt some " compend," and practise it STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 277 clandestinely, after the Jesuitical manner, while men were sleeping. Our Saviour said, " Go, disciple, or make disciples of, all the nations." The noun " disciple " properly means a learner, schol- ar, or pupil, and hence a follower or believer. To disciple any one to Christ necessarily supjposes in such a disciple both the capacity and desire of receiving instruction, and the possession of faith. It is not a fulfilhng of the commission to substitute, as Stier does in his defence of infant-baptism ("Words of Jesus," vol. viii. pp. 299-334) , for the faith of the individual to be bap- tized, the faith of the "baptizing, receiving church," or the faith of parents or of sponsors. This term ' ' discipling," then, must exclude infants, as also all the unbelieving and ungodty (continuing such) , from the number of Christ's belie^dng and instructed disciples, and must,' consequently, debar them from the baptismal rite. ' ' The command in Matt, xxviii. 19," says Professor Plumptre, " seems to imply capacity for discipleship as a condition of baptism." If, moreover, the first "them" in the commission embraces everj- class and individual among the "nations," the second "them" must do so likewise ; and therefore unconscious babes are not onlj- to be baptized, but to be taught to observe all the Sa-vaour's com- mands. Furthermore, the character ascribed to the "disciples" of Christ in the New Testament forbids the idea that infants can be regarded as "disciples." Our Saviour's practice too, as indicated in John iv. 1, where it says that He " made and baptized more disciples than John," teaches us that making and baptizing disciples are widely different things ; and this practice of His may well be allowed to interpret the law of His commission. The wording of this commission, as given in Luke (so in Mark substantially), — to wit, "that repentance and remission of sins should he preached in His name among all the nations," — also shows us what the apostles were first to do when they should endeavor to "disciple all the nations." Wholl}' accordant with these views, and wholl}^ op^josed to the notion of infant-baptism, are the above-cited words of Basil : " It is requisite Jii'st to become a disciple of the Lord, and then to be accounted worthy of the hol}^ baptism." Again he asserts, though possibly in opposition to his own practice, that "it is necessary to believe first, then to be sealed with baptism." But, if the " them " of the commission embraced all the inhabitants of the nations, this would not prove 278 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. that discipling was baptizing, or was effected by baptizing ; since a participle following a verb of command, as here, or any finite verb, is not always strictly explanatory of the verb's action. Carson, to show that nations as a whole were not to be baptized, infidels and all, says (p. 255), "The phraseology, 'disciple all nations, baptizing tlievi^' necessarily confines the baptism to the l^ersons who shall be discipled. The antecedent to the pronoun is the word disciples, taken, as grammarians speak, out of the verb disciple. The very nature of the thing requires this : it is obvi- ously onl}^ disciples that they could baptize. Unbelievers would not submit to baptism. I will undertake to show the greatest bumpkin in England that the restriction is necessarily in the expression. ' Go,' saj^s a corn-merchant to his clerks, ' buy all the grain in the market, storing it,' &c. Does any idiot ask what grain is to be stored? Is it not the grain that is bought, and not the grain that they could not obtain, or was bought b}^ others?" We would use Carson's illustration by asking whether the storing of the grain would purchase it. Or suppose the sentence had been varied thus : "A corn-merchant went to his clerk, sajdng," &c. Certainly his speaking to the clerk would not convey him thither. So we may say, "Go, build a house of worship, using it for God's glory." Mere using it would not build it. Or, " Go, visit the house of mourning, comforting it," &c. The act of comforting, of com'se, would not effect a conve3-ance there. One of the patristic church- canons orders the baptizer to " lay his hand upon the head of the candidate, dipping him three times." It is needless to sa}^ that this hand-imposition could not be accomphshed by the dipping. So when Tertullian says, " Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius all quid respondentes," &c., it is evident that this "re- sponding," whatever it may refer to, could not effect a trine immersion. The participles in these examples refer to subse- quent and different transactions from those indicated by the pre- ceding verbs. The New Testament abounds in examples of like phraseology and import (see Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke ^d. 35 ; Acts XX. 31, xxii. 16 ; Rom. xv. 25 ; Eph. v. 18, seq., vi. 17, 18 ; 1 Tim. vi. 20; Heb. xiii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 5, &c.). Thus we see that neither nations as a whole, nor infants as a part of the nations, nor, indeed, any class or individuals composing the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 279 nations, are necessarily discipled (or regenerated) by baptizing and teaching them.^ And here we may remark, that both Calviu on the one side of this question, and Carson on the other, agree in saving, that in the commission, the only law for baptism which Christ gave to the church, there is no reference whatever to infants. Sa^'s Cahin ("Institutes," vol. ii. p. 518), "It is certain that there is no men- tion of any but those who are capable of receiving instruction. . . . Is there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting infants? " To this Carson agrees, and says, "7/ infants are bap- tized, it is from another commission ; " and he maintains that those ' ' who are baptized in infancy, upon anj pretence whatever, must be baptized when they come to the faith of the gospel." "You may explain," he saj'^s, "and reason, and suppose; but, till the trumpet sounds, you will never force this commission to include your baptism of infants. You may conjure up difficulties to per- plex the weak ; your ingenuity may invent subterfuges that may cover error : but you will never find an inch of solid ground on which to rest the sole of your foot. Yom* work will never be done. You are rolling the stone of Sisj^phus ; and the farther you push it up hill, with the greater force will it rebound on your own heads. 1 On the impossibility of discipling by baptizing, Mr. J. Craps (as quoted in Ingliam) tlius remarks: " The commission cannot require disciples to be made by baptism. 1. Because of Christ's description of His disciples (Luke xiv. 27, 28, 33; John viii. 31, xiii. 35, xv. 8). 2. If disciples were made by baptism, it would be of greater importance as a means of salvation than the preaching of the gospel. 3. Baptism would be essential to salvation. 4. All baptized infidels would be disciples of Christ. 5. Christ sent Paul to make disciples (Acts xxvi. 16, 18); yet he says, ' Chi'ist sent me not to haptize, but to preach the gospel.' 6. To the church at Corinth Paul says, *In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.' Yet he says to the same Corinthians, ' I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains,' &c. He had discipled many through the gospel ; had baptized but few. 7. Paul says, ' I thank God that I baptized none of you,' &c. Would Paul thank God that he had not made disciples ? 8. None will deny that Jesus made disciples ; none will affirm that Jesus Himself baptized. 9. The making and the baptizing of disciples are mentioned as distinct acts (John iv. 1, 2). 10. The disciples the commission requires to be made are real disciples, ' disciples indeed.' It is impossible to make such disciples by baptism." For a fuller discussion of these and other points relating to the commission, the reader is referred to K. Ingham's Subjects of Baptism, pp. 21-48, 585-634. 280 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. The labors of Hercules are but an amusement compared with your task. Ingeuuit}" m.aj put a false system plausibly together ; but no ingenuit}' can give it the solidity and life of the truth " (p. 174) . But CaMn, as a negative argument for infant-baptism, maintains, that, because the commission has sole reference to adults, we cannot as logicians say, ^^ Therefore it is unlawful to administer baptism to infants." On the next page, however, he pulls down Ms own structure, when he argues against infant- communion, which was nearly as much practised in the ancient church as infant- baptism.^ He says that the Lord " does not present the supper to the participation of all alike, but onl}- to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord's death," &c. The communion "must be preceded by examination, which would in vain be expected from infants. . . . What ' remembrance,' I ask, shall we require from infants of that event of which they have never attained any knowledge? what preaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their minds are not j'et capable of comprehending ? iVbf one of these things is prescribed in baptism." But are not infants as capable of these things as they are of becoming repentant, believing, instructed disciples of Christ ? And against this whole argumentation how easy to 1 " There is almost, if not altogether, as weighty evidence [from ec- clesiastical history] for infant-communion as there is for infant-baptism. It was the recognized practice of the African Church in the time of Cyprian. The Apostolical Constitutions show that it was also the custom of the East. It was vehemently urged by Augustine as essential to the complete salvation even of the baptized, and was defended against the scorn of un- believers by the mystic pseiido-Dionysius. The sacramentary of Gregory, and the council of Macon, A.D. 588, are witnesses to its prevalence in the churches of Eome and Gaul. The first intimation of any wish to stop it is found in the third council of Tours, in A.D. 813; and that continued in- operative for nearly three centuries" (Professor E. H. Plumptre in Smith's Christian Antiquities, art. "Children"). August! (in Coleman's Christian Antiquities) says, " The custom of infant-communion continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third council of Tours, A.D. 813; and even the council of Trent (A.D. 1545) only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church." See also Infant-Communion, in Smith's Christian Antiqui- ties; and Dr. Chase's Infant-Baptism and Infant-Communion, in the Chris- tian Eeview for October, 1863, and his Infant-Baptism an Invention of Men. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 281 retort in Calvin's own words, and say that the apostle's instruc- tions concerning the communion have sole reference to "persons of adult age " ! And wiU you argue, " therefore it is unlawful to administer the eucharist to infants ' ' ? Certainlj' infants are natu- rally as capable of obejing the command, "Take, eat," as they are of the command, " Be baptized." And, if we may use the argu- mentum ad Jiominem, cannot those infants who repent and beheve through their "sponsors" also "remember" and "examine" and "discern" by means of the same? And, furthermore, were not all circumcised persons, and only those, allowed to eat the passover? and does not Christ say, not onl}^ that we must "be born of water and of the Spirit," but, " unless ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in j'ou " ? Therefore, as infants may be baptized, though from "another commission" than that which Christ gave, so baptized infants may partake of the eucha- rist, though it must be from "another commission" than that promulgated hy the apostle. An argument, however, which proves too much, is generally regarded as valueless. And here we cannot help asking whj^ it is that those who can infer the Christian duty of baptizing male and female infants from the Jewish custom of ??zaZe-infaut circumcision can infer no infant- communion from the Jewish passover, of which "little ones " of both sexes must have been qualified to partake. And is it not strange that those who are so eloquent in describing the benefits and bless- ings of the baptism of infants have not a word to say (the Greek and Eastern churches excepted) in favor of admitting these mem- bers of the Church and of Christ, these children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom, to the pri^sdleges of the hoi}' communion, for the participating in which by the infant seed of believers there is, we must think, as much Scriptui'e warrant as for .their baptism? And is it not remarkable, too, that the same " father," C3'prian, who first plainly speaks of and advocates «?/an^-baptism in case of necessit}', is the first one who makes known to us the custom of infant-communion? and that Augustine held infant-communion, as well as infant-baptism, to be an " apostolical tradition " ? ^ and 1 "Most excellently," says Augustine, "do the Carthaginian Christians call baptism itself nothing else than salvation, and the sacrament of Chi'ist's body nothing else than life. Whence is this, unless from ancient, as I think 282 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. that, while there were remonstrances in the early church against pedobaptism and infant-baptism, we never hear of a remonsti'ance against infant-communion? "That children," says Dr. Hook, speaking of the third centmy , ' ' received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is ob^dous from what C3'prian relates concerning a sucking child, who so violently refused to take the sacramental wine, that the deacon was obhged forcibly' to open her hps, and pour it down her throat." Dr. Wall supposes the girl was " four or five years old ; " but Cj'prian (in his " De Lapsis," sects. 25 and 26) speaks of her as an infant, under the care of a wet-nurse, and not j-et able to speak of the crime committed hy others in respect of herself. ' ' As the Chui'ch of North Africa was the first to bring prominently into notice the necessity of infant-baptism, so in connection with this they introduced also the communion of infants " (Meander's " Ch. Hist.," p. 333). This practice, accord- ing to Dr. WaU, continued in the Chm-ch "till about A.D. 1000, when transubstantiation sprung up," and was then laid aside in the "Western Church, "for fear," says Jerem}- Taylor, " lest, by puking up the hoi}' symbols, the sacraments should be dishonored." Bishop Tajior further saj's, " It is certain that in Scripture there is nothing which directly forbids the gi^4ng the holy communion to infants. For though we are commanded to examine, and so eat, 3^et this iDrecept is not of itself necessary', but b}' reason of an (ut existimo) , and apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold as a fixed fact, that without baptism, and partaking of the Lord's table, no one of mankind can come either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and eternal life?" Four hundred years after this utterance, Walafrid Strabo, " a stanch friend of Augustine," and " a zealous supporter of infant-bap- tism," thus speaks of baptism in " ancient" times : "It is to be noted, that, in primitive times, the grace of baptism was accustomed to be given only to those who, in body and mind, had come to such maturity as to be able to know and understand what benefit is to be obtained in baptism, what is to be professed, and what to be believed, and, finally, what is to be preserved by the new-born in Christ. . . . But, diligence in the divine religion increas- ing, the lovers of Christian dogmatics understanding that the original sin of Adam holds liable to punishment, . . . therefore tlie followers of the sound faith [took care] that the little ones be baptized for the remission of sins, lest they perish, if they die without the remedy of the grace of re- generation " (see Infant-Baptism and Early Church History, in Christian Keview for October, 1863, by Professor Irah Chase ; also his Infant-Baptism an Invention of Men). STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 283 introduced cause ; just as they are commanded to believe and re- pent who are to be baptized ; that is, persons who need it and can do it, they must ; and infants without examination can as well receive the effects of the eucharist, as, without repentance, they can have the effect of baptism. . . . The primitive Church had all this to justify their practice, — that the sacraments of grace are the gi'eat channels of the grace of God ; that this grace alwaj^s descends upon them who do not hinder it, and therefore certainly to infants ; and some do expressl^^ affli'm it, and none can with certainty deny, but that infants, if they did receive the communion, should also in so doing receive the fruits of it ; that to baptism there are many acts of predisposition required as well as to the communion, and yet the Church, who very well understands the obligation of those precepts, supposes no children to be obliged to those predispo- sitions to either sacrament, but fits every commandment to a capable subject ; that there is something done on God's part, and something on ours ; that what belongs to us obliges us then, when we can hear and understand, and not before, but that which is on God's part is always ready to them that can receive it ; that infants, though they cannot alone come to Chiist, j^et the Church, their mother, can bring them in her arms ; that they who are capa- ble of the grace of the sacrament may also receive the sign, and, therefore, the same grace, being conveyed to them in one sacra- ment, may also be imparted to them in the other ; that, as the}' can be born again without their own consent, so thej^ can be fed b}' the hands of others, and what begins without their own actual choice may be renewed without their own actual desire ; and that there- fore it may be feared, lest, if u^Don pretence of figurative speeches, allegories, and allusions in the injunction of certain dispositions, the holy communion be denied them, a gap be opened upon equal IDretences to deny them baptism ; that, since the Jewish infants being circumcised is used as an argument that they might be bap- tized, their eating of the paschal lamb may also be a competent warrant to eat of that sacrament, in which also, as in the other, the sacrificed lamb is represented as offered and slain for them. Now, the Church, having such fair probabilities and prudential mo- tives, and no prohibition, if she shall use her power to the purposes of kindness and charity, she is not easilj' to be reproved, lest, with- out necessity, we condemn all the primitive Catholic Church and all 284 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the modern churches in the East and South to this day, especially since without all dispositions infants are baptized there is less reason why they may not be communicated, having received some real dispositions towards this, even all the grace of the sacrament of baptism, which is certainly something towards the other, and, after all, refusing to communicate infants entered into the Church upon an unwarrantable ground. For though it was confessed that the communion would do them benefit, j^et it was denied to them then, upon pretence, lest by puking," &c. (From Ingham's " Sub- jects of Baptism," p. 386.) We may add, that this extract from Taylor is taken from his "Worthy Communicant," and not from his " Liberty of Prophesying," where he professes merely to argue as he supposed " the Anabaptists " might argue. J. P. Lundy (in his " Monumental Christianity," p. 376) thus remarks : " Bap- tism and the eucharist, therefore, are for infants just as much as for adults ; and the eucharist was given to infants in the Universal Church until the council of Trent abolished the practice. Rather it was the common use in the two churches of the East and West down to the twelfth century, when the Latin Church began to dis- continue the practice, until its official abolishment by the council of Trent in the sixteenth century. . . . [Its] fourth canon is this : ' Si dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessarium esse Eucharistse communionem ; anathema sit,' — 'If any one shall say that the communion of the eucharist is necessary for children before they come to j^ears of discretion, let him be accursed.' The G-reek Church stiU retains the primitive and uni- versal practice of communicating infants, while the Latin Church and aU Protestantism are one in rejecting it. May it not be asked, in all reason, If infants are to receive one sacrament before they come to years of discretion, why may they not receive the other? Shall the dogmatism of the council of Trent alwa^'s suspend and abolish this ancient practice in aU the churches of the West ? ' ' "No one," says Augustine, "who remembers that he is a Christian of the Catholic faith, denies or doubts that little ones who have not received the grace of regeneration in Christ, and have not partaken of the Lord's body and blood, have not life in themselves, and are thus exposed to everlasting punishment." In reference to the decree of the council of Trent which pro- hibited infant-communion, Alexander de Stourdza, of the Greek STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 285 Church, thus writes : " The churches of the West have condemned an immense majority of the human race to die before they have tasted of the bread of life ! . . . Let them beware ! By reason- ing in this way, they will by little come at last to allow only the baptism of adults.'' "The same arguments," says Professor Chase, "for the most part, that dispro-\'e and forbid infant- communion, disprove and for- bid infant-baptism. And, if infant-communion is a great error, infant-baptism is a still gi'eater error, and more pernicious. In- fant-communion does not deprive the child of the benefits of com- munion when he arrives at the age of discretion ; but infant- baptism performed in his early infancj^ does, so far as it is regarded, prevent his ever receiving the benefit of being baptized upon a -deliberate profession of Ms faith, — an event which he ought to be able to remember, amidst the temptations and cares of life, till he descends into his grave with the well-assured hope of a glorious resurrection." 286 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XXIX. BAPTISMAL MONUMENTS OF THE EARLY CHUKCH. "YTT^ propose now, for a short time, to direct our gaze upon W some of the " vast baptisteries " and picture-baptisms of the early Christian Church. The term " baptisteries," in general use, denotes both the buildings and their contained fonts or pools which were used for the purposes of baptism. As, at an early age, baptism (except in case of necessity) was administered but once or twice a year, — at Easter and at Pentecost, — and this too, commonly, only in connection with the mother-church of the diocese, it became necessary to rear large buildings for this purpose by the side of the cathedral churches. These structures, generally oc- tangular in form, were often very spacious, those of Florence and Pisa, for example, being respectivel}^ a hundred and a hundred and sixteen feet in diameter ; capable thus of accommodating thousands of persons within their walls, and were hence frequently used for the meetings of councils and other assemblies. Some of them, like those of Parma and Pisa, were built wholly of marble, and were adorned with all the magnificence which wealth and art could furnish. "We need to instance in this connection only the sculp- tured bronze doors of the Florence baptistery, which Michael Angelo declared to be worth}' of the gates of paradise.^ But what most concerns us now is the size and capacity of the fonts of these baptisteries, many of which, though very large, were yet hewn out of solid blocks of marble. Then- measurements differ slightlj^ in different authors ; but we shall mainly follow those given by Rev. Wolfred Nelson Cote, M.D., formerly a missionary 1 For a copy of one of these doors see p. 190 of Italian Pictures, by the Eev. Samuel Manning, LL.D., published by the Religious Tract Society. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ' 287 in Rome, in his " Archseologj'^ of Baptism," published in London, 1876, and in his smaller work, published hy the American Baptist Publication Society, entitled "Baptism and Baptisteries." The font of the so-called baptistery of Constantine, standing within a few j-ards of the Church of St. John Lateran (of the fom'th cen- tury), measures about twenty-five feet in longest diameter, and three feet in depth. Robert G. Hatfield (in " Baptist Quarterl}- " for July, 1869) makes it " about twenty-eight feet " in diameter, and thirt^^-two inches deep. " It was originally, no doubt, about three feet and a half deep." Rev. A. J. Rowland, who visited this baptistery (see p. 152 of "The Baptism of the Ages"), sa^'s, ' ' There seemed to be a false wooden floor in the bottom ; but the depth, even with this, was something over three feet." A huge urn of green basalt now rises from the centre of the piscina, " of sufficient size to immerse a child in." Here we have a "history in brick and stone." First immersion of adults, then the immer- sion of infants, and finallj^ the " few drops, which, by a wise exercise of Christian freedom," &c. iVe may here add, that, according to Baronius (a not ver}^ reliable authority) , a baptistery was built in the Vatican by Pope Damasus, which was so large and deep, that a httle boy who had fallen therein was found only after an hour's search. Another font of the same age with that of St. John Lateran — that of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Nocera — is about twenty feet in diameter (Mr. Hatfield puts it at seventeen) , and nearly- five feet deep. The basin of the Ravenna baptistery (middle of the fifth century) is ten feet in diameter, and three feet and a half deep ; while that of the Arian or Cosmedin baptistery, of the same place, is about eight feet and a half in diameter. In Smith's " Christian Antiquities "it is stated that the larger font at Ravenna has a " remarkable semicircular indentation in one side, in which the priest stood while baptizing." In the baptistery of Naples a " circu^lar pavement of white marble, six feet eight inches in diameter, now covers the space formerly occupied b}- the baptismal font. ' ' The diameter of the font of Citta Nuova is ten feet ; while the font of Novara (both of the sixth centurj-) is eight feet wide, with a depth of four feet. In the baptister}- of Aquileja, of the same centmy, is a basin, whose "external height," Bert oli says, is " two feet and nine inches, and its depth is four feet and a 288 * STUDIES ON BAPTISM. half ; so that a man standing in the font would have the water up to his neck. The church adjoining has a picture of baptism by immersion." The octangular basin of the Florence baptisterj^ (of the seventh century) has, or had before it was filled up and paved over, a diameter of twelve feet ; but, according to Mr. Hatfield, " it occupied an octangular space twentj'-seven feet in diameter, now paved with marble, differing from the other pavement, and surrounded by a white marble coping, on which, plainly visible, is an inscription designating the enclosed area as the place of the original font." " This font," as is stated in Cote's work, " made in 1371, was surrounded by three steps " (on the inside, the num- ber usually found in fonts), " and was four feet and a half deep. It was capable of containing twelve persons at the same time. At the alternate angles were cavities, in which stood the priests who administered the rite of baptism." Dante, in canto xix. of " Inferno," states that he broke one of the fonts in this baptistery in his endeavor "to save a drowning person." The large oc- tangular basin in the Verona baptistery (of the eighth century) is twenty-eight feet in circumference, and four feet and a half deep. Zeno, bishop of Verona, who died about A.D. 390, says, in his second " Invitation to Baptism," " Hasten, my brethren, to be purified. The water, vivified by the Holy Spirit, and rendered tepid by an agreeable fire, already invites you with its sweet murmur. . . . Rejoice, therefore : you are immersed naked in the font ; but you rise again, clothed in a white and heavenly garment, which he who does not defile shall inherit the kingdom of heaven." The font of the baptistery in Cremona is six feet in diameter ; while that of Padua is five feet across, and four feet deep. The octagonal basin of the ' ' magnificent baptistery ' ' of Pisa is four- teen feet in longest diameter, and four feet deep. Mr. Hatfield (in " Scribner's Monthly'' for March, 1879) gives the dimensions as " ten feet in diameter, and three feet and one-third deep." " At the alternate sides of the font are four small conical basins, which are supposed to have been used when the baptism of infants by immersion was practised." The baptistery- of Parma contains a font " cut out from one block of yellowish-red marble. . . . It is about eight feet in diameter, four feet deep, and contains another basin, in the form of a Greek cross, in which the administrator stood during the perfonnance of the rite." The baptisterj- of STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 289 Pistoia, which, like the last two mentioned, dates from the twelfth centur}', has in its centre " a large square basin, ten feet in diame- ter and fom* feet deep, which can contain about nine barrels of water." Many of these fonts are now disused, since immersion, save perhaps in Milan, is no longer practised in Papal Europe ; and some of them, as in Naples and Florence, are now paved over, and made level with the floor, — the original coping of the font, or an inscription, or a different kind of paving, alone remaining to tell the story of other times. We may add, that connected with the catacombs of Rome are also one or two baptismal fonts, which we shall notice presently. In company with Drs. H. C. Fish and H. Harvey of this coun- try, we next visit the ruins of the St. John Cathedral at Tyre, and its ancient but recently-discovered baptistery. The cathedral was built about A.D. 315, and, with its tower " rising to the heavens," was pronounced b}'' Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, who preached the dedication-sermon preserved in his history, to be the most magnificent temple in Phoenicia. Professor Sepp, under whose superintendence the excavations were made, pointed his "sasitors to the "old baptisterj^," and remarked, " They immersed people here;" and, to prove the feasibility of immersion, "he at once went down into it, and lowered himself" (b}- kneeling, and pro- jecting the head and shoulders forward) " below the level of the top, saj'ing, ' This is the way they baptized themselves ' " (extract from a letter of Dr. Fish, dated Tj-re, June 3, 1874, and pub- lished, with drawings of the font, in "The Watchman and Re- flector " for Dec. 3) . " The basin," says Dr. Fish, " is of white marble, in the shape of a cross. There are four steps at either end leading down into it, and a hole is seen on the level of the floor for letting out the water. The extreme length inside is five feet and six inches ; the depth is three feet ; the width, three feet and seven inches." Dr. Harvej' gives the following descriptioa of the cathedral and font : " The ruins of the old cathedral at the north-east angle of the modern wall are at present the most interesting in Tyre. The church was built by Paulinus earl}' in the fourth century, and is described by Eusebius as the most splendid in Phoenicia. It was two hundred and sixteen feet long, one hundred and thirty-six wide, with nave, transept, and triple apse. Its walls are still partly standing. Its architecture is of 290 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the massive and rich order of the later Corinthian. Among the prostrate columns I observed two double ones of red granite, immense in size. Here the great Origen is buried ; and, in a later age, the remains of the celebrated Emperor Frederick Barbarossa were dei)osited beside him. Among other remains disentombed is a remarkable baptistery, standing on the lower floor of the church, and evidently in its original position. It is made from a solid block of white marble, and is unique in its form. Its interior dimensions, as we took them, are, — length, five feet three inches ; width, three feet seven inches and a half; depth, three feet eight inches and a quarter." [Dr. Harvey writes to me that this last measurement is possibl}^ a misprint, in his printed letters, as it differs from the measurement (preserved in his note-book) which he took at Tyre. He gives as the correct measm'ement, original depth, three feet two inches and a quarter ; present depth, two feet six inches.] " Steps descend into it at each end. The can- didate evidently entered the pool b}' the steps at one end : he then knelt down, and, according to the ancient usage, his head was bowed forward into the water by the administrator, who stood outside, and pronounced the formula ; and, after being thus bap- tized, he passed out by the steps at the other end. The baptistery was plainly used for adult immersion ; for otherwise there is no explanation of the steps. And, found as it is on the lowest floor, there can be no doubt that it belonged to the original church. It is, therefore, an interesting monument, attesting the form of bap- tism in the fourth century. The bottom of the baptistery seems to have been fractured in some later age, and is now repaired by a slab of marble, which somewhat reduces the original depth" (from Cote's "Archaeology of Baptism," p. 324, seq., where a picture of the ruined cathedral and of the font is given) . Under this latter picture the font is stated to be " three feet deep in clear, including false bottom;" and Dr. Fish in one place makes the same statement.^ 1 We svibjoin, as a matter of curiosity, the statement (copied from the Watchman of ISTov. 21, 1878; see "Discoveries at Ephesus," pp. 31, 32) of Mr. J. T. Wood relative to a so-called baptismal font which he discovered in the ruins of Ephesus : — " Digging in the forum, I found on the east side what I believe to have been a baptismal font, — a large basin fifteen feet in diameter, raised upon a STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 291 Dr. Robinson, when in Palestine, measured some fonts be- longing to old G-reek cliurclies now in ruins, which he thinks were too small for adult immersion. The measurements which he gives of the fonts of Tekoa and Gophna are ' ' four feet on the inside, and three feet nine inches deep," and " five feet in diameter, two feet nine inches deep, with- in" (see "Biblical Researches," vol. i. ]). 486, and vol. ii. pedestal, the basin consisting of one solid mass of breccia. This, I pre- sume, was used in early Christian times (beginning, probably, with the latter end of the third century) for the public baptism, in large groups, of converts to Christianity. It is so formed, that a full-grown person might without difficulty climb over its smooth, rounded edge, and stand in water nine inches deep ; while the baptizer could stand dry-shod in the centre, which was apparently raised for that purpose. A water-pipe and the remains of a reservoir were found near the font. There is no hole in the centre of the basin ; as there must have been, had it been a fountain. A basin similar to this has been described as having been formerly in use in or near the Temple of Artemis, and this may be the one now found in the forum. If I am correct in my conjecture as to the use of this basin, not only is no sup- port given to the assertion that the early Christians always baptized by total immersion, but the hypothesis seems to fall to the ground. Probably the mode of administering this sacrament may have varied to suit different circumstances." The writer in the Watchman, Dr. F. Johnson, adds, " Not only is it fifteen feet in diameter, but the rim is four feet three inches above the pave- ment : the basin extends on every side at least five feet from the pedestal on which it rests, and the centre is raised a little higher than the rim, pre- senting a surface, perhaps three feet in diameter, on which the baptizer is supposed to have stood." We should like to have a photograph of such a baptismal scene as Mr. Wood would enact around and in this * ' baptismal font," — labrum we should call it, if we thought it a water-vessel. Even now we can seem to see the presbyters with their flowing baptismal robes, and the (naked?) catechumens, climbing with some "difficulty" up and over this " smooth, rounded " rim four feet and a quarter from the ground, the latter taking their "stand in water nine inches deep;" while the former, by a desperate effort, jum^D from this " smooth, rounded edge" some four feet across the intervening water to the central dais, where, standing "dry-shod," they could perform their — pouring! Truly the conjecture of Mr. Wood, that this basin, found not in or near a church, but in the " forum," was a baptisterium, or piscina, or kolumbetJira, or any kind of a "baptismal font," is, as Dr. Johnson says, "ridiculous." Dr. Fish, who examined this "large basin," says it is undoubtedly a part of an ancient mill, and is similar to other large nether millstones found in the East. 292 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. ]). 263). Dr. G. W. Lasher thus writes concerning the font of Tekoa : " It is octagonal in form, and on each of the sides is a Greek cross. It rises up some three feet and a half above the surface of the ground ; and, according to our measurement, is fortj^-six inches in diameter inside, and three feet in depth. In the bottom is a hole for the escape of the water, and a little stone-lined drain for carrying off the water is still visible." One thing is certain in regard to these fonts : they are abun- dantly ample for infant-immersion, while they are a thousand times too large for either adult or infant sprinkling. Our opinion is, that smaller fonts than these, even in depth, would be sufficiently large for adult immersion, if practised according to the Dunkers' method ; viz., in a kneeling posture, the subject being bent forward, instead of backward. We now turn to look at the ancient representations of baptism as the}' have come down to us, either painted in fresco, or pictured in mosaic. And we ma}' as well begin with the oldest ; viz., those in the catacombs, or underground cemeteries of Rome. These, so far as we have seen, are but four in number, — one in the cemetery of St. Pontianus, on the Via Ostiensis ; another in the cemetery of St. Pretextatus, on the AppianWay ; a third in that of St. Cal- listus, or Calixtus, also on the Appian Wa}' ; and a fourth in St. Lucina, the most ancient part of the cemetery of Callistus. The last two are, we believe, commonly regarded as the oldest. Entering the Chapel of the Baptistery in St. Pontianus, we first observe a water-pool, cut out of solid tufa., and fed by a li-vdng spring. The measurements given of this pool are widely variant. C. Taj'lor and S. Fuller tell us that it is only " about two feet in depth and width;" another authority (Withrow) gives it as " thirty-six inches long, thirty-two wide, and forty deep ; " while the author of the article " Baptister}-," in Smith's "Christian Antiquities," saj^s that "the piscina would appear to be between three and four feet deep, and about six feet across." Cote, in his larger work, gives as its dimensions " four feet and a half in length, three feet and a half in width, and three feet and a half in depth." In view of these discrepancies, Mr. Robert G. Hatfield of New-York City twice measured this baptismal font ; and through his kindness we are permitted to give our readers (in an extract STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 293 from " The Baptist "Weekly ") the exact measurements.^ He says, ' ' The baptistery of Ponziano, as now seen, is a quadrangular basin, measuring four feet three inches and four feet seven inches respectively on the two longer sides, and three feet and three feet three inches respectivelj^ on the two shorter sides ; or, on an aver- age, four feet five inches long by three feet one inch and a half wide. Its depth varies, owing to the debris at the bottom, from three feet nine inches to four feet eight inches. . . . The length of this baptismal font was originally about six feet and a half. In my survey of it, I discovered that the stone platform at the foot of the stairs projects over and covers about two feet of the length. This platform is ten inches thick : beneath it the water extends the distance of two feet more than to a casual observer is apparent. The font, therefore, when built and in use, was three feet and a third by six feet and a half, and four feet and two-thirds deep. "The change bj* which the length was diminished was occasioned by the erection of piers and arches at the left and at the rear, to form receptacles for the remains of the two mart^a's Abdon and Senen, which were deposited here. These two young Persians had been slain by the Pagans in the third centurj'', and by their friends secretly buried. When Constantine terminated the per- secutions of Christians, the bodies of these martyrs were removed, 1 A few days after penning these lines we were saddened to read in the Congregationalist that this " faithful Baptist deacon," a "helper of all good things," and "a remarkably expert architect," had passed on '"into the Father's house." In order that the statements of this chapter might be as accurate as possible, the writer obtained the consent of Mr. Hatfield, whom he supposed to be possessed of more accurate knowledge of the baptismal monuments of the early church than any other man in America, to look over its pages. On the 4th of February, 1879, he wrote me that it would be quite agreeable to him to give this matter his attention. Shortly after this a member of his family wrote to me that he " was taken seriously ill ; " and, ere the expiration of the month, the sad news arrived tlKit his name must henceforth be put "in the list of the starred." The article in Scrib- uer's Monthly, on The Old Mill at Newport, to which we have referred, he did not, we suppose, live to see in type. This antique relic of Newport, which Mr. Hatfield describes as " the most ancient Christian building in the United States, . . . eight centuries old," — built by the Northmen, — he has ventured to christen "the Vinland Baptistery"! Let us be thankful that he has given us some reason to suppose our country to be possessed of such an ancient and interesting Christian relic. 294 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. and placed in the sepulchres made for them, as above stated, over this baptistery, which was now no longer used ; for Christians, being free to worship above ground, had built the large baptistery of the Lateran, and others. Hence, in depositing the remains of these two martyrs, they were not careful to preserve the full dimensions of the font, nor the convenience of access to it by steps, only one of which, beneath one of the arches, is now visible." Mr. Hatfield accounts for these variations in measurement "by supposing that the writers give dimensions, not from actual meas- m-ement, but from mere judgment, and this not alwaj-s formed at the time, but from vaemorj." Even according to the measure- ments given b}' Withrow, this font, as we judge, was large enough for a forward- sinking or kneehng immersion. Rising out of this pool, painted on the back wall, is a gemmed and floriated cross, bearing on its arms two blazing lights above ; while from the same arms are suspended the two Greek letters Alpha and Omega, indicative of the eternal being of Christ. This jewelled, fruit-bearing, blazing cross is evidently symbolical of the glorj^ of Christ's redemption. Above this cross is the pictm'ed baptism of Jesus. He is represented as standing in the river, entirely nude, and up to His waist in water. John stands, as he is usuall}' represented, on the river's bank, nearly nude, with his right hand resting on the Saviour's head. " I was particular," says Mr. Hatfield, "to observe especially the position of the hand of John, which, it has been said, held something from which water was poured on the head of Christ. The hand, with the palm downwards, rests upon the head of the Saviour, and of it only the thumb and forefinger are seen ; the thumb, in contact with the fore- head, extends to a point just over the nose ; while the forefinger reaches to a point above the right e^-e. There is no cup to be seen." On the opposite bank is an angel, holding, perhaps, the Saviour's robe, and, as some have conjectured, a basin in his hand ' ' for pouring water on the head of Jesus when He was baptized" (Stuart), but what, on closer inspection, appears to be a tablet, inscribed with Hebrew letters, which are supposed by some to designate God the Father. (See works of Aringhi, and others noticed below. Perret, we observe, gives no Hebrew letters ; but his work is " more elaborate than thorough, more highly finished than exact." " The finish of the plates was too great for STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 295 the faithful reproduction of the objects.") It was a frequent saving among the pati-ists, " Go to the Jordan, and you will see the Trinity." And so, here, the Holj' Spirit is represented as a dove ahghting upon the head of the Redeemer. A nimbus, or circle of glory, surrounds the heads of these three personages. On the shore below is a hart, "panting after the water-brooks." This confessedly baptismal font and picture — "much older," says C. Taylor, "than any copy of the Gospels now in exist- ence" — clearly point to immersion, and as clearly indicate the " mode" of ancient Christian baptism. And j^et writers of differ- ent views have endeavored to find those views emblematized in this underground " chapel of the baptistery." Dr. Dale seems to patronize what he terms " a very neat argument," which aims to show that John's baptizing with water from a " measure," or vessel of limited capacity, as represented in the " ancient pic- tures," gave rise to the peculiar phraseology^ of John iii. 34, that " God giveth not the Spirit" (eJc metrou) " out of a measure unto him." Bishop Kip, in his " Catacombs of Rome," says, " It will be observed that He" (the Saviour) "is portrayed standing in the Jordan, with John the Baptist pouring water on His head with his hand." S. Hutchings, in his " Mode of Baptism," sees John place his hand on Jesus' head, " as. if applying water thereto." A. G. Fairchild positively asserts that " John pours water on the head of Christ." C. Taylor affirms that " the action of the Bap- tist is clearly that of pouring ; ' ' though he adds that ' ' this will not decide whether the convert did, or did not, there receive a previous ablution. Professor Stuart, however, makes the Baptist's hand -imposition to be " an invocation for a blessing ; " while J. P. Lundy, presb3-ter, in his " Monumental Christianit}' " (New York, 1876), avers that the Baptist's hand is placed on Christ's head, " either in confirmation, or to give him a third and last application of water," by which he means " a third and last plunge." Thus do learned writers disagree. As for ourself, we see in this picture neither sprinkling, nor pouring, nor confirmation, but indubitable evidence of entire immersion in its ancient mode, by a depression of the candidate's head and body slightlj' forward beneath the waters. Those who can see in this fresco-baptism the slightest sign of pouring have not sufficiently stucHed earl^' Chris- tian history and Christian antiquities. For copies of this bap- 296 * STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tismal painting see the frontispiece to this volume and to Cote's "Baptism and Baptisteries," and p. 32 of his "Archaeology;" also Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. 211; Lundy's "Monu- mental Christianity," pp. 62, 63 ; Aringhi, i., p. 381, ii., p. 275 ; Ferret, vol. iii., pi. 52 and 54 ; also D'Agincourt, Bottari, Boldetti, Marchi, &c. In the cemeter}^ of St. Pretextatus is the pictured baptism of a youth. He stands entirely nude in shallow water ; while on his right side stands the baptizer, with his right hand resting on the lad's head, as if bending him forward. This picture speaks like- wise plainl}' for immersion. (See De Rossi's " Roma Sotteranea Christiana," vol. ii., tav. xv. 6; also Ferret's " Catacombes de Rome," vol. i., pi. 60.) In the cemeter}^ of St. Lucina is found another fresco-baptism (of the fom'th or fifth centur}') , probably of the Saviour, as a dove (the frequent emblem of the Holy Spirit) , with a leaf in her mouth, is represented as flying toward the scene. Here John, nearly naked, stands on the bank, having both hands stretched out, and clasping the hands of Jesus, whom he is leading out of the water. Jesus is represented as entirely nude, and nearly up to His middle in water, yet in the act of waUdng out toward the shore. The whole action of the scene points most clearly and unmistakably to immersion. "We have here," says Lundy, " another variety of the scene of nude trine-immersion as practised in the earlier times of the Christian dispensation, bordering upon the daj-s of the baptism of Christ in the Jordan." (See Cote's " Archseolog}'," p. 33 ; De Rossi, vol. i., tav. xiv., p. 323, et seq.; also an imper- fect woodcut in Northcote and Brownlow's " Roma Sotteranea," p. 119 ; and Lundy's " Monumental Christianitj'," p. 384.) In the fresco-baptism of the St. Callistus cemeterj' (a copy of which is given in Cote's " Archseologj'," p. 34, and in Smith's " Christian Antiquities," p. 168 ; see also De Rossi, vol. ii., tav. xvi. ; Northcote and Brownlow, pi. xii. ; and Lundy, p. 383) a youth is represented as standing naked, nearl^^ half-leg deep in the water ; while the baptizer' s hand is resting on his head. Sur- rounding the youth there is seemingly a shower-cloud, as if of falling spray. Those persons who are baptisticallj' inclined will probabl}^ regard this as representing the streams of water flowing from the head of the immersed candidate. De Rossi makes this STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 297 picture represent the baptism of a youth by affusion ; but Father Garrucci, in his recent magnificent illustrated work on the History of Christian Art, asserts, according to Cote, that " the youth, quite naked, is entirely immersed in a cloud of water," and that "this bath is represented bj^ streaks of greenish paint thi-own with a brush around the body and above the head of the person." By the side of this picture is a fisherman drawing a fish out of the same water in which the candidate stands. Here, of course, in this somewhat showery-looking baptism, notwithstanding the entire nudity and the " much water," the advocates of sprinkling discover a clear exhibit of pouring! But J. P. Lundy, presbyter, sees no pouring in this specimen of "Monumental Christianit}'," but- says, " The child has perhaps had his third and last plunge, and is receiving confirmation." Strange indeed would it be were there no "plunging," or immersion, represented in the picture-baptisms of the early church, when, as Hutchings himself concedes, " trine and nude immersion was preferred, and made obligatory by church authority as the regular mode of baptism, in all ordinary cases, sa}"" for the first one thousand years." And yet this same author avers that in none of the picture-baptisms of ancient art is there " any representation of immersion, while nearl}^ all show act of pouring." " Not one " (ancient picture), saj's A. G. Fairchild, " represents . this baptism as taking place by immersion." Pro- fessor Stuart states that none of the ancient pictures represent immersion ; and from this he concludes that ' ' Christians began somewhat early to deflect from the ancient practice of immersing." And Mr. Thorn of England likewise asserts that the usual mode, from the second century downward, as evinced by ancient carved and painted representations (the best possible evidence in such a case), was this: "The candidate stood in the water up to his ankles, knees, or middle ; and the minister, from his hand or a vessel, poured the element on his head." Now, though immersion in its full act is perhaps more difficult to represent than a water-pouring, jet of this we ma^^ be sure, that when these earlj^ Christian artists, in their rude frescos, placed a man entirely nude, waist-deep, in the water, with the baptizer's hand resting on the candidate's head, they intended to represent a total immersion, whatever else was or was not intended to be represented. It will be observed, that, in the instances considered, 298 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. there is no patera., shell, or ladle, in the administrator's hand, for pouring purposes. Even in the pictui'e-baptism of St. Callistus there is no sign of hand-poming ; while the adjoining picture of the fish, as it is being drawn out of the water (reminding us of Tertullian's " we Httle fishes are born in the water," and of the Alexandrine Clement's "little children drawn out of the water " ^) , 1 We would observe that neither TertuUian nor Clement makes any reference here to the baptism of little children or infants. The fishes are called little, only in contrast with the great IKTHUS, a word meaning fish, and applied to Christ (it being formed by the initials of the Greek words, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour"); and the children likewise are termed little, only in contrast with the "Divine Paidagogos," or Great Teacher. With Clement all Christian men and women are but young children (paidia) under the instruction of the Great Pedagogue, or Divine Word. In early Chi'istian times, all neophytes, or newly-baptized persons, of whatever age, were called "infants:" hence a mixture of honey and milk was given to the newly-baptized as being " babes in Christ," and sermons to the neophytes were addressed " ad infantes." This usage in regard to the term " infants " will serve to explain Origen's declaration as found in Eufinus' translation of his homily on Josh. viii. 33, " et tu infans fuisti in baptismo" ("and thou wast an infant in baptism"), — an affirma- tion which has led some (Knapj), Schaff, &c.) to assert that Origen was bap- tized in infancy; which thing he does not say. The ideawliich he meant to express is, that he was made an infant, i.e. one of the Lord's little ones, by and in baptism. However many of the " fathers " may have advocated infant-baptism, regarding it as necessary to salvation, it is pretty nearly certain, that while several of them were consecrated, or dedicated to God, in infancy and from birth (as Augustine, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Theoderet, Ephrem Syrus, &c. ), yet no one of them all, whether he had baptized Christian parents or not, was himself baptized in infancy. (See Lives of Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory ISfazianzen, &c., in most of the different church histories, and in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography ; also, on the other side of this question, the History of Infant- Baptism, by Dr. Wall, who goes quite fully into the " dust and tediousness " of this matter.) When Augustine, being " a child not yet big enough to go to school, but capable to express his mind " (Wall), was seized with colic, and expected to die, his pious mother, Monica, hastened to prepare for his baptism; but, on his recovering soon, his baptism was postponed. "Cum quodam die pressus stomachi dolore sestuarem pene moriturus, vidisti Deus mens! quo motu animi et qua fide baptismum flagitavi, et conturbata mater curaret festinabunda, ut sacramentis salutaris abluerer, nisi statim recreatus essem. Dilata itaque est mundatio mea" ! (Confess. Aug., i. chap. 11.) "The case of Augustine," says Professor Plumptre (art. " Children," in Smith's Christian Antiquities), " shows that even a mother like Monica, acting, it may be, under the influence of the feeling of which STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 299 is plainly significant of immersion. We venture to say, that, in all the baptismal pictures of ancient Christianity, there is not one single instance of mere hand-pouring. This, when necessity did not compel, would have been altogether too much of a " compend" to have suited the views of the fathers. Truthfully does Lundy aflSrm that " the concurrent testimonj^ of early documents and monuments favors nude trine-immersion." The imposition of hands, we maj' remark, was a frequent cere- mony'' in early Christian baptism. Thus Tertullian (" De Corona," chap, iii.) says, "When we are about going to the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation, and under the Jiand of the president" (or bishop), "we solemnly profess that we disown the de^-il, his pomps and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed," &c. " Exorcism," as connected at a later jDcriod with this renunciation of the devil, was also performed by "imposition of hands." In " De Baptismo," chap, vii., Tertul- lian also saj's, " After this, when we have issued from the font " {egressi de lavacro), " we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, according to that ancient rite b}^ which men used to be anointed for the priest's office with oil out of a horn." CjtII of Jerusalem also asserts, that, as soon as they come up out of the sacred waters of the pool, they receive the chrism with the anti- type of which (the Holy Spuit) Christ was anointed. " In the next place," says TertuUian (chap, viii.), " the hand is laid upon us" (deliinc manus imponitur)^ "invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit through the benediction," &c. "There is nothing," says Dr. Wall, ' ' more frequently mentioned in antiquity than this anointing and lajdng-on of hands of the bishop in order to implore the graces of the Hoty Spirit on the baptized." It is in this hand-imposition especially that J. P. Lund}', presbyter, gets his confirmation after the "third plunge." In these catacomb pictures, TertuUian had been the spokesman, could postpone her child's baptism in- definitely, only eager to hasten it if there were any imminent fear of death. Even where baptism was postponed, however, the child was claimed for Christ, was signed with the sign of the cross, and made to taste of the salt which was known as the ' mysterium,' or ' sacrament,' of catechumens." Augustine says of himself, " I was signed with the sign of Christ's cross, and was seasoned with his salt, even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted iu thee." 300 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. however, the hand is placed on the head, evidentl}^ for the purpose of immersing the candidate in water ; and this was the usual mode of early Christian baptism. (See note to Chap. XVIII., p. 160.) This method of pressing the head slightly forward and down explains the phrases "bowed head," "bowed face," "bathed breasts," &c., which we frequently meet with in the patristic descriptions of baptism. Our missionary', Dr. Judson, it is well known, favored (and we believe practised) this forward immer- sion. Thus far, then, in our surve}^ of the catacomb picture- baptisms, we have found nothing decisive against, but almost every thing pointing to, or favorable for, immersion ; and ma}' hence boldl}' affirm, in the words of Dr. S. L. Caldwell (" Baptist Quarterly," Julj^, 1870, p. 295), that "the attempt to banish Baptists from subterranean Rome cannot succeed." We may add, that, thus far, no pictured example of infant-baptism has been found in the Roman catacombs. In regard to the inscriptions in the catacombs which make men- tion of the baptism of 3'oung children. Professor A. N. Arnold, in an article on the " DilBculties of Infant-Baptism" ("Baptist Quarterly," 1869, p. 33), thus remarks: "It is true that very young children — even infants under three j'ears of age — are mentioned as baptized in a few of the inscriptions on these monu- mental tablets. But there is no proof that these inscriptions be- long, as Dr. Bushnell and others have assumed, to the first two or three centuries. Most of them are without any means of deter- mining theu' date. The date of some, however, is determined by the names of the Roman consuls recorded in them. Of those of which the date can be determined, there are none that commemo- rate baptized children earlier than about the middle of the fourth century, and only three within the limits of that century. These three are dated, respectively, A.D. 348, A.D. 371, and A.D. 374. In the first of these cases the baptized child was six years and above eight months old" [other authorities give it "^ve j'ears, eight months, and eleven da^-s "] ; " and, in the other cases, eight years or more : and all the three are expressly spoken of as newly baptized ; that is, evidently', baptized at this early age only on account of the apparent approach of death. There are inscrip- tions as early as the end of the first and the beginning of the second century ; but, for about two centuries and a half from this STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 301 earliest date, there is no record of a baptized child. Among about one hundred epitaphs of children, there is only one before the year 350 that speaks of the child as baptized, and that one onl}' two years before this date ; and there are only two others which fall within the limits of the fourth century. E^ddently infant-bap- tism had made but slow progress during the hundred years since Cj'prian began to advocate it in North Africa in cases of necessity. The facts established by a careful examination of the monumental inscriptions in the catacombs are just these : In a very few cases in the latter part of the fourth century, baptism was administered to children of six or eight j'ears of age at the point of death. Even this child-baptism, in extreme cases, can be traced no farther back than that. Not a single case of strictly ira/an^- baptism can be fairly made out from these tablets till after the j'^ear A.D. 400 ; and, if it could, it would not go to prove the prevalence of infant- baptism at the date of the record, but only the existence of the superstitious practice of baptizing infants that were apparently near to death. The fact that these young children are so generally designated as newly baptized, when there is any mention at aU of baptism, is yQxy significant. We see from this in what sense they were baptized on the faith of their parents. They were not bap- tized because and when their parents believed in Christ ; but they were baptized because their parents believed baptism indispensable to their salvation, and only when their parents believed they were about to die. The supporters of infant-baptism must be hard pressed for historical arguments in its favor, or they would not have recourse to so damaging an exiDedient as an appeal to the epitaphs collected from the catacombs." (For a fuller discussion of this subject the reader is referred to Dr. Chase's article in " Christian Review " for October, 1863, pp. 550-560.) Similarly favorable for immersion is the testimony of the oldest fresco-baptism outside of the catacombs. We refer to the paint- ing, recently discovered (by excavation in 1857), underneath the present Church of St. Clement at Rome, a copy of which is given in Cote's " Archaeology," p. 35, and in his " Baptism and Baptis- teries," p. 57. The candidate is, to appearance, a young man, entirely nude, and standing up to his middle in water. The administrator's right hand is placed on his forehead, while the left hand rests on his shoulder in front ; and, what is extremely rare, 302 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the body of the candidate inclines backward, in accordance with our modern method of immersion. Mr, Cote also refers to a miniature baptism of our Lord (of the eighth or ninth century) , pictured on an unnumbered manuscript in the Minerva Library at Eome. "The Redeemer stands in the water up to His waist" (in " Arcliseolog}^," " up to His neck "). " John places his right hand upon the Saviour's head, and on the other side of the stream are ministering angels." Underneath the picture is this inscrip- tion in Latin : " Who walked with LEis feet upon thee [the water], and was baptized by John into thee in the Jordan." Robinson (in his " History of Baptism," chap. xvi. p. 97, American edition) describes a similar picture-baptism of Christ, of about the same age, found in the baptisterj- of Venice: "In the river stands Jesus, naked, the water nearly up to His shoulders. On the left- hand bank stands John the Baptist. . . . He is leaning toward the river : his left hand is just seen behind, spread open, and hfted up ; and his right hand is on the head of Jesus (dexteram manum capiti Jesu imponit), as if pressing Him gently down into the water ; while Jesus seems to be yielding to the water under the hand of John." Mr. Cote mentions stiU another picture of Christ's baptism in an antique church-book, preserved in the sacristy of the ancient Church of San Celso at Milan. Bugati, in his memoir of St. Celsus, describes the picture as follows: "The Redeemer is represented immersed in water, according to the ancient discipline of the church, observed for many centuries in the administration of baptism. John holds in his left hand a curved and knotty staff, and places his right hand upon the Saviour's head. Finally the Holy Spirit descends from heaven in the form of a dove. This scene is found depicted upon the most ancient Christian monuments." From the water's being strangely raised into a hillock. Cote infers that this picture must be a produc- tion of the middle ages ; though Bugati dates it back as far as the fifth or sixth century. A picture of Christ's baptism, similar to this last, save that both Jesus and John stand nearty waist-deep in this hillock of water, is also to be found on p. 207 of the " Archae- ology of Baptism," and p. 162 of Cote's smaller work. It was taken originally from a bass-relief in the baptister}' of Parma, and belongs to the thirteenth centmy. On p. 39 of Cote's " Archge- ology ' ' is given still another picture of the baptism of Christ, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 303 taken from the Greek menologae, or calendar (of the ninth cen- tury) , — one of the most valuable manuscripts in the Vatican Library. Jesus is here represented as standing nude in the river, and up to His shoulders in water ; while tlie right hand of John is resting on His head. A similar picture of Christ's baptism, taken from a manuscript of the tenth century, in the library of the British Museum, is found on p. 46 of tlie " Archseolog}'." The Saviour stands nude in a hillock of waters reacliing nearly up to His shoulders, while John is placing his right hand on the Saviour's head. A sketch of the baptism of the eunuch by Philip is given on p. 40 of Cote's larger work. " The eunuch is standing up to his neck in a pyramid of water, — the usual form in the earliest representations of Christian baptism. Philip is clothed in purple [and stands outside of the water]. Close b}^, the two are seen in a chariot with four horses, driving away at full gallop'." This pic- ture is found in a Greek psaltery of the eleventh centurj^ in the Barberini Library at Rome, and in a B^^zantine manuscript in the British Museum. On the opposite page of Cote's work is a picture from a manuscript of the eleventh century (now in the Bibliotheque NatiQnale at Paris) of the baptism administered b}^ John to Jewish converts, and "is interesting from tlae fact that the candidate is represented [in a perpendicular position] entirely covered with water." On pp. 42-45 of the "Archseology " Mr. Cote gives refer- ences to several other ancient pictures of immersion-baptism. We pass now to consider a few picture-baptisms of a slightly different stj'le and character. C. Ta^dor, on pp. 191, 197, of his " ApostoHc Baptism," gives two pictures of tlie baptism of Christ, . — the one from a brass door-plate of St. Paul's Church, on the Via Ostiensis, at Rome ; and the other from the Cosmedin, or Aiian Church, in Ravenna. In both pictures Christ stands nearly or quite nude, and up to His waist, in the middle of the river ; while John, who stands on the shore, holds in his right hand a small shell, in the first picture, over the shoulder, and, in the second, over the head of the Saviour, yet without any exhibition or sign of water-pouring. We ma}' observe that Cote, describing these pic- tures, makes no mention of a shell, but states that John's right hand rests on the " shoulder " and " head " of Jesus, — a statement, we suspect, so far as it relates to the Cosmedin picture at least, want- ing in entire accuracy. Cote refers to D'Agincourt and Ciampini ; 304 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. but, as we have not been able to find these works, we must content ourselves with the pictures we have seen. As the infusio clirismatis, or anointing the head with chrism, or consecrated oil, followed, in earty times, immediatel}' upon immersion, and does so jet in the Greek and Oriental churches, we are inclined to believe, with Lund}', that John here " applies the unction, or confii-mation, with a small shell," of course after the threefold immersion. In the other and more magnificent baptistery at Ravenna, pic- tured in mosaic on the great dome overhanging the font, is still another representation of our Saviour's baptism. A copy of this picture serves as frontispiece to the afore-cited works of Taylor and Hutchings ; and is also given on p. 890 of Smith's "Chris- tian Antiquities," under art. " Jordan." Here, also, Christ stands enttrel}^ nude, and waist-deep, in the river ; while John, standing high on the bank, holds in his left hand, apparently, not the usual staff, but a tall, jewelled cross, and in his right hand a bowl, or shell, from which water, we may suppose, is dripping, as from a sieve, upon the Saviour's head. (A like representation is seen in a sculpture of the fourteenth century on the southern door of the Florence baptister3\) Lund}" here (following Ciampini) acknowl- edges a baptism "both by immersion and aspersion." " Water," he says, "was poured over the heads of the immersed^ signifying the cleansing power of the holy and heavenly- dove descending in copious effusion." Referring to these Ravenna mosaics, Rev. Mr. Marriott (p. 169 of " The Christian Antiquities ") thus remarks : " It would seem probable, on a review of all the evidence, that in primitive times, while adult baptism was still of prevailing usage, the two modes hitherto described" (immersion and affusion) "were combined." ^ Cote, however, remarks that "the mosaics 1 In reference to tliis utterance, President Manly of Georgetown College, Kentucky, thus remarks: "As to these ancient affusions which, occurred in connection with baptism, we are not troubled about them. We need not go further than our author's own data for evidence that they were not the baptismal act, but an addition or appendage to it, which sprung up in very early times, and which, after awhile, began to be accepted, in some instances of special emergency, as a substitute for the original ordinance, — a com- pendious or abridged rite, instead of that which Christ appointed and the apostles practised." Dr. Manly speaks of the pouring occurring, as in the Armenian order of baptism, after immersion, as something "subsequent, not denominated baptism, and evidently designed to represent the imparta- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 305 of this baptistery have been repeatedly' restored ; and well-informed critics are of opinion that unwarrantable additions and altera- tions have been made in this magnificent work by incompetent artists. These restorations have been rendered necessary by the leaky condition of the cupola, — a defect which unfortunately still exists. The head, right shoulder, and right arm, of the Saviour have been restored, and also the head, right shoulder, right arm, and right leg and foot, of John the Baptist. Thus we may be indebted to a restorer for the cup which John holds in his right hand, and the jewelled cross in his left ; for, in every other paint- ing of the same period, he is represented as holding a reed in his left hand, and placing his right hand on the Saviour's head. The mosaics of this far-famed baptistery have, therefore, lost much of their archaeological value in consequence of these restorations and alterations." -^ Our opinion is that there is here (and so generall}' in the ancient picture-baptisms) too much nudity and too ' ' much water " to allow the baptism to be any thing less than immersion, but that the artists here, as in some other instances, have designed to represent other things than simple immersion. We may sup- pose, also, that they sometimes painted "to suit the times" in tion of the Spirit, wMcli was supposed to follow baptism, just as the Spirit descended upon the Saviour as He was coming up out of the waters of the Jordan." 1 Mr. Cote refers to Paciaudus as one who, in his De Cultu. S. Joannis Baptistaj, attributes these alterations to the ignorance of the painters. We give the learned Eoman antiquary's own words: " Pr£e cursor vasculo aquam in caput Christi effundit. ... At qute monstra nuntiant ejusmodi emblemata! Numquid Christus Dominus adspersione baptizatus ? Tan- tum abest a vero, ut nihil magis vero possit esse contrarium; sed errori et inscientiee pictorum tribuendum, qui quum historiarum sas^je sint ignari, vel' quia quidlibet audendi potestatem sibi factam credunt res, quas effingunt, mirifice aliquando depravant. . . . Alter ex altero exemphun sumat, nee prioris errata posterior apta correctione devitet." ("The Baptist pours water from a small vessel upon Christ's head. . . . But what monstrous notions do such representations convey! Was Christ the Lord baptized by aspersion? So far is this from the truth, that nothing can be more contrary to it. This thing ought to be attributed to the error and ignorance of the painters, who, either because they are often ignorant of history, or because they deem themselves at liberty to be presumptuous in any respect they please, sometimes wonderfully misrepresent what they depict. . . . One follows the example of another; and the latter shuns not, by proper correc- tion, the mistakes of the former.") 306 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. which thej' lived, and did not always aim faithfuU}' to represent the ancient observances. Thus, in the paintings of tlie Last Sup- per, the disciples are generally represented as sitting at the table in modern style, and not in the ancient reclining posture. So the dove, in almost all the picture-baptisms, is represented as alighting upon Jesus when standing in the river; while, according to the Gospels, the Spirit's descent did not occur until after He came up, or while He was coming up, out of the water. We have no doubt but that this shell-pouring has reference to the pouring of the sacred chiism, and was designed here to s^Tiibolize the anointing of the Holy Si)irit. This picture certainly gives no countenance to the view that Christ was merely poured upon or sprinkled in the Jordan, — a \'iew which, according to Chiystal, " is opposed to the behef of the whole Chz'istian world for the first twelve hundred years." We may here, before leaving this subject, refer to two or three picture-baptisms, where, as many think, the " compends " alone were used. We have seen that this was deemed allowable (ne- cessitate cogente) , in cases of pressing necessity, as early as the time of Cj'prian ; and it would not be strange if such compend- baptisms actually occurred and were pictm-ed in later times. Walafrid Strabo, of the ninth centurj^, speaks of pouring as a sub- stitute for immersion (si necessitas sit) in case of necessity, as when the large size of the bodies of the more mature, and the small size of the font, would render innnersion impossible (Smith's " Christian Antiquities," p. 171). And Duns Scotus, of the thir- teenth centur}', says that trine-immersion ma}^ be disiDensed with b}' a minister in case he should be feeble as to strength, and there should be a huge country fellow (unus magnus rusticus) to be baptized whom he could neither plunge in nor hft out. Ciampini, author of "Vetera Monumenta," &c., 1G90, gives his opinion, that, " whenever it was possible, baptism must be by immersion ; but when there are no streams or springs or other waters large enough to admit of this mode of baptism, then the water was poured over the head of the candidate. When the priest bap- tized, he laid his hand lightly upon the head of the candidate to intimate that his whole bodj^ had been plunged under water." In this way he explains the apparent pouring-baptism of St. Lawrence, a deacon of Rome, who, as the story goes, being about to die as a martyr, baptized by means of a water-pitcher a soldier (Roma- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 307 nus) that was to be one of Ms executioners. A representation of this compend-baptism, taken from the Church of St. Lauren- tius of the twelfth centur}', maybe found on p. 207 of Ta3ior's "Apostolic Baptism." Mabillon and Basnage, however, regard this i^icture as intended to represent a Greek baptism, where, beside triu^-immersioh, superfusion also is practised. Robinson, following Mabillon, remarks (p. 108) that " Romanus is repre- sented naked, as having been just unmersed." But, if this was a baptism of necessit}'', we ma}' well allow it to have been done b}^ compend. "Si vas haberi non possit," says a council in A.D. 1284, " fundatur aqua super caput baptizandi." In this connection we may refer to the picture-baptism of the Lombardian king and queen Argilulfus and Theolinda (or Agilul- fus and Theodelinda) . Both are represented as kneehng in a large vase or famil}^ bath, entirely disrobed, save the coronets ou their heads ; while the administrator, in a la^'man's dress, is about to pour something from a pitcher on the king's head, while both his royal hands are lifted as in prayer (see Taylor, p. 201). Here, certainly, is a pouring. But how ridiculous to strip a person stark naked, and put him in a bath, merely to pour a little water on his head ! Father Mabillon observes that this represents either a Greek baptism, or a baptism where the laver was too small, and where the body was immersed in the laver, and the head was immersed by superfusion (see Robinson's "Historj'," p. 112). "The artist," says Robinson, "thought, no doubt, he should give a just notion of immersion (for he could mean no other, as no other was in practice) by placing the lower part of a " (nude) "person in water, either in a river or a bath, and b}' showing another person pouring water over the upper part, out of the water ; for what could he mean, except that to baptize was to wet all over, to cover the whole man with water ? " Even Ilofling. in his " Sakrament der Taufe," p. 51, queries whether such an affu- sion is not more properl}' regarded as an immersion than as a simple pouring. We suppose, that if the bath was too small for a full immersion, or if such immersion was omitted for any other reason, the pouring of water on a naked subject ma}' have been regarded, in case of necessit}^, as supplementing, or even accom- plishing, the rite ; the whole action amounting thus to a quasi inmaersion. This principle certainly was recognized by the old 308 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Eoman ecclesiastic Gregory, who, in defence of affusion against Mark of Ephesus, a disputant of the Greek Church, made in a council at Florence, A.D. 1439, this affirmation: "We do not immerse the infants' heads ; for we cannot teach them to hold their breath, nor prevent water from going through their ears, nor close their mouths. But we so put them into the font as to omit nothing which is really necessar}' for carrying out the tradition" (i.e., immersion, since he had previously stated ' ' that trine-immersion was necessary is evident, for thus has it been handed down by the saints to signify the three -da3-s' burial of the Lord") ; . . . "and that the head, the seat of the senses, and vehicle of the soul, ma}- not be without hoh' baptism, we take up water in the hollow of the hand, out of the font, and pour it over," &c. Not till the twelfth or thirteenth century do we find evidence of the existence of this custom ; namely, that of supplementing a partial immersion by affusion, in order to avoid all peril of the j'oung infant's life. That this was the motive may be seen from the following testi- mon}". John, bishop of Liittich, A.D. 1287, thus writes : " When the baptizer immerses the candidate in water, he may say these words. . . . And, that all peril to the one being baptized may be avoided, the head of the child may not be immersed in water ; but the priest xxxb.j pour Avater thrice on the crown of the child's head with a basin, or other clean and fit vessel." And the council of Camliray, in A.D. 1300, does but repeat the same thing. We should judge, however, that the font in the picture under consid- eration was sufficiently large for the immersion of the candidates singly ; and our opinion is, to repeat a former assertion, that we have here too much of nudity, and too much of water, to allow of any baptismal " compend." We notice, finally, a somewhat similar picture (in mosaic) in the Chapel of St. Pudentiana in Rome. Two nude persons are in a huge family bath, their legs being bent up under them ; while one holds up his right hand as in prayer. The administrator, however, in- stead of pouring, has his right hand placed on the candidate's head. We have here no compend of baptism, but, according to Lundy, "nude trine-immersion and confirmation together." We are not sure about this " confirmation." The picture bears this inscription in Latin : " Heke in the living font the dead are born again." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 309 CHAPTER XXX. INFANT-BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PE.ESSENS]fc, in Ms sermon on Baptism, says tliat a discussion of the controverted point, whether infant-baptism reaches back to the apostolic age, is " always thorny." We hope to discuss this matter in such a wa}^ as shall not needlessly stir up or sharpen any thorns of controversy. Dr. Hovey, in an article in "The Baptist Quarterty " for April, 1869, boldly asserts that ' ' infant-baptism cannot be shown to have prevailed in the Christian world during the first two hundred j-ears after Christ." This, how- ever, is but Baptist testimony. If the reader will turn back to the beginning of Chap. XXVI., he will see the concurring testimony of many distinguished Pedobaptist writers on this subject. Among them no one stands more eminent than C. L. Matthies, author of " Baptismatis Expositio, Biblica, Historica, Dogmatica." His words on this point are: " Tum Wallus turn Binghamus, invitis historise testimoniis, infantes baptizandi morem ad setatem apos- tolicam reducunt," &c., — " Both Wall and Bingham, in opposition to the testimonies of history, trace the custom of infant-baptism back to the apostolic age" (see sect. 20, p. 187, note). And on the same page he further declares : ' ' Primis duobus sfficulis nulla inveniuntur monumeuta quibus evidenter confirmari possit, infantes jam tunc temporis continuo baptismum suscepisse," &c. This affirmation is the exact counterpart to the statement made b^^ Dr. Hovey ; and in a like conclusion the most eminent Pedobaptist scholars of the world (Dr. Dale — see his "Christie Baptism," p. 340 — and perhaps a few others excepted) are now generall}' agreed. Drs. Wall, Hdfling, and others, in support of the early existence of infant-baptism, refer to Hcrmas, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria. But Hennas' affirmation, that "all 310 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. infants are honored of the Lord, and are esteemed first of all," and Justin's assertion, that "many men and women, sixt}^ and seventy years old, who were discipled to Christ from childhood, remain incorrupt," and Clement's "little children drawn out of the water," are now regarded as having nothing to do with the baptism of infants. Justin explicitly affirms that the " saving bath belongs to those who repent," and is that "which alone is able to purify those who have repented." It is the "persuaded and believing ' ' alone whom he would lead to the ' ' laver of re- pentance." " Wherever Justin refers to baptism," b&jb Semisch, ' ' adults appear as the objects to whom the sacred rite is adminis- tered. Of an infant-baptism he knows nothing." In regard to the words of Clement, Matthies thus remarks: "These contain, we doubt not, a latent reference to baptism ; yet they do not allude in the slightest degree to infant-baptism specifically. For before the mind of Clement was Peter, whom Christ made a 'fisher of men ; ' and paiclia [little children] signifies all men who are regenerated hy baptism, drawn out, as it were, of an impious and wicked life, and elevated to the truth. But six hundred examples of the same kind may be quoted from the Paidagogos, in which Clement means by the word paidion (opposed to the ' divine Paidagogos ') an}^ man whatsoever, without regard to age, yet so that 2>ciiclia are disciples whom the divine Logos leads to a true and holy life." More doubtful is the meaning of Irenaeus' assertion, that Christ "came to save all by Himself, — all, I sa}^, who by Him are regenerated to God, infants and httle ones, and children and j^ouths, and elderly persons. Therefore He passed through every age, and for infants was made an infant, sanctifjing infants; for httle ones He was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age, and giving them an example of piet}^ and uprightness and obe- dience," &c.^ From this saying of Irenseus, Matthies thinks the 1 Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare : omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum; infantes et parvulos et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit setatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanc- tificans infantes; in parvulis parvulus sanctificans laanc ipsam iiabentes setatem simul et exempluni illis pietatis effectus et justitiee et subjectionis, &c. The Greek of Irenasus is lost, and the author of the Latin version is unl-oiown. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 311 probability is, that in the last part of the second century, about A.D. 180, infants were sometimes baptized (" Baptis. Expo.," p. 190). But such Pedobaptist scholars as Hageubach, Bohringer, Duncker, and man};" others, as well as our own Professor Chase, all of whom have taken much pains in the investigation of Irenaeus' Christolog}^, regard this regeneration by Christ as having no refer- ence to baptism'. "By naming Chi-ist the second Adam," remarks Duncker, "he characterizes Him primarily as the second beginner of the human race, who has recapitulated in Himself, has repeated, saved, and transformed in Himself, the first and natural beginning of human development. . . . Chi'ist as the second Adam is both the deliverer and the perfecter of the first Adam, and, with him, of the whole human race, inasmuch as the first Adam was the representative and real sum of all men. He did not in His incar- nation take on Himself and save a single man, but the universal man, or humanity ; and therefore, as the perfect spiritual Adam, He also became the spiritual father and head of the race, which, gathered into His bosom, was born again to the divine life." The passage in Irenaeus "only expresses," says Hagenbach, "the beautiful idea that Jesus was Redeemer in every stage of life, and for every stage of Ufe ; but it does not say that He redeemed children by the water of baptism^ unless the term renasci be inter- preted, b}^ the most arbitrary petitio principii^ to refer to bap- tism." Dr. Chase, a model historical investigator, thus sums up his conclusion in regard to this passage : " According to Irenaeus, Christ, in becoming incarnate, and thus assuming His mediatorial work, brought the human famil}' into a new relation under Himself, and placed them in a condition in which they can be saved. In this sense He is the Saviour of all. He restored them, or summed them up anew in Himself. He became, so to speak, a second Adam, the regenerator of mankind. Through Him the^^ are regenerated to God: per eum renascuntur in Deum." The passage, he says, speaks nothiug for baptism; "for the context directs our attention to Christ, and M'hat He Himself personally came to do for the human family. It is b}^ Him, and not by bap- tism, that they are here said to be renewed, born anew, or regen- erated" (see art. entitled "Meaning of Irenaeus in the Phrase Regenerated unto God.,^' in " Bibliotheca Sacra " for November, 1849; since republished in "Baptismal Tracts for the Times"). 312 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Irenseus certainly often uses tlie term "regeneration" to signify baptism ; and in one passage, at least, he makes the commission to baptize equivalent to giving the disciples ' ' the power of regenerating to God : " but it appears e^adent to me, that, in the passage before us, he explains what he means by Christ's regenerating infants unto God by the added clause, "Therefore . . . for infants He was made an infant, sanctfying infants." We may remark, that the fathers used the term " sanctified " nearly as often as the}' did the term "regenerated" to signify baptized. But it will not do to take it in that sense here, and saj' that Christ baptized (sanctified) infants by Himself becoming an infant. No one, it is evident, can, with any certainty, found pedobaptism on this passage of Irenseus. Tertullian, about A.D. 200 (born A.D. 160), is the first who plainly speaks of the baptism of parvuli (little ones) ; and he men- tions it but to oppose it (see Hofling, p. 104). Though Tertullian, with the other fathers, connects baptism with remission of sins, and even with regeneration, he yet insists on the necessity of re- pentance and faith prior to baptism. Unless a man oflfer the price of repentance for baptismal remission, he does not deserve "a single sprinkhng of water." "With him the " laver is the sealing of faith, wMch faith is begun and commended by a penitent faith. We are not bathed that we may cease to sin, since we are already bathed in heart." It must, however, be acknowledged that the apostolical and early fathers held such views of the worth, efficac}", and necessity of baptism as would naturallj^ lead to the early practice of infant-baptism. Manj' of their paneg3Tics on baptism have alreadj- been given. We will here add a few more. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas saj^s, "We go down into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit," &c. "Blessed are they, who, putting their trust in the cross, go down into the water." " Because your life is and shall be saved by water." Hermas also affirms that one's "life is saved, and shall be saved, hj water ; " and that, when a man " receives this seal, he is set free from death, and dehvered up to life. But this seal is wa^er, into which men go down devoted to death, but come up assigned to hfe." According to Hermas, even the Old-Testament saints and patriarchs had to be baptized b}' the apostles in hades before the}' could enjo}' the blessings of the kingdom. Justin MartjT speaks of baptism as regeneration ; STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 313 and, generally speaking, all the fathers held, not onty that the birth of water and of the Spirit (John iii. 5) had reference to baptism, but that there could be no birth from above, no regeneration for any one, without it. Indeed, with them, " baptized " and " regen- erated " were, in general, equivalent terms. Thus, as we have seen, Irenseus, in one place, speaks of Christ's giving to His dis- ciples " the power of regenerating to God ; " i.e., the authority to baptize. Origen saj^s, that, " according to the regeneration of the bath {elc loutrou), every one is free from uncleanness, and born from above." C^'prian speaks of the undm genitalis atixilio, the water of regeneration, by whose help " the stain of one's former life is cleansed away ; " and asserts, that " unless one be baptized, and born again, he cannot come to the kingdom of God." Am- brose avers that "there is no regeneration without water ; " and Gregory Nazianzen assures us that " there is not another regen- eration afterward to be had, though it be sought with never so much crying and tears." Finally, Augustine, who made infant- baptism .necessarj^ to remove original sin and that condemnation which " came upon all men," saj^s that those who are not regener- ated [baptized], and die in infancy, do fall into condemnation and the second death. " What Christian man," he asks, " can endure to hear it said that any person may come to eternal salva- tion that is not regenerated in Christ, which He has ordered to be done b}' baptism?" Such are some of the utterances of the fathers respecting "baptismal regeneration," — a doctrine con- cerning which Dr. Owen saj's that " the father of lies could not well devise a more effectual plan to lead manliind blindfold to perdition." We will now turn back, and listen to a few more patristic assev- erations regarding the worth and indispensableness of baptism. With Justin Mart3'r baptism is spiritual circumcision and " the water of hfe." "The bath is called illumination." "In the water" one obtains "election," "wisdom," and "remission of sins." Clement of Alexandria speaks of " sins remitted b}' one healing pJiarmako, logikb baptismati, one healing medicine, spirit- ual baptism," whereby " we are cleansed as to all sins, and are no longer evil; " and holds, as we have alreadj^ seen, that we are illuminated, adopted, perfected, and deified by baptism. Tertullian begins his treatise on baptism, "Felix sacramentum aquae nostrae," 814 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. &c. , — " Happy the sacrament of our water, whereby, being cleansed from the sins of our former blindness, we are made free unto eternal life. ... Is it not wonderful that death should be washed away by a mere bath? " " We enter then the font once ; once are sins washed smaj. . . . Happy water which once washes away! " &c. " How might}' is the grace of water in the sight of God and His Christ!" He regards John iii. 5 as binding faith to the necessity of baptism, and as debarring all unbaptized ones, except martyrs, from salvation. Origen affirms that there is no receiving remission of sins without baptism, and that " ever}' kind of sin is removed when we come to the saving bath." Cyril of Jerusalem asserts that the "sting of death is removed by baptism." In the so-called " Recognitions of Clement " we find this ad%T.ce : "Betake yourselves, therefore, to these waters ; for the}^ alone can quench the violence of the future fire." Similar to this is Cj'prian's assevera- tion, " Lavacro aquae salutaris gehennse ignis extinguitur," — "In the bath of saving water the fire of hell is extinguished." The deAT.1 prevails, says Cj'iman, up to the salutary bath ; but " in bap- tismo omnes nequitiae -vires diabolus amittat. . . . Sicut scoi'pii et serpentes qui in sicco prsevalent, in aquam prsecipitati, prsevalere non possunt, an sua venena retinere, sic et spiritus nequam," &c. ; that is, as scorpions and serpents prevail on the land, but lose all their strength and poison when put into water, so the e^-il spirit loses all his powers of wickedness in baptism. At the somewhat famous council of sixty-six bishops in Carthage, A.D. 253, — before which Fidus, a countr}' bishop, submitted a question which evidently had not hitherto been settled ; namely, whether an infant should be baptized before it was eight days old, — Cyprian, with the whole council, decided that the law of circumcision was not, in one respect, binding in the matter of infant-baptism ; that "the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained b}' the carnal circumcis- ion ; ' ' that the objection of Fidus against kissing a babe in the first days after its birth was likewise invahd ; but, " if need require " (see Wall, part i. chap. xix. sect. 17, and "Defence," edition of 1720, p. 393) , the second or third day was better than the eighth for baptism, nulla anima perdenda (that kg soul jiay be lost) . This one consideration stood to them in place of Scripture and exevy thing else as the reason for baptizing infants newly born. With Cyprian, as with the other fathers, there was no salvation without STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 315 baptism, the case of martj-rs only excepted. His language is, that if one be ever so upright, 3'et do not receive the seal of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Cyril of Jerusalem, making the same asseveration, saj^s, "This is a bold speech: but it is none of mine ; it is Jesus Christ that has made this decree." This same father speaks of sins which have so wounded the hodj and the soul, that the marks of the scars can onl}' be removed by baptism. Gregory- Nazianzen denominates baptism "the rectif^T-Ug of our formation," "the great and beautiful phylactery," "the being clothed with incorruption and immortalit3^" Chr3-sostom's words have akeady been quoted: "If sudden death seize us (which God forbid !) before we are baptized, though we have ten thousand virtues, there is nothing to be expected but hell," &c. " Before baptism," saj's this golden-mouthed preacher, " there is no recei\T.ng the patrimon}^, or taking the inheritance. . . . With- out baptism, no one can be called a son." Ambrose's averment, that " no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven unless through the sacrament of baptism," is well known. He further saj's, that " no time ought to be void of the remedy, because none is void of guilt." And again : " It is water, then, wherein flesh is immersed, that aU carnal sin maj^ be washed away. All wickedness is buried there." And on John iii. 5 (" Unless one be born of water," &c.) he says, " You see He excepts no person, not anj' infant, not an}' one that is hindered b}" any necessity." Augustine held, that without baptism, and partaking of the Lord's Supper, no one could enter into the kingdom, nor have eternal life. " For this reason," he sa3"S, " even the sucking babe is by its mother borne with pious hands to the church, that it ma}^ not depart without baptism, and die in the sin wherein it was born." He often speaks of parents running with their infants to be baptized while they are aliA'e, lest, when they are dead, there be nothing to be done. And arguing against the Pelagians, who denied an}- hereditar}^ taint of Adam's sin, and held that infants dying unbaptized might enjoy a blessed eternal life outside the kingdom, he tells them, " So, when 3'ou confess the infant will not be in the kingdom, 3'ou must acknowl- edge that he will be in everlasting fire." Yet Augustine held that the damnation of infants would be "omnium levissima," "omnium mitissima " (" the lightest of all ") and (" the mildest of all ") ; nor would he say respecting such infants, that it would have been 316 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. better for them if they had never been born.-^ Now, from the repre- sentation here given of the views and feelings of the fathers, how easy to see that the baptizing of children, first, perhaps, the older, then the younger, and finallj^, in case of necessity, the newly-born, would naturally, gradually, inevitably, creep into the Church of Christ! (See "Infant-Baptism, its Origin traceable to the Doc- trine of Baptismal Regeneration," in "Christian Re^dew " for January, 1861.) Suppose, for example, that this country, some two hundred and fift}" ^^ears ago, was settled b}^ those whom we may denominate Baptists, who knew no other baptism, as a physi- cal act, than immersion, who held that faith and repentance should ever precede and accompau}' baptism, and who agreed generally with the Baptists of to-daj' in " substance of doctrine," but that many of them, unlike the Baptists, even then cherished very high church notions of the efQcacy and general indispensableness of sacraments and outward rites, — notions inherited through a long line of ancestry, and from ages of religious observance, and diffi- cult, therefore, to be laid at once and whoU}' aside ; that in after years and generations these notions increased more and more, and prevailed greatly', till at length baptism especially came to be regarded as a regenerating and sin-remitting ordinance, and an indispensable requisite for any one's entrance into the kingdom of God: would it be strange, if, under these circuinstances, and in 1 Gregory Nazianzen was of the opinion that those who "have it not in their power to receive [baptism] , either because of tlieir infancy, perhaps, or by reason of some accident utterly involuntary," and tlius "fail of tlie gift by ignorance or constraint," will be " neither glorified nor punished by the just Judge." Pelagius expressed himself doubtfully as to the future state of unbaptized infants ; for he says, ' ' Whither they do not go at death I know" (that is, they do not go into the kingdom); "but whither they do go I know not." Ambrose, speaking of this unfortunate class, thus remarks : ' ' But suppose they do obtain a freedom from punishment ; yet I question whether they will have the lionor of the kingdom." In later times the scholastic theologians, as a general thing, assigned to unbaptized children a limbus imerorwn, where they miglat suffer indeed the poenam damni for original sin, but not the more terrible pcznam sensus for actual sins. To come down to still later times, Zwingle says of heathen children, " Prohabilius ut gentium liberi per ClirMmn salventur quam ut damnentiir ; " that is, it is more probable that they Avill be saved through Christ than that they will be damned. Dr. Schaff says that Bulliuger advanced a similar view, though not so clearly. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 317 cases of "pressing necessity," clinic perfusion and pedo-immersion, and even infant-immersion, with its ever-accompanpng and indis- pensable sponsion for the little one's faith, together with the faith of the " baptizing, receiving church," had by this time come into vogue here and there, or even generally, without creating anj' general commotion or alarm, or without exciting much opposition ? Had this occurred in our age and country, it would be, we suppose, but a repetition, in the main, of the change in the observance of baptism which took place in the history- of the first two or three centuries of the Christian Church. Yet, for various reasons, there was a long-continued and persistent opposition to pedobaptism in the earl}^ church. Neander states in his " Church History," that, "About the middle of the thiixl century, this theory- (of the un- conditional necessit}' of infant-baptism) was generally admitted in the North-African Church. . . . But, if the necessity of infant- baptism was acknowledged in theor}", it was still far from being uniformly recognized in practice!" And Guericke states, that, " akeady in the third centurj^ the necessity of infant-baptism was prett}' commonly acknowledged ; but it was not until about the middle of the fifth century that the exhortations to its observance, given hj the most distinguished church teachers, led, with the greatest difficultj^ to its being carried out in practice in the East." Chrj'sostom complained that in his day most persons neglected to baptize their children. Jerome speaks of the guilt of Christians refusing to give baptism to their children. In Augustine's time and country it was a frequent inquiry, "whether the Christian's child was a catechumen or a believer ; " i.e., one receiving instruc- tion preparatory to baptism, or one who had alread}' been bap- tized. " Men," he says, " also were wont to ask what good the sacrament of Christ's baptism does to infants." And some, it would seem, affirmed that " one that is born of Christian parents, both baptized, ought not" (as being a partaker of the parents' privilege?) "to be baptized." Julian, one of the Pelagian sect, who, as denying original sin, were commonly supposed to be not very ardent, certainly not ver}- consistent advocates of pedobap- tism, yet avers that he was ready to " allot an eternal, anathema to those who should say that baptism is not necessary even for infonts." (Christian anathemas, it is well to recollect, were natu- rallj' aimed, not at Jews and Heathen, but against Christians.) 318 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Augustine asks, "How do not those persons have even this in the love of darkness, who, as they themselves do not believe " (this father terms those persons unbelievers, even though they have the " sacrament of faith," who doubt the sa-ving efficacj' of infant-baptism : see his Letter to Boniface) , " so neither tliink that their children are to be baptized when they fear for them the death of the body? " One council, at least, — that at Cartilage, A.D. 418, — pronounced an anathema on. those who deny that newly- born infants m.&j be baptized. To suppose, as Wall does, that this anathema was directed against those, who, hke Fidus, had scruples about baptizing infants under eight daj's old, seems wholly absurd. So far as history tells us, Fidus was the only one who had this peculiar notion ; and he is addressed by Cjiorian and his council as frater carissime (" dearest brother "), whom they wished (a verj'' gracious anathema) " always to enjoy good health." Besides, infants only eight days old can certainly be called ' ' recentes ab uteris matrum ; " i.e., newly born. The same council also anathe- matized those who say that in the kingdom of heaven there is any place ' ' in which infants ma}" live in blessedness that have died without baptism." During the preceding centuries, there seems to have been an almost unaccountable neglect of infant-baptism. At the great council held at Nice, A.D. 325, Eusebius, who in his renowned " Ecclesiastical History " makes no mention of infant- baptism, read a document before the Emperor Constantine and the three hundred and eighteen bishops, wherein he fairty implies that none of them had been baptized in unconscious infancy, but had received catechetical instruction pre^dous to baptism. His words, which we quote from an article h-y_ Dr. Irah Chase in " Christian Review " for October, 1863, p. 568 (see also Hofling, p. 212, and Cote's " Archfieology," p. 88), are, "As we have received from the bishops that were before us, both in the previous catechetical instruction, and also when we received the laver," &c. Must not man}' of these bishops at their birth have had baptized Christian parents, or have had, at least, a Christian parent, who could have procured "sponsors" for the little ones? If we go back as far as to Origen, who, as is commonlj^ supposed, held to the apostolical origin of infant-baptism, we j'et hear him, in his " Homity on the Book of Numbers," using such language in his address to Christians as implies the non-existence of that custom STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 319 in his day. He saj's, " Recoi'detur unusquisqiie fidelium," &c., — " Let each one of the behevers recall to mind when he first came to the waters of baptism, when he received the first symbols of the faith, when he approached the fountain of salvation, what W'ords he there used at that time, — how he renounced the devil ; that he would not use his pomps, nor comply at all with any of his serAices and pleasures." Let us now listen to Basil as he urges the dilatory ones to baptism : " Do you demur and loiter, and put it off, when you have been from an infant " (nepios) " catechised in the word? Are 3'ou not yet acquainted with the truth ? Having been alwa3-s learning, are you not yet come to the knowledge of it? A seeker all your life long, a considerer till you are old, when will you be made a Christian? " Man}' adults, we know, put off baptism through consciousness of guilt and unworthiness, and through fear of defiling their baptism, since, as they were told, this was their only regeneration. Others delayed baptism that they might live a life of sinful pleasure, intending, when old and about to die, to wash away all their sins in the saving bath, and thiis enter heaven pure. But none of these reasons will fuU}^ account for the wide neglect of m/anif-baptism. Gregory Nazianzen was as much opposed as any one to this delaying of baptism on the part of adults, and he severely chides them for their frivolous and wicked excuses. But Gregory himself, while he would baptize infants at once, where there was " any danger" (for he says, "It were better the}^ were sanctified without their knowing it than that thej- should die without being sealed and initiated ") , yet counsels that the bap- tism of strong and healthy children should be dela^^ed until ' ' the}' were three years of age or thereabouts ; for then they are able to hear and answer some of the m3'stical words ; and, although they do not fully understand, the}' may receive impressions, and thus may be sanctified both soul and body by the great mystery of ■initiation." "When this distinguished church theologian was born, his father held the bishop's office, or at least was a baptized Christian ; and though he was consecrated to God by his pious mother Nonna, both before and at his birth^ yet his baptism, lilve the baptism of so many other church fathers, was delayed till he arrived at years of maturity. Dr. Wall quotes Baxter as acknowl- edging, " that, in the days of Tertullian, Nazianzen, and Austin, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring then- children, when 320 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. and at what age thej pleased ; and none were forced to go against their consciences therein." The truth is, there was, in the minds of the early Christians generall}', a deep and ineradicable conviction, founded on God's word, of the necessity of a voluntar}^ profession of repentance, and faith in baptism, and that even sponsorship was but a poor substitute for personal faith and choice. In consequence of this feeling, as we suppose, some persons had doubts about the pro- priety of baptizing a pregnant woman, " lest it might seem," as Professor Chase sa3's, "to involve the baptism of the child." Hence a council held at Neocsesarea, in Asia Minor, A.D. 315, decreed that such a woman ' ' ought to be baptized whenever she pleases ; for in this matter the mother communicates nothing to the child ' ' (the exact reverse of the Proselyte-baptistic view) , " since the dehberate purpose in the profession of faith is declared each one's own." Dr. Chase quotes the explanation which the G-reek commentators give regarding this decision : ' ' One of these, Balsamo [or Balsamon] , in his 'Compendium of Canons,' says, ' The child cannot be baptized, because it is not yet born, and has not the deliberate purpose of the profession connected with the divineh"- appointed baptism.' And another, Zonaras, with equal clearness, expresses himself thus : ' The embrj'o needs baptism when it shall be able to have the deliberate purpose.' " (See " Christian Review," October, 1863, p. 567.) It is indeed possible that these commentators, and even the council itself, supposed that the new-born infant was " able to choose " by a sponsor (see Wall's "Histor}^" part i., chap, viii., sect. 7). Yet it would be difficult to show that such a one could form a " delib- erate purpose" in this matter an}^ more than the embr3'o. On pp. 562, 563, of the same rcA'iew, Dr. Chase thus remarks : " StiU, in most parts of Christendom, a deep impression was prevalent that faith was requisite in order to be baptized, as well as that baptism was requisite in order to be admitted into heaven. With such impressions, who that had parental affection would not have special desire, who would not earnestly pray, that the dear little ones might arrive at that state in which, as Origen expresses it, thej^ could be made capable of receiving the grace of Christ ? Passages occurring in some of the early Christian writers help us to understand the prayers that were offered for STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 321 the infants, whether of the church or of the catechumens. These prayers . . . are still found in the litargical part of the Eighth Book of the ' Constitutions.' . . . They touch a tender chord in the heart of the Christian parent, and shed an unex- pected light on the history of infant-baptism. They show that infants were not baptized; for the burden of these praj-ers is, that the little ones may be brought to such an age and state as to receive baptism; this being a 'sacrament for the believers,' without which it was generally supposed none could inherit the bliss of heaven." ^ TertuUian, as we have said, and, soon after him, Origen (born A.D. 185, died 253), both of Africa, were the first who make plain mention of the baptism of parvidi, or little ones. The former, whom Matthies calls " acerrimus ecclesiasticse traditionis propagator," &c. (" a most strenuous propagator of ecclesiastical tradition, and a most determined foe of novelties, Montanism excepted"), mentions the baptism of little ones only to oppose it ; ^ and, from his determined opposition, Matthies regards it as. 1 In the whole of the so-called Apostolical Constitutions there is but one reference, veiy abrupt and brief, to the duty of Ijaptizing infants. In\ book vi., chap. 15, the direction is given, ''And baptize your infants- {nepia), and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God ; for- He says, ' Suffer the little children to come to Me, and forbid them not.' " ' If this piece of advice be genuine, it yet supposes some opposition to, or- neglect of, infant-baptism in those times. 2 Tertullian's words are, " Cseterum baptismum non teraere credendum. esse sciant quorum ofRcium est. . . . Itaque pro cujusque personse condi- tione ac dispositione, etiam getate, cunctatio baptismi utilior est ; prsecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est (si non tarn necesse) spon- sores etiam periculo ingeri ? quia et ipsi per mortalitatem, destituere promissiones suas possunt et proventu malse indolis falli. Ait quidera. Dominus, Nolite illos prohibere ad me venire. Veniant ergo dum ado- lescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens setas ad remissio- nem peccatormn ? Cautius agetur in ssecularibus ; ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur. Norint petere salutem ut petenti dedisse videaris," &c. The words in the parentheses are generally omitted. Wall renders them, "except in case of necessity," making TertuUian willing to l^aptize infants when in danger of death. Eev. S. Thelwall, in the Ante- Nicene Christian Library, gives them a directly opposite signification: "*' For why is it necessary — if [baptism itself] is not so [indispensably] neces- «lary (which he has already allowed that it is not) — that the sponsors," &c. 322 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. "obvious that the usage and custom of infant-baptism had not as yet, at that time, become frequent in all the churches," and that, while " certainly in the Carthaginian Church pedobaptism had been received into use, it was yet held to be an institution not derived from Christ or his apostles" (p. 191). "This hypothesis" (of the recent introduction of pedobaptism) "ac- counts," saj's Dr. Hovey, " for the silence of Tertullian on certain points. He recognizes b}^ no form of expression either the antiquity or the general prevalence of pedobaptism. He replies to no argument from ecclesiastical tradition in its favor. Yet the method and thoroughness of his treatise ' De Baptismo ' warrant us in believing that he would have replied to such an argument, had it been in use ; and the records of that age warrant us in sa3dng that such an argument would have been used, if it could have been, in defence of pedobaptism. Nay, more : the writings of Tertullian himself authorize us to assume that he would never have arrayed himself against this practice, had it been We subjoin Dr. Hovey' s translation: "They whose office it is linow that baptism is not to be rashly granted. . . . Hence, according to the state and disposition, and also age, of each' person, the delaying of baptism is more useful, but especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary that their sponsors should be brought into peril, since these may abandon their promises by death, and may be deceived by the growth of an evil nature? The Lord says, to^Tje sure, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Let them come, then, when they grow up ; let them come when they learn, when they are taught whither they come ; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does an innocent age hasten to remis- sion of sins ? In secular affairs men act with more caution ; so that one to whom no earthly substance is committed is intrusted with the divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that thou mayest seem to have ' given to him that asketh.' " Tertullian closes the chapter (eighteenth of De Baptismo) as follows: "Those who understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving it than the delaying of it. Fides Integra secura est de salute, — ' A sound faith is sure of salvation.' " We need not stop to reconcile this last utterance with other assertions of Tertullian in which he recognizes the necessity of baptism to salvation ; as, for example, where he adduces Christ's declaration to ISiTicodemus as a standing rule, which obstrinxit fidem ad baptismi necessitatem, and by which prcescribitur nemini sine baptismo competere salutem. In Tertullian's view, martyrdom for Christ would save without baptism; and this is sufficient to justify Mr. Thel wall's assertion, that, with Tertullian, baptism was not always an indis- pensable necessity. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 323 general, and founded on ecclesiastical tradition. For he was not yet a Montanist ; and, even after he became one, he spoke with the greatest reverence of whatever had been handed down, in the common faith and practice of the Church, from the apostles. ... This hypothesis (also) accounts for the total silence of earlier writers on the subject of baptism. For more than one hundred and fifty years after the day of Pentecost, there is not a syllable extant, in the writings of apostles or Christian fathers, which refers in any way to the baptism of infants ; not a s^'Uable which recognizes the children of believers as entitled to the initiatory ordinance of church-life because of their parents' faith. Is not this a most remarkable and inexplicable fact, if infant-baptism dates from the apostolic age, and rests upon apostolic authority? " "From Tertullian's language respecting the magical power of baptism," says Neander, "it might be expected that he would favor infant-baptism ; and therefore his opposition to it tells so much the more against its apostolic origin. . . . Many persons have maintained that Tertullian does not speak against infant- baptism absolutely, but only means that it should not be practised generally ; so that it is not forbidden in cases of necessit}'. This is not, however, what Tertullian says. The expressions we have quoted force us to the conclusion that he was an unconditional opponent of infant-baptism." Tertullian, moreover, was a be- liever in the hereditar}- taint and guilt of Adam's sin, and was, in- deed, the inventor of the phrase, originis vitium (" original sin ") , and would say, with Clement of Rome (first Letter to the Corin- thians, chap, vii.), and with Origen, that "no one is free from pollution, though his life be but of one day." Yet he did not, like Augustine, seek to have it purged away in the laver of baptism, but even asks, " Quid festinat innocens £etas ad remissionem pec- catorum ? " — " Why hastens their innocent age to the remission of sins?" "Here let it be distinctly noted," says Dr. Chase, " that Tertullian was speaking, not of infants, properly so called, but of little ones (parvuU) who had sufficient maturit}' to be taught (?) lessons of Christian truth and dut3^ This was per- ceived by Bunsen, so distinguished as an investigator of ci\T-l and ecclesiastical antiquities ; and, in the work entitled ' Hippolytus and his Age,' he sa^^s, ' Tertullian's opposition is to the baptism of young growing children : he does not say a word about new- 324 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. born infants ; neither does Origen, when his expressions are ac- curatelj" weighed.' " Those who take the other side of this question would say that Tertullian's parvuU, if not new-born infants, were j^et not old enough to be taught, to learn, to know Christ, or to ask for salvation ; that, if pedobaptism had been unknown to or opposed to the tradition of the Church, he would not have failed to mention it ; that, moreover, Tertullian's mind was crotchety ; that his opposition to pedobaptism was in variance with the feelings, and practice of the age, was, in fact, a whim peculiar to himself, and was akin to his counselled delay of the baptism of unmarried persons, " who are likely to come into temptation," and of widows, "until they either marry, or are con- firmed in continence." But one can easily see that these matters last mentioned were but incidentally referred to bj' Tertulhan, and that his opposition to pedobaptism was far more determined, and rested on far different grounds. As Neander says, it might have been expected that TertuUian would have desired to bestow the grace of baptism upon little ones, who could put no obex in the way. The reasons for his opposition to pedobaptism are not fully stated ; but one of them manifestly is, that he thought it to be' a violation of the law and teachings of Christ. The following brief summation of tliis whole matter is by Professor E.. H. Plumptre, a writer whom we cannot suppose to be prejudiced in favor of Baptist views : " The statement of Suicer (' Thesaurus,' ii. 1136), that for the first two centuries no one was baptized who could not make a conscious profession of his faith, is, perhaps, overstrained ; but it is true that the evidence on the other side is meagre. Justin's statement, that ' many had been made disciples of Christ, eJc paiddn,' is somewhat strained when these words are translated, as Bingham does, ' from their infancy.' The witness of Irenaeus, who says that ' infantes ' (as well as ^parvuli") 'renascuntur in Deum,' and identifies regeneration with baptism, is, however, more distinct. That of Origen, how- ever, that the Church's practice was ' etiam parvulis baptismum dari,' is rendered less so by the distinction drawn by Irenseus between the ^parvuW and the '■infantes.' The treatise in which TertuUian urges ' cunctatio baptismi ' as the safer and better course is rather in the tone of one who is contending against a growing practice than of one who rejects a tradition of the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 325 Universal Church" (see art. "Children," in Smith's "Christian Antiquities " ) . Origen, like TertuUian, believed in human depra^dty, — a deprav- ity^, however, which was not derived from Adam, but from our fall in a pre-existent state, and from the pollution of birth. If we may trust the translations or transformations, hy Eufinus, of Origen' s writings, it will appear that this distinguished church teacher was a believer in parvuU, or pecZo-baptism, and that he regarded the practice as derived by tradition from the apostles. In Origen's " Homil^^ on Leviticus," chap, xii., as translated by Rufinus, he thus speaks (we quote from Dr. Hovej^'s above-named article) : "Hear David speaking: ^I was conceived in iniquities,' says lie, ' and. in sins did my mother bring me forth; ' showing that every soul which is born in the flesh is polluted with the filth of iniquit}' and sin. . And, for this reason, that was said which we have mentioned before, — that none is clear from pollution, not even if his life may have been but of one day [this last is from Job. xiv. 4, Septua- gint version]. To these it can also be added, that it may be in- quired, why, since the baptism of the Chm-ch is given for the remis- sion of sins, baptism is given, according to the practice of the Church, even to httle children [pai^vidi'] ? for the gi'ace of baptism would seem superfluous, if there were nothing in little children requiring remission and indulgence." In his " Commentar}^ on the Epistle to the Romans," according to Rufinus' version, he thus remarks : " FinaUj', also, it is commanded in the law that a sac- rifice be offered for him who is born, — a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons; of which one is for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering. For what sin is this one pigeon ofiered? Can the new-born child (nuper editus parvulus) have committed sin already ? Yet it has sin, for which the sacrifice is commanded to be off"ered, and from which one is denied to be free, even if his life has been but of one day. Of this sin, therefore, even David must be believed to have spoken that which we mentioned above, — ' la sin did my mother conceive me;' for no sin of his mother is men- tioned in history. For this, also, the Church has received a tradi- tion from the apostles to give baptism to little children," — " Pro hoc et ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare." In respect to these statements, we will hero only sa}', that Rufinus, as is generally acknowledged, took so great 326 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. liberties in translating, that we are "uncertain," as Erasmus said, " whether we are reading Origen or Eufinus." And " this plea," says Dr. Wall, " must needs give some abatement to the authorit}'- of these two testimonies." Rufinus, however, according to Dr. Wall, states, in regard to Origen's comments on the Epistle to the Romans, that he had (merely) shortened this work by one-half. This, however, is but a part of the storj-. He not only " short- ened," but SUPPLIED. (See Dr. Hovey's article, j). 191.) Tho- masius, in his "Theological System of Origen," thus remarks: " Least of all have I dared to use the Commentary on the Romans, which, according to the peroration of Rufinus, seems to have suffered a complete transformation hj the translator." "This work," says Redepenning in his "Life of Origen," "is intermediate between a translation and a treatise, — a reproduc- tion according to the views and wants of a later century." We make one more quotation from Origen, and this time from his " Homily on Luke " (ii. 21-24) , as translated by Jerome : " Occa- sion being given in tliis place, I touch again upon what is frequently inquired about among the brethren. Little children are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned ? " — " Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum? vel quo tempore peccaverunt 9 " "Or how can there be any reason for the laver in the case of little children, imless according to that sense of which we have just now spoken ? Wo7ie is free from pollution, not even if his life may have been of but one day on the earth. And because the pollutions of nativity' are removed by the sacrament of baptism, therefore little children are baptized ; for, unless one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." According to Dr. Wall, " Jerome (in the ' Homily on Luke ') changed nothing, but expressed every thing as it was in the original, as he owns him- self." But De la Rue, the Benedictine editor of Origen, saj's that Jerome, in translating Greek, was accustomed, as the learned know, " to insert occasional^ some things of his own." And Dupin remarks, that " Jerome's translations are no more exact" than those of Rufinus. Rufinus himself sa^'s, in his " Invectives " against Jerome, that in his translations he did but follow Jerome's example. ■ As Jerome and Rufinus, from attached friends, became sworn enemies (a " magnum et triste miraculum," saj^s Augustine, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 327 who tried in vain to reconcile them) , then* agreement on this sub- ject is, indeed, strong presumptive evidence in favor of the genu- ineness of these utterances by Origen. StUl, as their views on pedobaptism probably coincided, we cannot, with Matthies, who speaks of the mira consensio of Jerome's and Rufinus' versions, regard the agreement in this matter as " wonderful." Sa^'s Mat- thies, " Origen' s writings prove that in the beginning of the third century, about 220, pedobaptism prevailed in Alexandria and else- where ; but his reference to pedobaptism as an apostolic institution cannot be of great weight, since the Alexandrian catechists are constantly in the habit of ascribing whatever the}^ deem important to a ' gnostic tradition,' which, indeed, is the more to be observed in Origen, because he connected the notion of pedobaptism with the mythical opinion which he held concerning the [ante-mundane] lapse of souls " (p. 194, seq.) . And Neander (" Church Histor}' ," i. p. 314), speaking of Origen's reference to apostolic tradition, says, " This expression, by the way, cannot be regarded as of much weight in this age, when the inclination was so strong to trace ever}" institution which was considered of special impor- tance to the apostles, and when so many walls of separation, hindering the freedom of prospect, had already been set up be- tween this and the apostolic age." ^ It is an unfortunate thing for 1 In a note on the same page Neander adds, "In Origen's time, too, diffi- culties were still frequently urged against infant-baptism similar to those thrown out by Tertidlian. Compare his Homily siv. in Lucam (according to the translation of Jerome)." (See quotations above given, especially where Origen, on Luke ii. 21-24, says, "Quod frequenter inter fratres quaeritur," &c. ; i.e., " what is often inquired about among the brethren," &c. ) In view of this fact, and that the later fathers, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and others, either wrote against the doubters and opposers of infant-baptism, or in their writings implied, as we have seen, the existence of such per- sons, we can estimate the worth of Pelagius' assertion, not altogether free from ambiguity: "Nunquam se vel impium aliquem hasreticum audisse qui hoc quod proposuit de parvulis diceret;" which is commonly thus inter- preted, that "he never had heard of any, not even an impious heretic, who (denied baptism to little ones)." Is it possible that he, or that Augustine himself, had never heard of Tertullian ? We may here remark, that what Neander says respecting an appeal to " apostolic tradition" in the time of Origen is still more applicable to the time of Augustine. This father often refers to "ancient and apostolic tradition " as authorizing infant-baptism (and infant-communion) : yet he is 328 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the pedobaptistic side of this question, that so little, even on Dr. Wall's showing, of Origen's G-reek writings, which are of acknowl- edged genuineness, can be made to favor infant-baptism, but that every passage which treats directly of the subject of baptism rather opposes it. In these writings, for example, he calls baptism " a sacrament for believers," and saj^s the child must come to the ' ' discernment of right and wrong ' ' before ' ' he can be made capa- ble of receiving the grace of Christ." One passage (against Cel- sus, iii, chap. 59) deserves to be full}' quoted. Celsus had boasted of the respectability of those who were initiated into the Heathen mysteries, in contrast with the low persons whom the Christians invited to join them. His words are, " And now let us hear what persons the Christians invite. "Whoever, they say, is a sinner, whoever is unintelligent, whoever is a mere child {nepios) , and, in short, whoever is a miserable wretch, the kingdom of God will receive him." To this Origeu thus replies: " It is one thing to invite those who are diseased in soul to a healing, and another to invite the healthy to a knowledge and discernment of things more divine. And we, knowing both these, in the first place caU men to be healed : we exhort the sinful to come to the words which teach them not to sin, and the unintelligent to come to those which produce understanding, and the little children (nejnous, infants) to rise in thought unto man, and the miserable wretches to come to not so sure about tlie genuineness of this tradition but that he lias to qualify it in every instance of appeal with a rectissime creditur, procul dubio, ut existimo, &c. ; that is, " it is very rightly believed," "doubtless," "as I think," &c. (See examples in Wall's History of Infant-Baptism, chap. XV., sect. 4, § 3, and sect. 6, § 2, and chap, xix., § 9, of part i. ; also chap, ix., § 15, of part ii.) Of course, when the fathers refer the custom of infant-baptism to "ancient and apostolical tradition," their reference is not to any apostolic precept or example contained in the Scriptures. Plain Scripture tradition does not require a procul dubio or ut existimo; but these qualificatives are exceedingly necessary for a tradition existing outside of the Scriptures. Trine-immersion, for example, is said by the fathers generally to be derived from the Lord and from the apostles ; yet they will sometimes acknowledge, as Jerome does, that it is one of "many things observed in the churches by tradition [which] have usurped to themselves the authority of written law." Trine-im m ersion, we may add, is really antagonistic to the law of the commission. " To justify such a practice," says Dr. Conant, "the form should have been either 'in the names of,' or 'in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit,' " STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 329 a fortunate state, or (what is more proper to saj) to a state of blessedness. But when those of the exhorted who make progress show that the}' have been cleansed bj^ the word, and, as much as possible, have lived a better life, then we invite them to be initi- ated among us." "To be initiated among Christians," remarks Dr. Hovej' on this passage, " was to be admitted to baptism and church-fellowship. This passage demonstrates that little children — the word is nejoioits — were not, in his day, admitted to bap- tism until they had been cleansed by the word, and had lived a better life ; until they were old enough to be exhorted, and to have a manl}' understanding." Does not this one clear and undisputed sentence of Origen outweigh the three doubtful passages quoted from the translations of Jerome and Eufinus? How well, too, does it tally with the utterances and unplications of Tertullian in reference to this matter ! One question still remains. Supposing the genuineness of these passages, what can we know respecting the age of these baptized little ones? The words for children, little ones, infants, &c., in all languages, are used with a wide signification. See, for exam- ple, in the Ne'w Testament, the usage of nepios, brejjJios, teknion, and paidion. Thus Origen, according to Jerome's translation, speaks of Christ when twelve j-ears old not only as parvuhts, a little one, but as infanSj and even infantulus, an infant and little infant! The word "infant" means " not speaking," but is not onl}- in law usage applied to minors, and, in the scheme of proselj'te baptism, to males under thirteen j'ears, and to females under twelve years, but in Scripture and in common literature is frequently applied to those who are possessed of intelligence, and who speak with understanding. (See 1 Cor. xiii. 11.) From the wonderful story told b}' Pauliuus, of the appearing of Ambrose's ghost at the time of Easter in the great chm-ch where his body was then l3'ing, w;e learn that "a great many of the infants, plurimi infantes.^ that were baptized [on Easter da}-], saw him as the}' came back from the font, some of them saying, ' There he sits in the bishop's chair ! ' others of them showed him to their parents, pointing with their liands that he was going there up the steps. But the parents, looking, could not see him, because they had not their eyes cleansed ! ' ' The term parvulus we know is sometimes used to signify an infant newly born ; yet it is frequently con- 330 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. trasted with the term " infant." Iren^us, as we have seen, speaks of Christ's regenerating and sanctifying infantes and parvulos; and his parvuU, or little ones, were old enough for Christ to furnish them "an example of piety and obedience." From Ori- gen's Greek Commentary on Matt, xviii. 10, it would appear that 'his baptized " little ones " were old enough to " desire the sincere milk of the word ; " and from his reply to Celsus we learn that his nepioi, or infants, were old enough to be exhorted and instructed, and to make some approach towards a manl}" understanding. Bunsen judges that the parvuli of Irenseus (and so of TertuUian and Origen) were "young, growing children, from about six to ten 3'ears old." But, if they were anywhere near the age last mentioned, they were, methiuks, old enough to sin for themselves ; and hence, on Bunsen's supposition, I can see no force in Origen's query, supposing it to be genuine, as Bimsen does, — "Quorum peecatorum? vel quo tempore peccaveruut ? " i.e., "What sins? or when did the}- sin?" Besides, in one of the above-quoted pas- sages, Origen speaks of a miper editus parvulus, a newty-born little one. It certainly would appear from these representations that Origen' s parvuli in general were not old enough to commit voluntary sin ; while still he maintains, in the words of Job xiv. 4 of the Seventy, that "no one is free from pollution, though his life be but of one day." This view of human depravit}^ might naturall}-, but would not necessarily, lead to the practice of infant- baptism. Hence we cannot alwaj's safely infer this practice from the simple fact that such a ^iew was held. TertuUian held to our " sin of origin," yet speaks of the " innocent age " of little ones, and urged the dela}" of theh' baptism. The great bodj^ of Cal- vinistic Baptists believe in inherited depra-s^t}', and in man's lost condition b}' nature ; yet they do not baptize theu" little ones till they are converted to Christ. We shall here subjoin Bunsen's remarks on Origen's parvuU-'hwgW.sni. in fuU, and leave our readers to decide on this matter for themselves: " Pedobaptism, in the more modern sense, meaning thereby baptism of new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other sponsors, was utterly unknown to the early Church, not only down to the end of the second, but indeed to the middle of the third, century. We shall show in a subsequent page how, towards the close of the second centmy, this practice originated in the baptism of children STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 331 of a more advanced age. ... As in other cases, the origin was innocent ; and I thinlc that we are at tliis moment better able than either the defenders or opponents of infant-baptism have hitherto been to explain liow it originated. A passage in oiu" Alexandrian church-book gives the true explanation of the assertion of Origen, himself an Alexandrian, that the baptism of children was an apos- tolic tradition ; and it removes the origin of infant-baptism from TertuUian and Hippolj-tus to the end of our present [ante-Nicene] period, Cj'prian being the first father, who, impelled b}^ a fanatical enthusiasm, and assisted by a bad interpretation of the Old Testa- ment, established it as a principle. Origen, in three passages [above quoted], of which the sense is in the main the same, saj^s that the Levitical injunction of the sacrificial purification of the first-born infant seems to him a proof that impuritj^ and sinfulness attach to man from his birth, and that, for this reason, the Church, according to apostolical tradition, performs the act of baptism even upon children (parvulis). He employ's the same expression for children which Jesus used when the disciples endeavored to -pve- vent them from being brought unto Him, — ' Suffer the little children \^paidia, parvulQ to come unto me,' a word which Ire- nseus uses in a remarkable passage [quoted above], implying a difference between babes {infantes) and bo3's (pueri) ; obviously intending, therefore, to express what those words in the gospel clearly mean, — little, growing children, from about six to ten 3'ears old. Such, then, is also the true interpretation of this and of the other two passages in Origen where the same word occurs. But a comparison with what appears, from our [Alexandrian] text- book, to have been considered apostolic tradition before the time of Origen, shows that no other interpretation is admissible. The text-book speaks of those tvJio go down ivith the other catechumens into the baptismal bath, but are not yet in a state to make the proper responses : in that case the parents are bound to do it for them. This is undoubtedl}' the apostolical practice to which Origen refers ; for it was to the Church of Alexandria that he particular!}^ be- longed. In this ordinance the whole arrangement seems to be an exceptional one. And so it is in Origen ; for he says the ' little ones also ' {etiam parvuUs) . When the Church instituted pedo- baptism (in the sense of children from six to ten years of age) , she doubtless had before her eyes our Lord's affectionate words, 332 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. referred to likewise by Origen on the occasion ; and the di"\dnes of the sixteenth century soon found themselves obhged to revert to them. Tertullian rejects such an interpretation of that expression [of Christ's] in the following terms [see quotation above]. . . . This is the way in which TertuUian treats the subject of the bap- tism of the growing children. What would he have said to the application of Christ's words to the case of infants? The difference, then, between the ante-Nicene and the later Church, was essentially this, — the later Church, with the exception of converts, onty baptized new-born infants, and she did so on principle : the ancient Church, as a general rule, baptized adults, and only after they had gone through the com'se of instruction, and, as the exception onl}", Chiistian childi-en who had not arrived at years of matm'itj^, but never infants. Tertullian' s opposition is to the baptism of 3'oung, growing children : he does not say one word about new-born infants. Neither does Origen, when his expressions are accurately weighed. C;y'prian, and some other African bishops, his contemporaries, at the close of the third cen- tury, were the first who viewed baptism in the light of a washing- awa}^ of the universal sinfulness of human nature, and connected this idea with that ordinance of the Old Testament, circumcision." (See Bunsen's " riippol3'tus and his Age," vol. ii. p. 106, seq.) " Origen," sa3's Robert Robinson of Cambridge, " was a singu- lar genius, and he got over all difficulties by distinguishing baptism into thi'ee sorts. 'Baptism 'was Jluminis, Jlaminis, sanguinis; that is, n''uer-baptism, _^re-baptism, ftZoocZ-baptism. River-baptism is a being dipped in water; the baptism of fire is repentance, or a disposition to receive grace ; blood-baptism is martyrdom for Christ. In case the first cannot be come at, the two last supply its place ; and a person may be saved without the application of water. It is wonderful that both Catholics and Protestants have received this comment for the Scripture doctrine of baptism, and differed only in their manner of explaining it, as Cardinal Bellar- mine very fairly observes. They were all led into the mistake by applj'ing to natural infants what Origen had said of only 3'ouths and adults. Origen' s infants were capable of repentance and martyrdom ; but the infants of the reformers were incapable of both. In Origen the distinction was proper ; in them the con- trary " (" History of Baptism," p. 305). STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 333 " Origen," says Dr. Irah Chase, " should never be quoted in support of infant-baptism." Many of our readers will probably feel that there are still two sides to this question.^ 1 Those who wish to go deeper into this " thorny" controversy wih, of course, consult Dr. Wall, as also Bingham, Hofling, Stier, and other Pedo- baptist writers, on the one side : and, for the other side, we may mention such writings as Dr. Barnas Sears' second article in review of Burgess on Bap- tism, in Christian Eeview for 1838; Professor Henry J. Eipley's Exami- nation of Dr. Wood's Argument for Infant-Baptism from Ecclesiastical History, in Christian Review for October, 1851 ; an article entitled Origin of Infant-Baptism, in the Eeview for January^ 1861 ; the different articles of Professor Irah Chase, in the Christian Eeview, — namely. Testimony of Origen respecting the Baptism of Children (April, 1854), Basil an Impor- tant Witness respecting Baptism in the Fourth Century (October, 1858); Prayers for Infants in the Apostolical Constitutions, July, 1860; Eeview of Dr. Bushnell's xirguments for Infant-Baptism, October, 1863, pp. 501- 611 (subsequently published with articles on Origen's Testimony, &c., and on Baptism for the Dead, by the American Baptist Publication Society, in a volume entitled Infant-Baptism an Invention of Men) ; Difficulties of Infant-Baptism, by Professor A. N. Arnold, in Baptist Quarterly for Janu- ary, 1869; Dr. Hovey's above-cited article in the Quarterly for April, 1869; also another article by the same author, in Quarterly for April, 1815, en- titled Present State of the Baptismal Controversy. The reader will find an ample list of references on this and other points relating to baptism in the Theological Index of Howard Malcom, D.D. From this work, published in 1868, we learn that Mr. Samuel Agnew (a Pedobaptist gentleman, we believe) of Philadelphia has a list of titles of works on baptism amounting to nearly /owr thousand, and that the same gentleman has about twenty- seven hundred in his possession. 334 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER XXXI. BAPTISMAL KEGENEEATION AND REMISSION. ZWINGLE and Cah-in were, we believe, the first theologians in the Church who maintained that the phrase, " born of water," in John iii. 5, had neither reference nor allusion to Christian bap- tism. If, however, to be "born of water" were the same as to be " baptized in water," it does by no means follow that the birth of the Spirit is tied down to a water-rite of man's chance perform- ance, and is invariably connected with baptism ; nor that there can be no birth of the Spirit without water-baptism ; nor that uncon- scious, helpless infants cannot enter the kingdom of God, unless they have been baptized. Certainly such infants could not, of themselves, possibly comply with the requisitions mentioned by the Saviour, — could neither seek for the Spirit's regenerating, saving power, nor procure their own baptism. And when Christ spoke to Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, and through him to all who hear His gospel, and who, through divine help, have the power to ohej, He had, we suppose, no more reference to " senseless and blameless babes," when He said, " If any one be not born of water and of the Spirit," &c., than Paul had when he said, " If any one will not work, neither shall he eat." So the declaration, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," has reference to those only who are capable of hearing, belie-^nng, and of pro- curing their baptism. The fathers, however, without exception, made Christ's words to Nicodemus include infants : yea, even the Pelagians held this same "vdew ; only these would baptize infants, not properly for the remission of sins, not to save them from end- less torments, but simpty to introduce them to the higher joys of the " kingdom." But the creed of most of the early Church theo- logians was, " one baptism for the remission of sins ; " and hence STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 335 they felt, that to leave infants unbaptized, or to deny that their baptism was for remission, was to leave them under that ' ' condem- nation which came upon all men," and thus to "kill them eter- nally." Had it not been for this declaration, ' Unless one be born of water,' &c., the Pelagians, probably, would have been anti-Pedo- baptists in practice. As it was, Augustine and Jerome made it hard work for them — denjing, as they did, that infants had any sin, original or actual — to give an}^ reasonable ground for the prac- tice of infant-baptism. The fathers, in general, knew no infant- baptism which did not procure regeneration and remission ; and, if living in our day, they would probabty anathematize as heretics most of our evangehcal Pedobaptists, who, as we understand it, make the baptizing of infants to consist simpl}' in their public con- secration to Christ, or, at least, refuse to see in it an invariable regeneration and a sure passport to the kingdom of heaven. But we, with many of our Pedobaptist friends, are doubtful whether Christ's words, " born of water " (not " tJie water of baptism ") , refer to the baptismal rite ; though we are well aware that to enter- tain such a doubt subjects one's self to the anathema which the council of Trent pronounces on any one who ' ' wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ." When our Saviour, in His earlier ministr}^ preached the " gospel of the kingdom of God," He made no mention of baptism, but simply bade men to " repent," or to " repent, and believe the gospel " (Matt. iv. 17, 23 ; Mark i. 14, 15). So, too, when He spoke to Nicodemus, baptism had neither been appointed by Him, nor (probably) pe^-formed by Him or His disciples. Had He meant the "sacrament of hoi}' baptism," when He spoke of the birth of water. He would probably have said so. If only the baptized can enter heaven, and all unbaptized persons, without any excep- tion, are to be forever debarred from that kingdom, this fact, methiulvs, would have been repeatedly and most plainly stated, and not have been left to be determined from uncertain inferences. To interpret, as some have done, our Saviour's words, born of water, as meaning baptized, mainlj' because the fathers commonl}' used the words " regenerated " and " baptized " as equivalent terms, and because one or two rabbis, centuries after Christ, affirmed that a Gentile becoming a prosetyte (not simply, however, b}' his self- immersion, but by circumcision and an offering) is "like a child 336 STUDIES OK BAPTISM. new born," would be the utmost height of preposterousness. !N'or will it do to say, with Ambrose, that Christ in this passage " ex- cepts no person, not an infant, not one that is hindered by any necessity," and then go on to make exceptions, as Wall does, and say that this is "God's ordinary way." If "no person" is excepted by the Saviour, then every unbaptized infant that has lived and died on earth since our Lord spoke with Mcode- mus is forever shut out of the kingdom of heaven. That which astonished Nicodemus was, not that he must be baptized (as John's disciples had been), but that he and all others (Jews as well as Gentiles, to whom the " gospel of the king- dom of God " should be preached) must be " born from above," or of the Spirit, in order to " see the kingdom of God." This, Mcodemus, as a teacher of Israel, might have, and ought to have, known from the teachings of the Old Testament (Deut. XXX. 6; Ps. li. 6, 10; Jer. iv. 4; Ezek. xi. 19, xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26, &c.) ; but he could not possibly have been expected to know that a water-baptism invariabh^ procured the heavenly birth of the Spirit, and that "the corporeal ablution," in the words of the Eoman Catechism, ' ' accomphshes in the soul that which it signifies," — to wit, "the washing- away of all the stain and defilement of sin through the power of the Holj^ Ghost." The mind of this Pharisee was abeady sufficiently occupied with outward rites and formalities ; and our Saviour could not have desired to emphasize in his presence the im- portance of any external rite, least of all to set it forth as the one indispensable requisite of salvation. No " Tractarian " was needed to teU him, that "in order to be the true subject of Christ's kingdom, and enjoy its eternal blessings, j^ou must receive the sacrament of baptism, in which, of course, your soul will be new-created by the Holy Ghost, your unholiness purged, and 3'our sins forgiven." Yet this is what, "for sub- stance of doctrine," the sacramentalist believes; and to ask him how these things can be, is, according to Dr. Puse}', but a " Nicodemus question." It is also to be noticed, as making against this sacramental view, that our Lord first speaks to Nico- demus of the birth "from above;" afterwards, and but once onl}', of the birth of water (and of the Spirit) ; and then goes on to discourse only of the birth of the Spirit, and the birth from STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 337 above. ■^ No one can suppose, that, when the evangelist speaks of being "born of blood" (i. 13), he means "baptized in blood." And again : to be born merel}' of the earthly element of " water " is no more to be born "from above" than to be born of the earthly element of " blood " or of the " flesh." We observe that a writer, " G. M. S.," in " Baptist Quarterly," vol. v. p. 484, makes "Spirit" also an earthl^^ element, meaning the wind or air, a symbol of " life to be imparted," as water is a symbol of " guilt to be cleansed ; " by which interpretation, " 'born again' consists in ' tJiese things,' cleansing, and imparting life to the soul, both THE PREEOGATiVE OP GoD," and both preceding the ordinance of baptism. But, if a man is born of two earthly elements, he can- not, with any propriety, be said to be born " from above." And does our Saviour really mean that that which is born of the wind is wind? Our Saviour also, it is to be observed, speaks not of the mystery of the water-birth, but of the Spirit's operation in regeneration, — that we cannot know the when, nor whence, nor whither ; cannot bind it down to time, or place, or water. Not unfrequently in the Scriptures, in connection with the term " Spirit," an explanatory word is used to indicate the char- acter or operation of the Spirit. Thus we read of Christ's baptizing "in the Holy Spirit and fire;" where "fire," without doubt, refers to the refining, "purifying, dross-consuming influ- ence of the Spirit" (see "Notes on the Gospel of Matthew" by Rev. N. M. WiUiams). In John vii. 38, after the Saviour's words, " He that beheves in me, as said the scripture, out of his bell}^ shall flow rivers of living water," the evangehst adds, " And this He spoke concerning the Spirit," &c. (see also John iv. 14). In Paul's declaration to the Corinthian disciples (1 Cor. \i. 11), "But 3'e were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God," this bathing (cqjelousasthe) refers, as Usteri, Eiickert, and others rightlj' suppose, to a moral or spiritual 1 "The mention of 'luater' in Jolm iii. 5 is only of secondary impor- tance, in order, by referring to a S5anbol familiar to Nicodemns, to render palpable to bis mind that all-purifying power of the Divine Spirit -which was needful for every man. Hence, in the subsequent part of His discourse,. Christ mentions only being 'born of the Spirit.'" — Neahdee's PZa?iiin3' and Training of the Church, p. 321. 338 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. cleansing. On the passage in 1 Cor. xii. 13, where Paul speaks of baptism in one Spirit, and of drinking into one Spirit, Alford thus remarks: "Made to drink of one Spirit, or watered by one Spirit; viz., the water of baptism here taken as identical with the Spirit, whose influence accompanied it." See also Ezek. sssvi. 25-27 : " Then will I sprinlde clean water upon you ; . . . a new heart also will I give you. . . . And I will put my Spirit within you." And in Isa. xHv. 3, 4, we hear Jehovah sajing, " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour out My Spirit upon thy seed," &c. Hence we may say of the " Spirit and water," in our passage, that they " agree in one," or represent one and the same thing. The evangelist, who alone makes record of our Lord's discourse to Mcodemus, often, in his Gospel and Epistles, describes those who are "born of God," or "begotten of God," or "sons of God," not at all as being unconscious infants, not at aU as those who have merely been baptized in water, but as those who believe that Jesus is the Christ,, or who believe on His name, — those who love God, and do righteousness, and commit no sin, but overcome the world, and keep themselves pure (see John i. 12 ; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, 10, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18). And neither does he nor any other inspired writer say that this heavenly birth, this divine sonship, was effected in the font by water-baptism, but effected, rather, by the Spirit of God, by means of the gospel, through the word of God and the word of truth. When Paul says (Tit. iii. 5) that God according to His mercy saved us through the bath or bathing of regeneration, and [through] re- newing of the Holy Spirit, it is to be observed, that as it is the Holy Spirit who effects the renewing, so it is the regeneration which effects the bathing or cleansing (see Matthies on this passage). In other words, the "washing of regeneration" is not the regeneration of washing, or the regeneration produced by washing. John the Baptist told his fellow-countrymen that he baptized in water, eis (for) repentance, and that his "baptism of repentance," or "bath of repentance," was eis (for) the remis- sion of sins ; the same preposition, eis, being used here as in cour Lord's declaration that His blood was "shed for many for (in order to) remission of sins;" as also in Peter's counsel: ■" Eepent, and be each of you baptized upon the name of Jesus STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 339 Christ for the remission of sins; " and, "Repent, therefore, and .turn, for the blotting out of joar sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28; Acts ii. 38, iii. 19).^ Here the baptism or bath of repentance is 1 Professor J. E. Farnam of Georgetown College, in his article on Baptism and Eemission (see Baptist Quarterly, vol. xi., 18*77, p. 481), takes all these prepositions in a telic sense, meaning in order to, and makes even John's baptism to effect, not indeed a real, but a ritual or ceremonial cleansing and remission. " John the Baptist," he says, " was emphatic in demanding repentance as a prerequisite of baptism; but his words above cited, if literally interpreted, represent baptism as preceding and in order to repentance. The obvious explanation of this seeming contradiction is, that his language was ritual; and the same is true of Peter's address to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. But the shedding of Christ's blood was literally for the remission of sins, and not a ritual representation thereof." Again: on p. 486 he says, "I aifirm, that, if interpreted liter- ally, the two passages (Acts ii. 38 and xxii. 16) teach that baptism is essential to remission, but that they should be interpreted idiomatically in the light of that peculiar Hebrew-Greek idiom whereby a rite is spoken of as effecting that of which it is simply declarative, or symbolic, or typical ; that this idiomatic phraseology pervades the ritual language of the Old and the New Testaments, as is shown by references to the Levitical laws relating to cleansing and purifying ; that there is an antecedent probability that the writers of the New Testament (accustomed to speak of the Leviti- cal rites as possessing a certain efficacy because they were the signs of things which did possess the efficacy ascribed to them) would, when they should come to speak of the Christian rites, employ the same idiom, occa- sionally at least, especially when addressing Jews; and that they would hence speak of baptism as washing away or remitting sin, when it was only a symbol of purification from sin in one of its varied aspects." This interpretation, so far as it has reference to Acts ii. 38, has force and validity only as the phrase "for remission of sins" is connected with the enjoined baptismal rite ; since there can be no ritual or symbolical remission as the direct result of repentance. This, through divine grace and the shed blood of Christ, secures actual remission. In Dr. Hackett's explanation of Acts xxii. 16, "wash away thy sins," his reference to eis aphesin hamartion of ii. 38 seems to us faulty, since the reference supposes the "remission" to be connected solely with " be baptized;" while, in explaining this latter passage, he connects '' remission of sins" (rightly) "Avith both the preced- ing verbs." If our Lord virtually said, " Believe and be baptized in order to salvation," we can let Peter say, " Kepent and be baptized in order to remission." We may remark that the "seeming contradiction" is not avoided or explained by giving, as Dale and "T. J. M." (Baptist Quarterly, vol. v. p. 487) would do, a local force to eis, as if connected with baptismal elements; for this baptiziwj into (an element) does suppose, as Dale ac- 340 ' STUDIES ON BAPTISM. represented as the causa efficiens, so the sacramentalist would say, of repentance and remission: in other words, John's water- baptism effected repentance, and procured the remission of sins! a dogma as wide from the truth as the east is from the west. And yet John's language by itself, and in its natural construction, favors such a doctrine much more than Paul's washing or bath of regeneration favors the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and salvation. Most commentators, as De W"ette, Huther, Ebrard, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, and J. B. Lightfoot, make the renewing of the Holy Spirit, as well as the regeneration, to be grammatically dependent on the "bath," or "laver," as they choose to have it ; and some, as Wiesinger, go so far as to assert that the bath of baptism "brings about," or "results in," this regeneration and renewing, — a doctrine diametricaUj^ opposed to Scripture and to fact. If men are invariably regenerated and renewed by the Spirit in the laver of baptism, so important a matter should by this time be well known. Cyprian, we know, seemed to think that his baptism did much for his spmtual regen- eration. His words are, "For me, while I yet lay in darkness and bewildering night, and was tossed to and fro on the billows of this troublesome world, ignorant of my true life, an outcast from light and tnith, I used to think that second birth which divine mercy promised for m}' salvation a hard saying, according to the hfe I then led ; as if a man could be so quickened to a new hfe in the laver of healing water as to put off his natural self, and keep his former tabernacle, yet be changed in heart and soul ! ' How is it possible,' said I, ' for so great a conversion to be accomplished ? ' . . . But after that life-giving water succored me, washing away the stain of fonner 3'ears, and pouring into my cleansed and hallowed breast the light which comes from heaven ; after that I drank in the heavenly Spiiit, and was created into a knowledges (thougli " T. J. M." denies it), a passing-out of one condition into a new one. "T. J. M." asserts that " Jolin's converts did not receive repentance by being baptized into it. When John dipped penitents info the Jordan, it was not for the purpose of swallowing a portion of the stream." We reply, that, if John dipped penitents into the Jordan, they were out of the Jordan before their dipping; and, if John baptized men into repentance as an element, they were naturally in a state of impeni- tence before their baptism (see Dr. Dale, passim]. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 341 new man by a second birth ; then, man'ellously, what was before doubtful became plain to me ; what was hidden was revealed ; what was dark began to shine ; what was before difficult now had a way and means ; what had seemed impossible could be now achieved ; what was in me of the guilty flesh now confessed that it was earthy ; what was quickened in me by the Hol}^ Ghost now had a growth according to God." But Cj^orian's case was peculiar, and forms almost an exception. Certainly the experi- ence of ages past, the world over, shows that baptism, we care not in what communion administered, fails very often, even in the case of adult converts, permanently to improve the character or conduct of men ; and we cannot suppose that such fruitless baptism changes or improves their relation toward God. Most Pedobaptists have held that baptism has an invariable effect on those who die in infancy ; but they must have acknowledged to themselves an inability to discover any appreciable effect for good which it has on vast numbers who grow up to manhood, and who, to all human appearance, live and die in sin. If baptism in the ' ' laver ' ' wUl indeed invariably effect regeneration and renewal and remission, then can we all be saved doubtless through the mercy of God, and yet by " works of righteousness " which we can do, or which others can do for us. Of course, this sets aside Paul's faA^orite doctrine of justification bj' faith alone, as also our Sa^dour's own words, taken in a general sense, "He that shall endure unto the end ' ' [which thousands of baptized persons fail to do] "shall be saved." If we felt obliged to interpret this loutron (of regeneration) as meaning the laver of baptism, our explanation would be, that the apostle speaks of baptism as a S3'mbolical and sacred observance, in which (to use EUicott's words in part) " all that was inward properl}' and completelj'^ . [preceded and] accompanied all that was outward ; ' ' and in this view it might well be called a loutron^ belong- ing to and representing or declaring regeneration. As Justin Martj-r's " laver of repentance " " belongs to those who repent," so it might be said that Paul's " laver of regeneration" belongs to those who are regenerated. Had it, however, been plainly affirmed that the baptismal laver regenerates, the general tenor of Scripture teaching would allow us even then onlj- to infer that " baptism is represented as having this importance or efficacy, 342 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. because it is tlie sign of regeneration " (see Hackett on Acts xxii. 16). "We maj^, I tMnk, concede that this "bath of regenera- tion" has, probably, some reference to Christian baptism " as a S3"mbol of the purification of the inner man." But, whatever the reference may be, the language of Paul here does not prove that one's baptism in the font or " laver " invariably effects, or is accompanied by, regeneration and renewal by the Spirit. In Eph. V. 26 Paul seems to speak more plainly, perhaps, of the baptismal loutron, affirming that Christ " gave Himself up for the church, that He might sanctifj^ it, having cleansed it by the bath- ing of the water in the word." Some commentators make this " word " refer to the baptismal formula ; some to the consecration of the laver-water ; others make it mean the gospel, the word of faith or of promise, and connect it with "sanctify" or with " cleansing ; " while some make it descriptive of the water-bath. The true explanation of this passage is not entirely clear ; but, in any case, this cleansing of the church by the loutron of the water in the word refers to something far more efficacious than a mere water-baptism. Says Alford, " Thus the word preached and re- ceived is the conditional element of purification, — the real water of spiritual baptism, — that wherein and whereby alone the efficacy of baptism is convej^ed, — that wherein and whereby we are re- generated." Ellicott's opinion is, that en rJiemati (in the word) " specifies the necessary accompaniment, that in which the bap- tismal purification is vouchsafed (comp. John xv. 3, ' Now are ye clean through the word,' &c.), and without which it is not granted." And, according to Olshausen, "m the word" "un- questionably signifies the operation of the pneuma." Had Clem- ent of Alexandria any reference to this passage when he said, " Our sins are remitted by one heahng medicine, logical baptism " ? Peter's affirmation (1 Pet. iii. 21), that " baptism now saves us [or you] also," has in part already been considered. J. B. Eoth- erham, in his " Emphasized New Testament," thus renders the whole passage : ' ' Which in corresponding fashion now saves you also, [even] immersion (not a putting-away of filth of flesh, but a request of a good conscience toward Grod), through [the] resur- rection of Jesus Christ." Professor Grimm, in his " Lexicon of New-Testament Greek," now being translated by Professor J. Henry Thayer of Andover, says under the word eperotema, "As STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 343 the tenns of inquiry and demand often include the idea of desire, the word thus gets the signification of earnest seeking; i.e., a craving, an intense desire. ... If this use of the word is con- ceded, it affords us the easiest and most congruous explanation of that vexed passage, 1 Pet. iii. 21, — ' which (baptism) now saves us, not because in receiving it we have put away the filth of the flesh, but because we have earnestly sought a conscience reconciled to God.' . . . It is doubtful, indeed, whether eis tJieon is to be joined with eperbtema, and signifies a craving directed unto God, or with suneideseos, and denotes the attitude of the conscience towards God (i.e., in relation to Him) : the latter con- struction is favored by a comparison of Acts xxiv. 16," &c. Pro- fessor Thayer, to whom we are indebted for the above extract, after noting down in his letter several other differing intei'preta- tions, reaches this discouraging conclusion: "Now, the honest Enghsh of aU this is, we do not know what eperdtema means here.'' As scarcely any two commentators are agreed as to what is sought after or requested in baptism, why may we not regard baptism itself as the very thing which is requested of a good con- science with reference to God, or the divine will? But, however this passage may be interpreted, something more than, and differ- ent from, mere water-baptism, or external cleansing, is here meant by the apostle. He saj^s, indeed, that Noah and his famil}^ " were saved" (not by baptism, however; for it is not stated that they were baptized, though they were well surrounded with waters from above and from the great deep) " b}'' water." Yet, even in this case, it was not so much the water as the faith and obedience of the patriarch which saved them. Their lives, of course, "were saved by water ; " yet, if their souls were saved, it was because of their personal faith and righteousness. The apostle then adds in substance, that water, in the form of baptism, also saves ; 3'et he is careful to add that its saving power does not consist in the out- ward washing. Peter, for certain, did not tell Simon Magus that his outward baptism saved him, but, on the contrar}', gave him to understand that he was still in his sins, still um-enewed and uufor- given. Nor does he counsel him to repent and be again bap- tized that his sins might be trul}- remitted, but simply exhorts him to repent, and pra}" to God for forgiveness. Thus the bap- tism which " saves " evidentl}" refers to a right state or motion of 344 • STUDIES ON BAPTISM. the conscience as it respects God ; and even this is made saving onty " through the resuiTection of Jesus Christ." Some, we are aware, make this baptism which Peter speaks of to save declara- tively, or in sjTnbol ; but this, it seems to me, is what the outward baptism, the " putting-away the filth of the flesh," effects. The outward cleansing saves symbohcaUy ; while the inward cleansing, the true baptism, saves in fact. Baptism — as sjTnbolic of, and as a required public confession of, renewal by the Spirit, faith in Christ, deadness to sin, and entrance upon a new life, and re- garded as synonjTnous of aU which it signifies ; baptism, as that which is earnestly sought for by a good conscience with special desire to obey and please God, or whatever else the eperotema of a good conscience toward God may mean — may be and is said to " save." And this, we may suppose, is virtually but an- other form of our Lord's affirmation, "He that beHeveth and is baptized shall be saved;" baptism here, according to Lange, being regarded as " a natural, certainly also a necessary conse- quence of faith,'-' and yet " is not named along with faith as in itself an indispensable matter/' Our Saviour's mentioning in the next clause a want of faith alone as exposing to condemna- tion shows that faith is the one thing indispensable to salvation.^ 1 Eev. J. W. Willmartli, in Baptist Quarterly for July, 1877 (p. 319), thus defines tlie relation of baptism to remission: "Baptism is the third of tliree gospel requirements or conditions, to which jointly is annexed the promise of remission: the others are repentance and faith, which baptism is de- signed to express, embody, and consummate." But this is surely going beyond our Lord's declaration in Mark (supposing that to be genuine); namely, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." For this does not affirm, or necessarily imply, that faith and baptism are equally and alike indispensably necessary to salvation, and that no unbaptized be- liever can be saved. Had he, however, said that " baptism is the second of the two gospel requirements or conditions to which jointly is amiexed the promise of salvation," this would imply that both were equally and abso- lutely necessaiy to salvation. Mr. Willmarth says that God can "exceecZ His promise," as in the case of elect penitent and believing ones "dying before it is possible to be immersed." But if the divine "promise of remission" is only to the immersed penitent believer, then for God to "ex- ceed this promise," and save any unbaptized young convert, or even one Pedobaptist Christian, is, methinks, to break His word. After the above- given definition of Mr. Willmarth, it sounds singularly to hear him say that baptism is not a ^^ necessary condition of salvation," and that "only STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 345 Baptism is at least a required public and solemn confession of faith, an open putting-on of Christ, whereby one is not, indeed, made a Christian, but is in a special sense declared and recog- nized to be such. In tliis "VT-ew there is some truth (with error) in F. W. Robertson's representation : "In baptism I was made a child of God. Yes, coronation makes a sovereign ; but, paradoxi- repentance is, in the nature of the case, necessary." " The general- drift of Scripture," he says, " seems to indicate that the prodigal is actually forgiven as soon as he returns : instances are on record where divine assur- ance of pardon was given on the spot. It is not asserted that pardon is always delaj^ed till baptism, or that it is actually bestowed in the act, or that it is invariably refused to the unbaptized. T7ie gospel simply guaran- tees pardon to the penitent believer baptized. Baptism does not necessarily fix the exact moment of forgiveness: it assures of forgiveness," &c. But most penitent believers who have given themselves to Clu-ist have had, we believe, the fullest assurance of their pardoned and saved state at the time of their conversion, and prior to baptism. They felt themselves to be " justi- fied by faith," and they had that peace with God which arises from a sense of forgiven sins, and of a personal interest in Christ. Shall we say with Dr. Jeter, the author of Campbellism Examined, that "there is a connection' between baptism and the remission of sins " ? So there is a connection between salvation and a calling on the name of the Lord, a belief of the truth, receiving the love of the truth, an oral professing of the Lord Jesus, a life of prayer, a life of self-denial, an enduring unto the end, &c. But is each of these a "gospel requirement or condition, to which is annexed the promise of salvation," or, like faith, a ground or instrumental means of justification ? and must the penitent believer wait, indeed, till each of these is fully accomplished, and the end is reached, and the last breath drawn, before he can be assured of his forgiveness and salvation ? Timothy was assured that by giving heed to himself and to the doctrine, and continuing in them, he would both save himself and them who heard him. But, sup- posing there was no opportunity given him to continue in these things, would he, therefore, be debarred f I'om salvation ? Paul, in Eom. x. 10, affirms that " with the mouth confession is made eis (unto, in order to) salvation." Circumstances, however, might be such that the believing soul would have no opportunity with his mouth to confess Jesus as Lord ; yet is not such a believer " justified by faith," and made sure of salvation? If so, then the penitent sinner may be justified by faith, and saved in Christ, before he has opportunity to put on Christ by baptism. From all which it is evident that baptism is not, like faith, an indispensable requisite to salvation. Doubtless this justifying faith will, where opportunity is given, be followed by the performance of all the required acts of obedience, which, indeed, are gen- erally necessary to salvation, but which do not instrumentally justify the repentant sinner. 346 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. cal as it maj seem, it can only make a sovereign of one who is sovereign alreadj-. Crown a jDretender, that coronation will not create the Idng. Coronation is the authoritative act of the nation, declaring a fact which was a fact before." If, now, we connect with baptism what the Scriptures frequently connect with it, and what the ordinance properl}' impMes, — to wit, the birth of the Spmt, discipleship, faith, repentance, prayer, the good conscience, &c., — we may regard it not only as significant of, but as equivalent to, remission and salvation. For this reason, an Alford can say of baptism, that, "in all its completion," it " not only represents, but is, the new birth ; " and a Luther can aver that baptism " worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all loJio believe." But will even this view of baptism "in all its completeness as a sacrament " justify Al- ford in saying that " it is in that font, and when we are in it, that the first breath of that hfe [the new life unto God] is drawn ' ' ? He certainly did not hold that to be born of water, or to be bap- tized, is, ex necessitate, to be born of the Spuit ; for, though he asserts that ' ' baptismal regeneration is the distinguishing doctrine of the new covenant," he immediately adds, " But let us take care and bear in mind what baptism means ; not the mere ecclesi- astical act, not the mere fact of reception by that act among God's professing people, but that completed by the divine act, [and] manifested by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the heart and through the life." The fathers gave to baptism the name of re- generation ; yet Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and others of them who assigned to baptism a regenera- tive and sa\ing power, held that baptism has no efficacy (for adults) without repentance and a holy hfe. The water-bath, in theu' view, must have the presence and the power of the Spirit and the grace of Christ in order to cleanse the soul and wash awaj' sin. But did they believe, with the author of the " Sacra- ment of Responsibility," that an " ever-present Saviour gives to each httle one the inward grace with the outward sign"? In reference to adults, at least, who could put an obex in the way, they must have held that the baptismal blessing was contingent, and that the birth of water did not invariabty secure the birth of the Spirit. J. B. Mozley, in his " Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration" (1855), thus takes the language of the fathers, STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 347 as also that of the baptismal service in the Protestant-Episcopal Church, " not in a real and literal, but in a hj'pothetical or charita- bly presumptive meaning." — See " Creeds of Christendom " (vol. i. p. 640) bj' Dr. Schaff, who affinns that the patristic baptismal regeneration " must be understood chieflj^ of adult baptism." William Goode, in his work on " The Effects of Baptism," &c., also holds that the early Anghcan divines, who were strongly Cal- vinistic in doctrine, and who composed the formularies of the Book of Common Prayer,^ were not sacramentalists in the modern sense of that term, the doctrines of absolute predestination and indefectible grace being irreconcilable with the doctrine that spirit- ual regeneration is inseparable from baptism ; though he has to confess that ' ' the expressions evidently favor the notion of their referring to the fuU baptismal blessing." And Archdeacon R. I. Wilberforce, who finally became a pervert to Rome, in his answer to Goode, acknowledges that " a belief that any gifts of grace are bestowed where there is no certainty of salvation is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the theory of Calvin." Goode's own view appears to be, that the baptismal blessing is always contingent and expectative, depending upon God's purpose and man's improvement ; and this view he attributes to the old English divines. To show that this blessing is not immediate, but expec- tative, he adduces, as Archbishop Usher and Dr. Wall did before liim, the illustration of a wealthy gentleman making over an estate to an infant, to be possessed by him when he comes to years of discretion, on condition of a very small pajinent being made by him at that period ; which pajnnent is promised in the name of the child by his sureties, &g. Will not these sureties, he asks, thank him when he agrees to sign and seal the deed on that condition, as for "a gift akead}^ bestowed," though the child may forfeit the estate by non-compliance? (See p. 416.) We would ask if these ^^ sureties," in such a case, should not be called on to fulfil their 1 " There are reasons, indeed, for believing that the baptismal office was drawn iip by Bucer himself, as an exact copy of it is found in one of his letters to the Arclibisliop of Cologne ; and neither Dr. Hampden nor Arch- bishop Whately could reject the modern interpretation with greater loath- ing than that sturdy champion of Calvinism, Martin Bucer." — From A Historical Sketch of Tractarianism, by Professor Hema^ Lixcolx, in the Christian Eeview for April, 1857, p. 241. 348 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. promise. But this view has, we think, too much of contingency in it to suit tlie views and feelings of the fathers on this point : certainly it would not satisfy the modern Puseyites, or Sacramen- talists. These, as a general thing, hold that baptism is not a sign of regeneration, but is regeneration ; not a seal of pardon, but a means of pardon ; that the baptized child is regenerated, and made not only a member of the visible church, but a child of grace ; that regeneration can only be accomplished in " holy baptism ; " that, prior to baptism, there is neither renewal, faith, nor forgive- ness ; and generally, that, after baptism, there is no remission of sins. Dr. Pusey affirms that there are only two periods for " a full cleansing of the, soul, — baptism and the day of judgment." He also states, that, " before his [Paul's] baptism, he appears neither to have been pardoned, regenerated, justified, nor enlightened." And this is said of him whom Ananias called " brother Saul " ! Ananias, indeed, counselled his young Christian brother to "Have thyself baptized, and wash away th}" sins, calhug on His name " (Acts sxii. 16). But Ananias was sent to his brother Saul, not to tell him how his sins might be forgiven, but that he might re- ceive his sight, and be filled with the Spirit (Acts ix. 17). And Ananias knew, or, if he did not, the converted prajdng Saul of Tarsus well knew, that he could not by any phj'Sical washing remove his sins ; well knew that all the waters of all the oceans could not wash away his stains of guilt ; that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanseth from all sin. Says Rev. H. L. Gear, . " When Ananias said, ' Be baptized, and wash away thj sins,' he no more meant that sins were to be literally and actuall}^ washed away b}^ baptism than Christ meant that there was to be a literal and actual eating of His body when He said, ' Take, eat, this is my body ; ' neither was there any more deception nor mistake in the one case than in the other. Both the cleansing of sins in bap- tism, and the partaking of Christ in the supper, are emblematical or symbolical only so far as the sjTnbols are concerned, and actual only with regard to what they denote. If this interpretation is not allowable, we must accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, or at least hold to the real presence of the bod3^ and blood of Christ in the elements of the supper." " Baptism," says Dr. Hove}^ in his (newspaper) discussion of " ejjerotema," " repre- sents a change that has been already accomplished : it pictures in STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 349 the present what has been experienced in the past." The con- verted Saul of Tarsus might, therefore, be counselled thus to wash aw»y his sins in figure as they had been washed away in fact, caUing on the name of Christ, and thanking Him for His pardon- ing love and sanctifj'ing grace already received. Are we asked if Peter does not counsel the anxious thousands at Pentecost to be baptized for, in order to, the remission of sins? We answer un- hesitatingly, No. He bids them repent and be baptized for remis- sion. If, however, this "remission" has reference to baptism alone, we should not then feel obliged to regard the eis of this passage as used in a telic sense, though we would not deny that it might have such use in ritualistic language. Professor G-essner Harrison, in his " Treatise on the Greek Prepositions," &c., says that " ei's with the accusative is used also to denote the object with regard to which any thing is done ; " thus signifying " in re- gard to," " with reference to." Of course, the context, or the general scope of Scripture teaching, must determine whether this " reference "be to the future with a telic sense as in Luke v. 4, *' Let down your nets eis (with reference to, in order to) a draught," and 2 Cor. ii. 12, " When I came to Troas eis (with reference to) the gospel," that is, in order to preach it ; or whether the reference be to something in the past, without this idea of aim or purpose, as in Acts xxv. 20, " Being perplexed eis (with reference to) the dispute concerning these things," and in Rom. iv. 20, " He wavered not eis (with reference to) the promise of God thi'ough unbelief." Rev. James W. Willmarth, in "Baptist Quarterly," avers that he has failed to find an example where eis " means ' with reference to,' in the sense of a retrospective and commemorative reference to a past event ; " and he asks, " Where is the example of the use of eis to denote a relation between an act as a sj'mbol, and some past event or accomplished fact which such symbol is intended to set forth as emblem, or declaration, or commemoration? " We would again refer to John's baptizing in water eis (unto) repent- ance as an example where reference is had to the past, and where eis does not mean "in order to." .Mr. Willmarth says that "John's baptism looked to the futm'e," and that those baptized b}' him stood " pledged unto repentance, thenceforward to have a changed heart and life." Still he acknowledges that " those bap- tized by John were required indeed to repent," as well as "to 350 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. stand pledged unto repentance;" in other words, that a "pres- ent as well as prospective repentance" was required. A less ambiguous statement would be, that "those whom John wofald baptize were already repentant;" which fact proves that eis in John's declaration has a retrospective (as well as prospective) reference, and hence that this "unto" cannot mean "in order to." If, now, the preposition eis be connected with bapHstheto in Acts ii. 38, then the counsel which Peter gives the penitent ones is, to be baptized with reference to remission of sins already secured by repentance. This would exactly accord with John's baptizing repentant men in water with reference to repentance already exercised, and with the pm'port of his ' ' baptism of repent- ance," which had reference to a forgiveness ah-eady experienced. Baptizo eis, as we have indicated in a previous chapter, expresses the idea of appertaining to or belonging to ; and this idea is closely related to the more general idea of baptizing " with reference to." Thus to be baptized with reference to repentance exercised de- notes a giving-up of one's self wholly to repentance, or an entire belonging to repentance. But even if eis, as connected with both verbs, repent and be baptized, means, as we suppose it does, " in order to " (remission), this would not prove that baptism, equally with repentance, is necessary to salvation ; much less that mere outward baptism (which, according to this same Peter, is but "the putting-away of the filth of the flesh") secures remission and salvation. If one wishes to know what Peter did regard as essential to the washing-away of sins, let him turn to Acts iii. 19, X. 43, and hear the apostle's words: "Repent, therefore, and turn, eis (in order to) the blotting-out of jowc sins ; " and "Every one who believes in Him [Christ] shall through His name receive remission of sins." Nothing absolutely indispensable to remis- sion of sins could have been omitted in these representations. To like effect also are Paul's words to the PhHippian jailer : " Be- lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ; " as also the Saviour's words when He commissioned this same Paul to preach that men " should repent, and turn from darkness to hght, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may obtain for- giveness of sins." (Acts xxvi. 20, 18. See also Acts xiii. 38; Rom. iii. 25-28 ; Glal. ii. 16 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 ; Heb. ix. 12, 14, 22 ; 1 Pet. i. 19 ; and many other places where both Paul and STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 351 Peter speak of remission of sins to be obtained only in Christ, and through faith in Him and in His " precious blood.") It may indeed be said that the death and blood of Christ are the merito- rious cause of forgiveness, that repentance is a necessary ante- cedent to forgiveness, and that faith is the appropriating cause of forgiveness, while baptism is the appointed means of forgiveness. .But, if baptism is the essential and indispensable means of remis- sion of sins, how could our Saviour in His earthly ministry forgive penitent ones without baptism ? and how could the mention of this rite be so frequentl}^ omitted by the apostles when speaking of the way of forgiveness and salvation ? Why have they not once plainly stated, that, without baptism, there is no regeneration and no re- mission? The Judaizing teachers could come down to Antioch, affirming in language unmistakable, "Unless ye are circumcised, ye cannot be saved." Why did not Peter and Paul in reply to them, or on some other occasion, declare, in language as unambiguous, " Baptism alone will now secure your regeneration and pardon-; but, unless ye be baptized, your sins cannot be forgiven, and ye cannot be saved ' ' ? Baptism is but one of many acts of faith and obedience ; and we cannot suppose that the apostles, who knew how to distinguish repentance and faith from baptism, always meant baptism whenever they spoke of justifying and saving faith. If, however, it be supposed that the sins of the penitent, believ- ing Saul of Tarsus, for example, were not washed awa}'- or forgiven till he entered the bath of baptism, we could not thence infer that the outward washing was any thing more than symbolic of the inner cleansing then and there effected in answer to praj^er (" for whosoever shaU caU upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ") by Christ's atoning blood, through the power of the Holy Spirit; much less could we infer that ever}' baptismal washing invariably secures renewal by the Spirit, and the washing awa}^ of sins. To affirm that spiritual regeneration and the remission of sins can only be had " in that font, and when we are in it," — what a doc- trine is this for a Pauline theology ! , According to Dr. Pusey, baptism ingrafts us into, or incorpo- rates us into, Christ. By baptism " God takes us out of our rela- tion to Adam, and makes us actual members of His Son." One writer (Sewell) saj's, that, in the Bible, renovation, enlightenment, forgiveness, sanctification, death to sin, are all effected by bap- 352 • STUDIES ON BAPTISM. tism ; and the struggle of after-life is "to defend what we have received." Even non-elect baptized infants, who wiU ultimately perish, receive, in the view of some, a measure of grace, and are freed in baptism from the guilt of original sin. A Simon Magus was regenerated in and by his baptism, but immediately fell, and thus received the grace of God in vain. Some seem to disallow any entire falling away of the baptized. Thus the Right Rev. Bishop McCoskry of Michigan asserts that "in this ordinance every child is made a new creature in Christ Jesus ; ' ' that ' ' the Spirit of God is given to every child in baptism, without any ex- ception, not only to begin, but to carry on and complete,' the great work of their salvation. The relationship thus created will remain ; it can never be shaken off in this world : however unworthy the members of this family may become, they will still remain the children of God." Plad the apostle Paul entertained such "\dews of the regenerating power and efficacious grace of baptism, he never could have written to the " many " Corinthian behevers whom he had " begotten through the gospel," and who were saved "by the foolishness of preaching," that he thanked God he had baptized so few of them, and that Christ sent him, " not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." On this passage (1 Cor. i. 13-18) Dr. Hovey thus remarks : " In the second place, he [Paul] refers to the fact of his ha-sang baptized but a small number, comparatively, of the Christians to whom he was writing. A few persons, the first-friuts of his ministry in Corinth, he had himself baptized, but not the major part of the disciples there. And for this he was thanlrful to God, evidently beheving that a wise Providence had kept him from administering this ordinance more frequently, lest he should be charged with having baptized in . his own name. And, from the reason which he assigns for thank- ing God, it is natural to infer, that, in submitting to the ordinance of baptism, men were understood to avow their discipleship to some one. It was a rite by which they asserted publicly and for- mally their allegiance to him into whose name they were immersed. In the third place, he refers to the fact of his having been called especially to the preaching of the gospel. This may have been the case with the other apostles likewise ; for, in some instances at least, Peter seems to have committed the work of baptizing to others (see Acts x. 48) . Yet the apostles were certainly commis- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 353 sioned to baptize as well as preach ; and therefore, by the words, ' For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,' Paul can only mean to affirm, that, in sending him forth as an apostle, Christ attached pre-eminent importanee to his work as a preacher. There is nothing, perhaps, in this expression, to show that preaching is in itself a higher form of seryice than baptizing ; but there is in it good e"VT.dence, that, for the apostles^ the work of preaching was more important than an}^ other. And the one suffi- cient reason for this was their inspu-ation. It may also be re- marked, that what has now been said affords a certain presumption in favor of the opinion, that, if thousands were baptized on the day of Pentecost, other disciples besides the eleven took part in administering the ordinance. In the fourth place, the apostle refers to the fact of there being a divine power in the foohshness of preaching. By means of it, those who beUeve are saved. And the way in which the apostle extols his work as a preacher, shows, we thinli, that he looked upon it as having, in contrast with baptiz- ing, a causal relation to the new Ufe, and that he gloried in it as the means by which God was most signally revealing His sa^dng grace. If this is not the impression which his language, in the. first chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, makes on an. open and docile mind, we are quite mistaken ; and, if this is his. meaning, the whole sacramental theory of salvation is an error.. The passage, therefore, is one of transcendent importance, and', deserves the deep consideration of all who love the truth. And, in: the fifth place, he refers to the fact of his being the spiritual, father of the Christians to whom he was writing, and as having; begotten them in Christ through the gospel. Two things are manifestly asserted by his language : namel}', first, that a verj'- large part of the behevers in Corinth had been regenerated under the preaching of Paul, while only a few of them had been baptized. by him personall}" ; and, secondly, that the gospel as preached by him had some direct relation to the beginning of the new life in them. They were begotten through the gospel " (" Baptist Quar- terly," vol. iv. pp. 239, 240) .1 1 In partial opposition to the above view, we quote from Eev. Mr. Will- marth's Baptism and Kemission : " He [Paul] does not deny that he preached baptism, but only says that he did not there (generally) adminis- 354 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Most sacramentalists, however, do not deem this baptismal grace to be indefectible, but hold that it may prove inoperative, and be finally lost through human neglect and wickedness. In view of the objection that the sacraments do not produce the effect, whieh, if they were reaUy eflflcacious, could not fail to attend them, some, hke Bishop Hobart, would answer, that the change effected by baptism is not a mQral transformation of the soul by the Holy Ghost, but is rather a change of state than of nature.-^ ter the rite with his own hands. He does not deny that the ' Lord sent him to preach ' baptism, but does deny that his great mission was to baptize. It is evident, from the narratives of Acts xvi. and xviii,, that he did preach baptism at Corinth and elsewhere as a part of the gospel, and that those who believed under his preaching were immediately baptized. But he pre- ferred, when practicable, that some one else should officiate ; just as now an ' evangelist ' (so called) might, for the best of reasons, prefer that the pas- tors should do the baptizing, while himself strenuously insisting on baptism in his preaching " (see Baptist Quarterly for 1877, p. 312). ^ In a somewhat similar manner Alexander Campbell distinguished be- tween a change of heart — a being begotten by the Spirit to a new life — and a being born of water in baptism; which last effects, not an inward renewal, but a change of state. He would, however, always put spiritual renewal before baptism or the new birth. His words are, " As it takes four letters to spell the word e-v-i-1, . . . just so it requires faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost to spell salvation" (see, in Christian Eeview for October, 1856, an article on Campbellism, by John M. Peck, D.D. ; also Dr. Jeter's Campbellism Examined). The mischief of Campbellism is this, that it regards the terms pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved, as representing " a state or condition; " which state or condition is secured only by baptism. "If men," he says, "are conscious that their sins are forgiven, and that they are pardoned before they are immersed, I advise them not to go into the water; for they have no need of it." He teaches that Peter, who, with the "keys" which were intrusted to him, opened the kingdom of heaven, Christ's visible church, both to Jews and to Gentiles, "made repentance or reformation and immersion egwai??/ neces- sary to forgiveness." Thu.s, while he asserts that one "may be baptized in all the waters of the world, and yet not be saved," he also maintains that "remission of sins . . . cannot be enjoyed by any person before immer- sion" (see his Remission of Sins, the Christian Inmiersion). Paul told the Ephesian Christians, "By grace are ye saved through /aif/i, and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast." And to the Philippian jailer he said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Our Saviour also said, "He that believeth in me hath everlasting life;" and to the penitent thief on the cross, who, as not being a martyr for Christ, was not saved even by his baptism of STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 355 .Others who hold to the inseparability of baptism and spiritual regeneration, like Dr. Pusey and R. I. Wilberforce, reply that the heaven-born life of the baptized may die out within them ; that "blood," He gave the assurance, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." So, too, our Lord's commission as given by Luke enjoins the proclamation simply of "repentance, and remission of sins." And with this corresponds His own preaching of the "gospel of the kingdom of God," in which He bids men simply to "repent, and believe the gospel." Li all these announcements touching the way of pardon, life, and salvation, nothing is said concerning the absolute indispensableness of baptism. Even in the commission as given by Mark, which seemingly makes faith and baptism alike saving, it is not affirmed that baptism is always and abso- lutely essential to salvation; for, as Professor Farnam remarks, "whether baptism be or be not a prerequisite, it is true tbat ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' And, if Christ had intended to instruct His apostles to preach to all nations the necessity of baptism to remission. He would not have failed to employ words that would clearly express that idea" (see his Baptism and Eemission, in Baptist Quarterly, p. 481). And Professor Kendrick, in opposition to the view of Wolff, that the bap- tism in this form of the commission refers to the baptism of the Spirit, thus writes: "Nor does this view [that Christ has reference to water-bap- tism] place faith and baptism upon the same footing as conditions of salvation. Faith is the one indispensable and sufficient condition : baptism is naturally and properly connected with it as the established and invariable mode by which the new-born believer's allegiance to Christ was expressed. The substance and the symbol are here naturally associated, as they ever were in the subsequent procedure of the apostles." Mr. Campbell tells us that remission, life, and salvation are, indeed, secured by faith, and hy bap- tism as "an act of faith." Many, however, are the "acts of faith" which God I'equires of the Christian; yet none of these "acts" are specified by Paul when he says, "By grace are ye saved through /ai^/j, . . . not of toor/cs." Certain, at least, it is, that "remission of sins [was] enjoyed be- fore immersion" by the penitent thief, if he were an heir to paradise. Mr. Campbell, however, has conceded, that though "baptism is for the remis- sion of past sins in the case of penitent believers," yet " a person who believes the gospel, and cannot be immersed, may obtain remission." Still more, he has acknowledged that the water of baptism only ^^ formally washes away our sins," and that "Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed ; yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he had washed, them away in the water of baptism." In our opinion, most Baptists would not serioiisly demur at a merely /or?7iaZ washing away of sins in baptism. And, in regard to the above distinction made between "begotten" and "born," we would simply observe, that a mere glance at John iii. 5 will show its inappli- cability to the subject in question. 356 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. though they are ingrafted and incorporated into Christ, and united as a branch to the true -v^ine, they may not abide in Him, but become barren branches, and so be taken away ; that, though intro- duced into Christ's family, the}^ may prove to be unworthy mem- bers ; that, though the gift is always bestowed in baptism, it is not always used ; and that this seed of grace, though implanted in the heart of the baptized, unless it be nurtured, and haye time and favor- ing cu'cumstances for its growth, may never yield any fruit. One thing alone has been held to be certain both by ancient and modern Puseyites ; namely, that to all the baptized tvJio die in infancy the gates of the heavenly kingdom will be thrown wide open. In our view, the Scriptures will, indeed, allow us to think and to say much of Christian baptism, even of its saving power, if this baptism be considered with all its requisites and "in all its completeness." -But nowhere in all the Scriptures is an intima- tion given that the mere outward act of baptism does of itself invariably seciu'e the birth from above, and save the soul, and wash away sins, and procure remission ; and to assert that water- baptism administered indiscriminately to adults and to infants invariably effects regeneration, and renewing of the Spirit, and procui'es remission of sins, is to advance a doctrine whose true parentage must be traced back to the "father of hes." K, indeed, the required birth of water (John iii. 5) means baptism, then the natural inference would be, that baptism precedes, and perhaps has a causal connection with, regeneration by the Spirit. And this is one reason why we w:ould deny its reference to the rite of baptism. For in all the passages of Scripture, and they are ybyj many, where Christian baptism, or its administration, is plainly mentioned, it is invariably preceded by the fruits of the Spiiit, — repentance, faith, discipleship, &c. ; and thus, of course, it follows regeneration, and renewal hj the Spirit. (See Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12, 13, 36-38, ix. 18, x. 47, xvi. 14, 15, 31-33, xviii. 8, &c.) Dr. Wihiam Nast (Methodist), in his " Dissertation on Christian Baptism," saj's, " It cannot be denied that we find, in the recorded practice of the apostles, faith uni- formly preceding baptism." Professor Reuss of Strasburg, in his "History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age," thus remarks : " It is not difficult to show that Christian baptism em- braced far more than mere repentance. It was to be conferred STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 357 only when faith had been already manifested as the result of preaching. So soon as a confession of faith is made, baptism is added to seal and confirm it in a positive, and, so to speak, oflScial manner. If this baptism were intended to be an}" thing more than a symbol, we cannot comprehend how it could be placed after aU the rest. Clearly it is not baptism which produces or insures the pardon of sins. Eepentance and faith must first be actually pi-esent ; forgiveness, their necessary and direct conse- quence, is then bestowed ; and baptism is the outward and mate- rial representation of a spiritual fact ah-ead}^ consummated in the soul." "We find in Simon Magus," says Dr. Schafi"? "an ex- ample of the baptism of water without that of the Spirit ; and, in Cornehus, of the communication of the Spirit before the applica- tion of water." Bishop Babington ssljs that God without baptism is able to save, and hath not tied His gi'ace to any sign. David judged not his child damned, though he died before the eighth day ; neither cried he out for it as he did for Absalom that was cir- cumcised. "Before a man be baptized (as the eunuch) he may stand in the state of salvation." Bishop Bedell held that " repro- bates, coming to years of discretion after baptism, shall be con- demned for orginal sin ; for theu* absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and expectative, which doth trul}' interest them in all the promises of God, but under the condition of repenting, beheving, and obejdng, which thej^ never perform, and therefore never attain the promise. Consider well what j'ou mU say of women before Christ, which had no circumcision, and of all man- kind before circumcision was instituted, and you will perceive, I think, the nature of sacraments to be, not as medicines, but as seals, to confirm the covenant, not to confer the promise immedi- atel5^" " Though we were to admit," says Calvin, " that Christ here [in John iii. 5] speaks of baptism, yet we ought not to press His words so closely as to imagine that He confines salvation to the outward sign, but, on the contrar}-. He connects the water with the Spiiit, because under that visible sj'mbol He attests and seals that newness of life which God alone produces in us by the Spirit. It is true, that, by neglecting baptism, we are excluded from salva- tion ; and in this sense I acknowledge that it is necessary : but it is absurd to speak of the hope of salvation as confined to the sign. So far as relates to this passage, I cannot bring myself to 358 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. beliere that Christ speaks of baptism ; for it would have been in- appropriate. According!}^, He employed Spirit and water to mean the same thing : and this ought not to be regarded as a harsh or forced interpretation ; for it is a frequent and common way of speaking in Scriptm'e, when the Spuit is mentioned, to add the word water or fire, expressing His power ; as in the statement, ' Baptized with the Holy Spirit and fii'e,' where fii*e means nothing different from the Spirit, but only shows what is His efficacy in us. As to the word ' water ' being placed first, it is of httle consequence ; or rather this mode of speaking flows more naturally than the other, because the metaphor is followed by a plain and direct statement : as if Christ had said that no man is a son of God untn he has been renewed by water, and that this water is the Spuit who cleanseth us anew, and who, by spreading His energy over us, imparts to us the vigor of the heavenly life, though b}^ nature we are utterly dry. . . . By water, therefore, is meant nothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Ghost." "Had our divine Teacher," says Booth, "when He declared it absolutely necessary to be ' born of water and of the Spirit,' intended the ordinance of baptism by the term water, then, indeed, the necessity of that institution would have unavoidably followed, as being placed on a level with the renewing agency of the Holy Spirit. But, were that the sense of our Lord, it would unavoidably follow that a positive rite is of equal necessity with the renovating influence of the Holy Spirit ; that the salvation of infants in many cases is rendered impossible, because numbers of them are no sooner born than they expire ; that the eternal happiness of all who die in infanc}^ must depend, not onl}^ on the devout care of their parents, but also on the presence and pious benevolence of administrators ; that all the djing infants of Jews, of Mohammedans, and of Pagans, are in- volved in final ruin ; and that multitudes of adults must also perish merely for the want of baptism. But who can imagine that the Lord should place our immortal interests on such a footing as neither tends to illustrate the grace of God, nor to promote the comfort of man? — on such a footing as is quite inimical to the spuit of that maxim, hy grace ye are saved, and has no aptitude to excite vii'tuous tempers in the human heart? A sentiment of this kind is chiefly adapted to enhance the importance of the clerical char- STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 359 acter, and to make mankind consider themselves as under infinite obligations to a professional order of their fellow-mortals for an interest in everlasting blessedness." Yet the "judicious Hooker " is probably correct when he says, " that, of all the ancients, there is not one to be named that did otherwise either expomad or allege the place than as impljdng external baptism." The fathers cer- tainly held, that, as a general thing, no one could be saved without baptism ; yei none of them, we think, held that all the baptized, or baptismally regenerated, would be saved. Even the modern " Tractarians " or Pusejites will, as we have seen, generally con- cede that baptismal regeneration may become of no effect, that the heaven-born life within the baptized may expire, and that baptism may thus minister to one's final condemnation. It is almost needless to say that this alleged universal inseparable bap- tismal regeneration and the divine absolute predestination do but my consort together. An Augustine, for example, will hold that many are born by baptism into the kingdom of grace only to perish ; while a Calvin will maintain that baptism in the case of the non-elect is but an unmeaning ceremony. The one, in the words of Dr. Schaff, beheves in a fruitless regeneration ; the other, in an ineffectual baptism. The one puts delusion in inward effect ; the other, in outward form. "The sacramental, churchly S3'stem throws the main stress upon baptismal regeneration, to the injury of the eternal election ; the Cahanistic and Puritan system sacri- fices the virtue of the sacrament to the election ; the Lutheran and Anglican system seeks a middle ground, without being able to give a satisfactory theological solution of the problem. The Anghcan Church allows the two opposite views, and sanctions the one in the baptismal service of the Book of Common Prayer ; the other in her thirty- nine Articles, which are moderately Calvinistic" (Dr. Schaff's " History of Ancient Christianity," vol. ii. p. 1025 ; also his " Creeds of Christendom," vol. i. p. 641). On the sub- ject of baptismal regeneration, pro and con^ the reader may con- sult Dr. Pusey's "Tracts for the Times," No. 67; "The Doc- trine of Holy Baptism," by R. I. Wilberforce ; "The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants," by TV. Goode ; and " The Treatise on Baptism," by Bishop Alfred Lee of Delaware, Th6 latter is, in most respects, an admirable httle work. 360 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. If, however, the birth of water refer to the rite of water-baptism, then tills passage (John iii. 5), if we suppose the "kingdom of God " to be His heavenly kingdom, is, perhaps, but equivalent in meaning to Mark svl. 16: "He that belleveth and is baptized shall be saved." Both things are, by divine command, made ob- ligatory upon all who hear the gospel, and who, through divine help, are enabled personally to ohej. In this sense we may regard baptism, the required outward expression and confession of an inward change, as necessary to salvation : it is certainty one prin- cipal part of that confession of Christ before men which is made virtually essential to salvation in the Holy Scriptures. "It is not," says Rev. J. T. Smith in his article entitled " Interior Facts of Baptism " (" Baptist Quarterly," 1872, p. 217), "a confession of Christ, one of a thousand which ma}^ and should be made at all fit times and places, but the confession of Christ made, not for the hour or the single occasion, to endure while the present impulse lasts, but public, before three worlds, — for life, for death, and for eternity. ... It is more than words : it is action most signifi- cant and decisive. It is the disciple lifting up the banner of the cross, the flag he will never furl, will never desert, will never be- tray, will never cease to hold up, until he falls in death. Such is baptism as an ordinance, and such the confession implied in obe- dience to it. Its full import as an ordinance can be discerned only as we keep in view its character as symbol. The confession in baptism is never fnllj made unless the s^-mbolical import of bap- tism is seen and recognized. As symbol it at once folds up in itself, and publishes to the world, the entire evangelical doctrine of Christ in His person and work, the great facts on which salva- tion rests, the substance of salvation itself as a personal experi- ence, and its final and endless results. And so the disciple, with a true faith in Christ, and in obedience to His ordinance, makes, in the act itself of baptism, confession to the world of this entire body of evangelical truth." ^ "Whosoever, therefore, shall con- 1 To the above the writer adds, " If, now, to this confessional element in baptism, with its unspeakably important bearings upon the glory of Christ in the world, considered also as including its wonderful symbolical character, we add its use as a sign and a seal, we have a sufficient basis for all the representations made of it in the Scriptures. Considering that baptism is the sign which marks, both to the church and the world, the disciple of STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 361 fess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father who is in heaven." "It is necessary," saj^s Dr. Hovey in his " Man- ual of Theolog}^," p. 255, " to bear in mind, that, in the apostolic age, it was, as a rule, indispensable (1) to be baptized in the name of. Christ in order to confess Him before men, and (2) to confess Him before men in order to be saved by Him. By the limiting clause, as a rule, we design to except such cases as follow : (a) those who had not bodily health or strength to be baptized ; (&) those who could not find a suitable person to baptize them ; (c) those who were prevented from receiving it by their parents ; (d) those who were prevented solely b}'' a distrust of their own piety. Baptism has never been a prerequisite to salvation, except as obedience to the known will of Christ is such a prerequisite." This last clause, we think, bears somewhat upon the case of our Pedobaptist brethren, whom we deem to be unbaptized, as also of Baptists, who are acknowledged to be Chris- tians, and are yet declared by Dr. Dale, and perhaps by some few others, to be "without any baptism." Professor Pepper, in his article on " The Mutual Relation of Baptism and the Communion," in " Baptist Quarterly " for April, 1872, p. 167, has the. following relating in part to this point: "As an unregenerate man, for a base purpose, may perform the outward act [of baptism], so a regenerate man, with the true baptismal spirit of obedielice, under the true baptismal conditions, and with the true baptismal design, may, through error, perform another than the prescribed external Christ as His; that it recognizes as existing fact, tliat whereas he was by nature an heir of hell, being alien from the commonwealth of Israel, stran- ger to 'the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, he is now an heir of heaven, and a redeemed child of God ; consider- ing that the visible church, being the body of Christ in the world, in which the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, dwells, is in truth Christ in the world, into visible union with which baptism brings him, thus sealing to him all the promises and all the blessings which God has pledged to the church, — what more do we need to account for the terms and expressions by wliich baptism is set forth to us in the New Testament ? " When, as is sometimes the case, baptism is disparagingly spoken of as a "mere sign," a "meke symbol," there probably is a failure to realize of what great things it is a sign or symbol. Baptism is also a pledge, as well as a symbol, an " oath of allegiance," a public and solemn engaging or devoting of one's self to God for time and for eternity. 362 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. act. In the sphere of the outward, this man is all wrong ; in the sphere of the spiritual alone, he is all right. Baptism as a visible ordinance he has not. To the eye of man, for which the outward rite was prescribed, he is unbaptized. As he stands before the eye of God, in the realm of spmt, he has obeyed the command to be baptized. . . . Thus it will be seen that the assumption that only the immersed have been baptized implies neither that all the immersed have been truly baptized, nor that aU not immersed are still acting in a spirit of disobedience to the Lord. "We pass no such judgment upon them, either in thought, or by the implication of our words ; and no man should charge us with so doing." If, however, the "kingdom of God" refers to Christ's visible kingdom and church on earth (which view, as many think, is con- firmed by our Saviour's words to Nicodemus, "Ihave told you earthly things," and is not really obnoxious to Augustine's ob- jection, namely, that thus those who are unregenerated by water and the Spirit could ' ' see ' ' this kingdom, since the seeing of the kingdom must, at aU events, be regarded as something more than mere outward vision), then the teaching of Christ's declaration, "Unless one be born of water," &c., is, that both baptism and a spiritual renewal are " verily " requisite to proper membership in the church of Christ. " Hence Chiist, in His discourse with Nico- demus, "virtually said, ' To be a true member of my earthly king- dom, 5'ou must be born again rituaU}^ and spiritually ; you must submit to the rite of baptism, and experience a renovation of heart by the Spirit of God ; you must not only confess me openly in the prescribed way, which j'ou are unwilling to do, but must also be the subject of a great spiritual change effected by the power of God (compare Rom. x. 9 for the same order of thought : it is the rhetorical instead of the logical order)." — Dr. Hovet's "Manual of Theolog}"," j). 255. Some wiiters, making a distinction after the manner of Alexander Campbell, have aflflrmed that men are "begotten" by the Spirit to a new spuitual life, and are "born" of water into the visible church of Christ.^ Most com- 1 See Ebrard's Yiew of Baptism, by Professor George E. Bliss, in Baptist Quarterly, vol. iii. p. 277. Professor Bliss illustrates Ebrard's view of the efficacy of baptism, and perhaps bis own view, by the following figure: " Wbat tbe marriage-rite does to perfect the union of the espoused pair in holy matrimony, that baptism does in the consummation of the xinion STUDIES ON BAPTISM. S63 mentators, "we may state, unhesitatingly refer this "water" of which we must be born to the water of baptism, and make this water-baptism either procurative of, or significant of, regeneration. Thus Dr. Godet says, " To accept baptism with water is to be- come partaker of the Messianic pardon." Henee he makes "water and Spirit" (equivalent to pardon and regeneration) to be " the whole of salvation, and consequently man's entrance into the kingdom of God." Dr. Gloag speaks of the water and Spirit between Christ and the believing soul, wherein it lives no more by itself, but Christ lives in it, and its life is Christ. Thus baptism does not (any more than marriage) mark the union as before established, but establishes it ; marks its establishment indeed ; but not merely marks ; it guarantees and seals the same for the perpetual contentment of the believer, and as a memorial to the God of his salvation " (p. 274). We may remark that Ebrard's views as to the scriptural and legitimate mode and design of baptism are so far baptistic, "that he has been charged," as Professor Bliss states, " by his brethren, with ' baptistic tendencies,' in consequence of the publication of these sentiments, especially taken in connection with his clear denial of the sacramental character and divine authority of infant- baptism." And here we cannot forbear to add the following from Professor Bliss, as showing how desirous for "union among believers," and how con- cessive in spirit, a Baptist " exclusivist " maybe: " To all thus believing everywhere we extend our cordial sympathy ; and to all acting consistently with such faith, and from all, we offer and ask fellowship. Indeed, we are sanguine enough to think that we see, in the proclamation of such views in such a quarter, hopeful tokens of a union among believers in the profession of Christianity, such as many of the best are sighing after, but often, it would appear, without an inkling of the way in which it is to be brought about. This we say without thinking for a moment, that, in * the peace which yet shall be,' all Christians differing from us must adopt specifically Baptist sentiments, — wheel into line on our left, while we stand as the pivotal centre, — or in any way succumb to us. We mean, rather, that we see ground of hope in the disposition, here so signally manifested, to refer questions pertaining to the constitution and ordinances of the church, direct- ly, candidly, submissively, to the decision of the Bible. Thus, if ever, and not otherwise, is the glorious unity and completeness of Christ's 'macro- cosmic ' body to be manifested' to the world ; certainly not by denjing either that He has intelligibly laid down regulative principles concerning the essential organization and usage of His churches, or that these principles are applicable to churches as they now exist. Most willingly do we admit, most fervently hope, that, in such a revision of the divine grounds of ecclesiastical practice, we ourselves also may share in any needed correc- tion." 364 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. as " the two great parts of baptism, — the sign and the thing sig- nified." Professor J. J, Owen makes the Saviour say, "Except 5'e receive the rite of Christian baptism and the baptism of the Spirit," &c. Luthardt, in his " Commentary on John's Gospel," regards this water of regeneration, not as a figurative designation of the cleansing of the heart (Knapp, Liicke) , nor as a figurative expression for the Spirit (Calvin) or penitent soul (Olshausen), but as an indication to the mind of Nicodemus that ' ' the baptism with the Spirit by Jesus is to be added to the baptism with water which Nicodemus knew from John." Tholuck also makes this bu'th of water refer to John's baptism ; though, if regarded as a requisite to entrance into the Messianic kingdom, its chief refer- ence, we should suppose, would naturally be to Christian baptism. In Tholuck' s view, however, which corresponds to that of Neander, our Saviour did not refer Nicodemus to baptism as such, but only allusively to the idea or sj'mbolic signification of baptism. " The water," he says, " may already have been known to Nicodemus from the baptism of John, as a symbol of the jpurification of the inner man." A water-bath does, indeed, natm'allj^ give rise to the idea of pmification and cleansing, much more naturall}^, we should sa}^, than to the idea of bu'th. Still we think it probable that our Saviour, b}' using the phrase " born of water," may very naturall}^ have had some reference to the idea of baptism. We quote, in closing, the explanation of this passage given by Dr. Ripley, who, it will be perceived, finds no reference in the water -birth to the baptismal rite. In his " Notes on the Gospels " (m loc.) he saj's, " This much- controverted passage, born of water, admits of a simple and easy explanation when brought into comparison with a similar phrase used by this evangehst in i. rS ; namel}', horn of blood. By this latter phrase natural birth is meant. The existence of man in this world by natural birth, with all his sinful propensities, is here traced to the element men- tioned as an originating cause. Now, in the expression, born of water, a difierent element is brought to ^4ew as the originating cause of a new' birth to a spiritual, holy existence. This element, water, was the usual emblem and means of purity. While, then, to be born of blood means to be born a human being, with all the corrupt propensities of human nature, to be born of water means to commence a holy existence originated from a pure and holy STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 365 source. This view presents a suitable reply to the question of Nicodemus in the preceding verse ; for to be born from the womb (v. 6), in the ordinary course of nature, is another mode of say- ing to be born of blood and of the loill of the flesh (i. 13) . Now, in order to convey to Nicodemus a just view of this new birth, our Lord, in replj^ing to the question whether a second natural birth, a being born of blood and of the flesh, was meant, declared, 'A man, in order to enter into the kingdom of God, must be born again, not of blood and of the flesh, but of ivater and of the Spirit;' that is, he must experience, not a natural birth, but a spuitual one, — a birth originating, not from an element of impurity, but from a pure source. Water appears to have been here mentioned by our Saviour as indicating a pure source of a new spiritual life in man. He immediately adds an expression of similar import, mentioning in plain language the author of this new birth. . . . The whole phrase, born of water and of the Spirit, may signif}^ a spiritual birth effected by a divine agent, just as the phrase, born of blood and of the flesh, signifies natural birth effected by a human agent." 366 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. CHAPTEE XXXII. A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW. — "CHRISTIAN UNION." WITH this chapter we conclude our review of Dr. Dale, and our discussion of the baptismal question. Professor J. A. Broadus, in a notice of Dr. Dale's volumes in " The Baptist Quarterly," vol. ix. p. 246, says, " Any reply to this wonderful theory must be either very brief, or immensely long, — either merely indicating the essential points of dissent, or patiently following the author through all his details and repetitions. It is possible, for aught we know, that some Baptist may, one of these days, have the patience to reply in this latter fashion, if the whole thing is not too speedily set aside through the returning good sense of our Pedobaptist brethren." We feel that we have neither the patience nor the perseverance, and perhaps not the lack of sense, which that immensely patient and persevering ' ' Baptist ' ' would require who should follow our author ' ' through all his details and repetitions." We have indeed, in this work, which was designed to be a. general review of Dr. Dale's treatise, rather than a special reply, not studied to be "very brief," and have endeavored to avoid the other very undesirable extreme of " immense length ; " though we fear that the doctor's diffuse method has led us uncon- sciously quite too near it. Our aim, moreover, in these Studies on the Baptismal Question, has been, not simply to show up and refute a "wonderful theory," but to do a more positive work, — to establish truth ; to remove, if possible, some difficulties con- nected with this subject ; and to present some things in a new and clearer Mght. Nothing is more tiresome and profitless than to travel over the same road which countless others have travelled, meet with the same ever-recurring difficulties, manage or treat them in the same way, and finall}^ leave them about as we found them, to trouble others who shall come after us. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 367 Dr. Dale's treatise, as we have said, is essentially baptistic ; and there is in it really but very little which is exclusively opposed to the "Baptist theory." His own theory of baptismal " ideal ele- ments" and " controlhng influence," which he invented to help him in his almost gigantic effort to disengage baptizo from its acknowledged normal connection with immersion, is as much opposed to Pedobaptist as to Baptist ^iews ; and yet to establish this has been the grand endeavor of his prolonged "Inquiry."^ 1 Just as we were sending these pages to press, we received the Baptist Eeview for 1879, vol. 1. No. 1, containing an article on Dale's Theory of Baptism, by Professor H. Harvey, D.D., of Hamilton Theological Semi- nary. He thus speaks of the inapplicability and contradictoriness of this "controlling-influence" theory to the New-Testament usage of baptizo as held alike by Baptists and Pedobaptists : — " The assumption that baptizo in religious usage does not denote the outward act has already been shown to be false. When John ' did baptize in the wilderness,' the act affirmed in the verb is clearly defined as outward by other passages : to translate, John ' did change the spiritual condition in the wilderness,' is to destroy the sense. When ' the multitude ' of Pharisees and Sadducees ' came forth to be baptized of him,' they certainly did not come to obtain ' a thorough change of spiritual condition ; ' for John calls them a 'generation of vipers.' When, in speaking of the baptisms under Christ's ministry, it is said, ' Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,' it is impossible to understand the word of other than outward baptism ; for surely, if baptism was 'a change in the spiritual condition,' it must have been effected by Christ, and not by the apostles. When Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, declares that he was not sent to baptize, and thanks God that he baptized none of them except Crispus and Gains and the household of Stephanas, he surely does not intend that ' a thorough spiritual change ' in them was not the object of his ministry, nor that it was a matter of thanksgiving to God that this ' thoroughly changed spiritual condition ' had been wrought through him only in the persons named. Such a supposition is utterly absurd. The theory thus hopelessly breaks down when tested by actual New-Testament usage, where baptizo often stands in relations such as to compel its expression of the outward act." To Dale's, objection against regarding the meaning of baptizo to be but a "bald repetition" of bapto, to dip (which no Baptist scholar maintains), Professor Harvey thus replies: "As a matter of fact, deriva- tive words in Greek often take the main signification of the parent word, and sometimes, in whole or part, supplant the parent word, because the derivative has a stronger form, and is on that account preferred. Cremer's Lexicon will furnish any Greek scholar with numerous exam- ples of this: thus katharizo, derived from kathairo, to cleanse; rhantizo, from rhaino, to sprinkle; methusko, from methuo, to be drunk; these are 368 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. Dr. Dale puts forth tMs theory with considerable confidence ; yet no one, probabty, would be more surprised than himself, should the next Greek lexicon published by German or Enghsh scholars give as one of the definitions of baptizo, " to influence control- lingly." What an outburst of laughter would such a phenomenon in lexicography occasion throughout the world ! Another principal achievement of his work, in his own estimation, is the discovery (?) and full exhibition of an important difference in meaning between "dip" and "immerse," — a difference which, in the main, any Baptist can accept without sending the slightest "shock" either through his own " system," or the " Baptist system" in general. And a third chief point in his work is the assumption — a deeply all derivatives, whicli, in whole or part, displaced the parent words, but whicli retained as their most common meaning precisely the signification of the radical form. These are only a few instances of many that might be adduced; and the Dale theory thus utterly fails, even in its initial proposition." In reference to this last topic, another Baptist scholar, Professor Kendrick, thus remarks: "That the two words are entirely independent, and never interchanged in all Greek literature, no scholar would affirm for a moment. Closely allied in origin, they cannot but have had the same fundamental signification. That they should continue wholly identical in meaning was, of course, improbable. Bapto, the more primitive word, early specialized itself, from dipping into a coloring fluid, into dyeing, — a meaning which need not and did not pass over to baptizo. Baptizo, on the other hand, partly, perhaps, from a real or supposed causative force in its ending [Pro- fessor Broadus prefers the term, factitive], and still more, we think, from the lengthened and heavier character of its form (analogously to the heavier imperfect forms as compared with the lighter second aorists), became natu- rally applied ordinarily to immersions of a more formal character and longer duration; while the shorter and lighter bapto (like the English dzp) ordi- narily denoted the lighter and more transient immersions. Thus arose the distinction suggested by Dr. Dagg, giving a partial foundation for the dogma of Mr. Dale. But, in the unqualified form in which Mr. Dale states it, the doctrine is totally untrue ; and his canon, constructed on a priori grounds, with no regard to etymology, and little regard to usage, is largely false, and, so far as true, scientifically worthless. The radical identity of the two words in meaning is determined by their etymological relationship. Their substantial identity of usage is shown by the fact that lexicographers and critics uniformly render them by the common words mergo, immergo, dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, &c., indiscriminately; while their easy inter- changeableness can be shown abundantly from usage." — Baptist Quarterly, vol. iii. p. 140. STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 369 baptistic one — that a proper water-baptism imports not only a " complete intusposition," but inevitable drowning. "We therefore feel justified in regarding his treatise as essentially and strongly baptistic. He has labored through some eighteen hundred octavo pages to show the world that the only way to get rid of baptism as immersion is to abolish the baptismal rite altogether. We cannot but feel considerably thankful that Dr. Dale has brouglit matters to this issue, and that all the host of his learned, complimenting friends are likewise highly pleased with the same result. Yet how suggestive, and how humiliating too, is the fact that so many of our leading and honored Pedobaptistic friends have shown them- selves in past times so read}' to adopt almost any novel theory which the ingenuity of man can invent, provided only that it seems to do away with immersion as baptism ! Though conflicting and mutu- ally destructive as these theories often are, they are thrust before us, one after another, with the constantly-repeated challenge, " Let Baptists answer this, or else forever after hold their peace." Our- good brethren will pardon us if we point out to them ' ' a more excellent waj^-," and one which is not so seemingly discreditable to- their intelligence and judgment. But truly, if our Pedobaptist friends go on making concessions,, as Stuart, Beecher, and Dale have done, it would seem that the controversy might ere long be ended, and we find ourselves, un- awares, in "one fold." Eev. Mr. Heaton, indeed, thinks that some Pedobaptists have conceded too much, in sajdng, for exam- ple, that the apostles baptized by immersion ; and expects that we shall soon return the compliment, and acknowledge "that sprinkling was the mode." But his friends generally will have to concede a great deal more, than they have jet done, not, indeed, to us, but. to the truth. Pedobaptists in this country have not begun to- make such free concessions to the " Baptist theory " as they have done in the Old World and in past ages. The followers of Luther' and Calvin in this land, as a general thing, lag far behind the great reformers in this matter.^ Still a silent revolution, we 1 "The other thing," says Luther, " which belongs to baptism, is the sign or the sacrament, which is immersion in water; from whence, also, it derives- its name; for haptizo in Greek is mergo (immerse) in Latin, and baptism is- immersion. , . . Baptism is a sign both of death and resurrection. Being: moved by this reason, I would have those who are to be baptized to be- 370 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. believe, is going on ; and the writings of Stuart, Beeclier, and Dale, and especially our own Professor Conant, are fast bring- ing this controversy to a decided issue. We believe that ere long the best-informed Christian scholars of other denominations wiU, as a more excellent way, unite with Calvin of a past age, and with Stanley and Pressens6 of our own, in acknowledging that the primitive and proper baptism was inunersion, but that, in our altered circumstances of chmate and customs, the form of the rite is comparatively unessential, and may be varied, pro- vided the truth be recognized, and " the spirit of the gospel " be altogether dipped into the water, as the word doth express and the mystery doth signify; not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect and full a thing ; as also, WITHOUT DOUBT, IT WAS INSTITUTED BY Chkist " (Luther's Works, vol. ii. pp. 272, 273, De Captivate Babylonica Ecclesise). "The name bap- tism is Greek: in Latin it can be rendered mersio, immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may be wholly covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use with most persons (nor do they wholly submerge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out ; for this the etymology of the name seems to demand. The Germans call baptism Tauff, from depth, which they call Tieff in their language, as if it were proper that those should be deeply immersed who are baptized. And indeed, if you consider what baptism signifies, you will see that the same thing is required ; for this signifies that the old man and our sinful natuje, which consists of flesh and blood, is all submerged by divine grace. . . . The mode of baptizing ought, therefore, to correspond to the signification of baptism, so as to. set forth a sure and full sign of it." — M. Lutheei, Opera Omnia, vol. i. p. 319, seq., Be Sacramento Baptismi. Similar to this is the testimony of Calvin. "From these words" (con- cerning ^non, John iii. 23) " we may infer that John and Christ adminis- tered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water." And on Acts viii. 38, " They descended into the water," he says, "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism ; for they put all the body into the water." And in his Institutes of the Christian Eeligion, iv. 15, 19, he says, "But whether the person who is to be baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance : churches ought to be left at liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of countries. Quanquam et ipsiim baptizandi verbum mergere significat, et mergendi ritum veteri ecclesise observatum fuisse constat. The very word baptize, however, sig- nifies to immerse ; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 371 retained.^ Even now we are willing to leave this matter of the " mode " to the " thoroughly- trained Grsecists " of the different de- nominations, letting them do what Professor Conant has done in his " Baptizein," — translate the one hundred and sixty-eight examples of baptizo, and as many more as they can find in the "Greek writers, including the church fathers when they do not speak of the Christian rite," deducing therefrom the fundamental or "ground meaning " of the word, and then simply affirming, whether, in their view, such meaning is absolutely incompatible with the use of bap- tizo in any instance in the New Testament. We beheve that tJieir Baptizeins would be pretty effective Baptist treatises. Professor Stuart has ah-eady given his opinion on this matter, and says, " I find no passage in the New Testament, I am quite ready to concede, which seems absolutely to determine that immersion was not prac- tised." This declaration was made after his investigation of the classical usage of baptizo, and his acknowledgment that '•'•bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing liquid. All lexicographers are agreed in this." Dr. Dale also, as we have seen, has tried his hand at translating the baptizo of the classics ; and even he can find no better representative word than ' ' sierse (immekse)." The reason why he hesitates to introduce the ordi- nary literal import of this word into the Scriptures is his tender regard for the safety of human life. He fears " death by drown- ing"! What we have written has been designedly in the interest, not only of truth, but of charity and "Christian union;" and we trust that those who may differ from us, j-ea, even " the hardiest of our opponents," will yet discover nothing in these writings which is alien to the Christian spirit. We are thankful that Christians of different names can " agree to differ," and can be trul}^ united in heart, even where there is no outM^ard church-communion or church-fellowship. "We refuse not," sa3's Professor Kiple^" in his review of Dr. Griffin's " Letter on Communion," "to associate at the Lord's table with other Christians, because we are bigoted 1 Even the rite itself may not be essential to salvation, and yet the form of tlie rite may be a very essential matter. ''In symbolical language," says Dr. Hovey, "the form is essential, for it expresses the meaning: the form, of the rite is the rite, for the rite itself is a form." 372 STUDIES ON BAPTI83L or selfish, or because "we wish ' to shut our adherents in by a sort of impassable gulf.' The practice for which we are censured is not recommended to us, except by a regard to what we think the will of the Lord. JSTor is the practice at all inconsistent with the purest and most generous Christian lore ; for we can lore our brethi'en with pure hearts fervently, while yet we do not join with them in every religious obser^'ance. There are occasions, and those of perpetual occuiTence, on which the expressions of Chris- tian affection are less questionably genuine than the occasion afforded by celebrating the Lord's Supper. Our practice does not imply want of love for the disciples of the Lord : it imphes con- scientious adherence to principles which we think om- Lord has estabUshed in His church. Nor is our practice at all inconsistent with the fact that all true Christians will commune together in heaven ; for the communion of soul which the redeemed will enjoy in heaven is a different thing from celebrating the Lord's Supper." And, in his review of Rev. Albert Barnes' pamphlet on " Exclu- sivism," the same author, alike distinguished for his Christian gentleness and his Chiistian fii'mness, thus remarks: "This is exactly the position which a Baptist is compelled to take by his honest and conscientious convictions ; and though aU the Chris- tian world, from the extreme of Eoman Cathohcism, through aU national and state churches with their ine\dtable corruptions, to the orthodoxy, purity, efficiency, and lovehness of a New-England Congregationahst, join hands against him in this particular, he cannot renounce his fealty to Chiist ; he cannot, by word or deed, acknowledge as a New-Testament ordinance an act ' ' (infant-bap- tism) "which has not the shadow of a proof that it proceeded from Christ. There, then, — at least, so far as the proposal before us " (of " a recognition of the ordinances of all other denomina- tions that hold the essential truths of the gospel") " provides, — the Baptists must stand for the present, working laboriously, work- ing lovingly, and, so far as they and others have attained, walking by the same rule, and minding the same things with them, joining heart and hand wherever the}' can, receiving light from every quarter, and endeavoring to spread all around them whatever Hght they may possess. ... In my humble judgment, the Christian who cherishes the true spirit of the gospel in his own sphere, and embraces in his heart, even though he may not feel warranted to STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 373 invite to his Master's table, every other genuine disciple of Christ, and who is read}^ to say God speed to every good work and to every human being who is engaged in it, to associate with others wherever he can, to separate only where he must, and onl}^ so long as he must, is doing much for charity and mutual happiness, and for winning souls to Christ. Such union is worth having, and is too full of promise to be hazarded : it is incalculabl}' more valuable than any conventual union, or an}' union which maj- grow out of alliances and compromises, and which may, therefore, be shadow, rather than substance, and, while it has a name that it hves, may be dead." Rev. J. Wheaton Smith, D.D., in his "Letter to Rev. Albert Barnes in answer to ' Exclusivism,' " thus speaks: " We love and fellowship the living [referring to certain eminent Pedobaptist Christians] as faitliful followers of Christ ; we cherish the memorj'' of those who have gone, and reckon them among the saints made perfect : but we square both the living and the dead by the Scripture. We cannot alter the words of Jesus out of reverence for either. . . . Nor can we invite any of om* Christian brethren, who in our view remain unbaptized, to our communion. We love and fellowship them as Christians, and thank them for a zeal and pietj^ which is often worthy of our emulation ; 3-et we cannot with a good conscience be unmindful of plain scriptural requirements. But in this are we more exclusive than our breth- ren? You claim as strongly as we that baptism in your seuse of the term is a prerequisite to communion. You would not invite a man, however great or good, to the communion of the Presbj'terian Church, who refused to submit himself to what yoit call baptism. We do but the same. The simple question is, What is baptism? ... If sprinkling is baptism, we are justly condemned ; if it is not, we are acquitted." In reference to another charge. Dr. Smith says, "We think they [Pedobaptist churches] are deficient in respect to baptism, and in some other things besides ; but we do not, in consequence, ' unchurch them.' We believe that baptism is the scriptural mode of admission into a church ; if you please, the door into the church. But a church is something more than baptism, as a house is more than a door ; and, as a man may enter a house without going in b}- the door, so a Christian ma}- enter a church ly some other than the scriptural way. It is true, his mode of entrance was irregular and disorderly ; but still he is in." " The 374 STUDIES OK BAPTISM. Baptists of America," remarks Professor Pepper, "who restrict their administration of the Lord's Supper to those believed by them to be baptized, are not indifferent to Christian union. For this union they contend in this very act of restriction. They do not act arbitrarily and capriciously, but upon principles which commend themselves to the judgment as both reasonable and scriptural. They are not justly charged with ' Papal assumption ; ' for they dictate to others no law of action, and wish to compel others to no violation of conscience : but they claim that Christ has given a law for all, and that they as well as others must determine what that law requires, and to those requirements give unquestion- ing obedience. They do not beheve that Christ's ordinances have lost their value, or that the division that prevails is harmless, much less desirable." Professor Kendrick, near the close of a somewhat caustic review of Rev. Philippe Wolff's "Baptism, the Covenant, and the Family" (see "Christian Re^dew" for April, 1863, p. 294), yet says, "For that body collectively [for whose cause Mr. Wolff has written] we cherish only affection and respect. We differ from them in a matter of Scripture rite ; but the differ- ence is not a vital one. It separates us from them in church organization ; but it interposes no barrier to om' spiritual com- munion. We share with them the same Christian labors, we render allegiance to the same Lord, we anticipate the same Jieavenly blessedness. We say of their community, in the same sense as we say of our own, — * There our best friends, our kindred, dwell; There God our Saviour reigns.' Of them as a people we have no hard things to utter, nor of any among them, who, in a spirit of Christian courtesy, either defends their position, or assails ours." Professor A. N. Arnold, in his " Scriptural Terms of Admission to the Lord's Supper," thus avers : " We do have communion on earth with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, whether Baptists or Pedobaptists : we have spuitual fellowship with them all. " " So far are we , " says Rev. H. F. Colby, ' ' from denying that members of Pedobaptist churches are good Christians, that we love and honor them as brethi'en, servants of the same Master with om'selves. We do not sa}^ that they are not just as good Christians as we are ; nay, our i)osition concerning STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 375 the Lord's Supper does not declare that they may not be, on the whole, better Christians than we are, more humble, more devoted, more zealous. It does not interfere with the real recognition by us of any of their virtues. . . . There may be, there is, Christian fellowship without church-fellowship. As the former is not to be measm-ed by membership in the same Christian denomination, neither is it to be measured by any such practice as inter-com- munion. " Again : the question is not, whether we shall ' unchurch ' our Pedobaptist brethren. ... It is true, we regard the apostohc model of a chui-ch to be a company of believers in Chi'ist, who have been baptized on a profession of their faith, and who are organized for the observance and maintenance of the Christian rehgion, their mutual growth in grace, and the diffusion of the truth. To this model we feel ourselves under obhgations to conform in church-building. But as we would not refuse the name of a house to a building in which persons lived, even though it seemed to us improperly put together, and to have a very loose and irregular arrangement for a door ; so we do not deny the name of a church to any organization into which true believers have con- scientiously entered for that purpose. We simply declare concern- ing Pedobaptist churches, that, in our judgment, they are irregularly constituted. And as for the table which is spread by them, the bread is there, the wine is there, the prayers are offered, and the elements duly distributed to many, devout persons who partake of them in faith, and find the occasion a precious means of grace. "We think we express the sentiment of all, except extremists, in the Baptist ranlis, when we say that we have no disposition to deny that it is the Lord's Supper. But, since baptism scripturaUy precedes communion, our view is, that that the}'' partake of it prematurel3^" ^ Holding, as we do, in the words of President 1 We have given above the utterances of several representative Baptists, persons who hold " the monstrous, the unchristian doctrine of close com- munion,^^ and are members of a church which "absolutely insists upon uncharitahleness among its members;" and we leave our readers to decide whether these writers are "so uncharitable toward other Cliristians" as Baptists are sometimes represented to be. (See Theodore : A Story about Baptism, by a True Baptist, pp. 84, 321, 335.) We may add, that this work, which is in substance but the Dale theory " clothed in the robes of 376 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. A. H. Strong of Rochester Theological Seminary, that " the ordinance which symbolizes regeneration must go before the ordi- nance which symbolizes sanctification, as birth must go before nourishment, and life before its sustenance," and that, not only by the nature of things {nascimur, pascimur) , but by Scripture pre- cept and plain apostolic example, baptism should follow faith or conversion, and precede communion ; ^ holding, also, that immersion in water is necessary to the act of baptism, and that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, — we certainlj" cannot justly be charged with bigotry (by those, at least, who with us regard "faith in Christ, baptism, and an orderly walk," as prerequisites to thf) communion) in not inviting our Pedobaptist brethren to partake "with us of the Lord's Supper. And here we are happ}'^ to*^ bear witness that manj^ Pedobaptist divines do not regard our "close romance," was designed to be an answer to " Theodosia Ernest ; " and so successful was "Dr. Graham" in expounding the scripturalness of sprin- kling as baptism, that Theodosia's daughter Grace, and her lover Theodore Westervelt, were converted to pedobaptism, and became members of the Presbyterian Church. We give one slight specimen, found on p. 294, of the argumentation by which "Dr. Graham" baptized — that is, " controllingly influenced" — the youthful lovers: "But it seems to me, Mr. Percy, that your supposition [that the three thousand might not all have been baptized that day] is an attempt to evade a plain statement of Scripture. We read, * Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added,' " &c. The Greek particle oun (Latin, igitur, our then or therefore) seems, by the Italicizing, to decide as to the time of the bap- tizing. We probably have not had as yet the whole (and true) history of Theodosia and her descendants. 1 This was the established and undeviating order of the ordinances in the earliest ages of the Church's history. Justin Martyr, the first father who speaks of this subject, says, " This food is called among us Eu- cJiaristia, of which no one is allowed to partaJie who does not believe that what we teach is true, and has not been bathed in the bath for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and does not live as Christ has en- joined." Jerome says, " Catechumens cannot commtmicate at the Lord's table, being unbaptized." Augustine, speaking of administering to infants the "sacrament" of the Lord's table, says, "To which no one, unless baptized, rightly approaches." And Theophylact at a later period testifies, "orideis abaptistos metalambanei,'" that " no unbaptized person partakes of the Lord's Supper." So invariable has this order ever been, that Dr. Wall could truly say, "Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, — that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 377 communion " as proof of bigotry or Pharisaic exclusivism. Thus Eev. F. G. Hibbard (Methodist), in his work "On Baptism," says, " It is but just to remark, that, in one principle, the Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting 'from communion at the table of the Lord and in denj'ing the rights of church-fellowship to all who have not been baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to constitute visible church-membership. This also we hold. . The onl}- question, then, that here divides us, is. What is essential to valid baptism? " And the Rev. G. F. Wright (Congregationalist) , in " Bibliotheca Sacra" for April, 1874, thus remarks: "The intelligent con- sistent defence of close communion [on the part of Baptists] does not proceed on the supposition that immersed persons are the only regenerate believers ; but they base their refusal to invite unimmersed persons to the Lord's table on the same grounds of order and expediency on which other denominations refuse to invite unbaptized persons to commune with them," In this con- nection we may properly quote the words of Rev. Robert Hall, who, though a Baptist, was so far open communion, that he would not require any baptismal or public profession as a prerequisite to communion or church-membership, — a looseness of practice which our Pedobaptist friends who commend to us the example of Hall refuse to adopt for themselves. "Let it be admitted," he saj'S, "that baptism is, under all circumstances, a necessary condition of church-fellowship, and it is impossible for the Baptists to act otherwise. The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridi- cule, and silence the clamor, of those who loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding, which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, tJieir own principles would compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common principle, from which the practice deemed so oflfensive is the necessary result. Considered as an argumentum ad Jiominem, or an appeal to avowed principles of our opponents, this reasoning ma}' be sufficient to shield us from that severity of reproach to which we are often exposed ; nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a system which is sanctioned by our accusers." Were the Lord's Supper our supper, or " were communion at the Lord's table a sign of Chi-istian fellowship merel}'', the case would be eutirel}' different, and Baptists would then gladly invite aU who give evidence of 378 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. faith to partake with them." But, "as the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, they [the Baptists] hold that none but members of the church obser^dng it are strictly entitled to partake, and that none can be properly invited to join with them in the service who could not be welcomed without change of views to fuU membership" (Tract of Dr. Hovey on " Close Communion," pp. 65, 67). As the churches of Christ from apostohc times have generally held, and as our evangelical Pedobaptist brethren do now hold, that only baptized persons whose " deportment becometh the gospel of Christ " are scriptural^ qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper, and as our friends, no less than ourselves, thus practise a "restricted" communion, even refusing to commune with large multitudes of their own baptized members, and hence are far more " close " and " exclusive " than we are, so it is with no good reason that we are termed " exclusivists," or our communion is branded as " close." Indeed, the controversy between us does not relate at all to the terms of admission to the Lord's Supper ; but it " relates," as Dr. Hovey sa^^s in the afore-mentioned tract, " to the subjects and the rite of haptism. A more careful examina- tion of this question may perhaps in time, by the blessing of God, bring together those who now differ ; and if it does, whether by a change of behef on the part of Baptists, or by a change on the part of Pedobaptists, the former will be reheved of a duty the performance of which occasions them far more sorrow than ^it does others, — the duty of restricting their invitation to the Lord's Sup- per to members of Baptist churches. Such a ' consummation is devoutly to be wished.' May God hasten it by reveahng His truth to aU who love our Lord Jesus Christ ! " (See also Dr. Hovey 's article on "Close Commimion" in "Bibliotheca Sacra," Janu- ary, 1862 ; and on " The Symbohsm of Baptism and of the Com- munion," and on "The Eelation of the One Rite to the Other," see the " Madison- Avenue Lectures.") "We have spoken to our Pedo- baptist brethren of " a more excellent way;" but, in our view, the MOST excellent way for our Mends would be to think less about the "one table," and more of the "one baptism," and to ac- knowledge this "one baptism" (of behevers) in their practice. Paul does not say, " One Lord, one faith, and — one communion- table," but " One Lord, one faith, and one baptism,." K we can come to agree rightly on these points, this of itself wOl secure the one STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 379 table, the union of Christians, the fellowship of the churches, and aU will thereby be enabled " to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Wherever the blame may lie, none can more deepty regret than Baptists the division which separates us from our Christian brethren. With Dr. Hovey, we are free to confess that the so-called ' ' close communion ' ' which is practised by most Baptist Christians in this country is more painful to us than it can be to our Pedobaptist friends ; and if any one can show us a way whereby we can consistently and properly, without indorsing what we deem to be error, without reproaching our own baptism and the baptism which we deem to be the Lord's, unite in the communion of the Lord's Supper with those whom we niust deem unbaptized Christians, and with whom we can have no reciprocal church-fel- low sMp, he shall have, at least, my hearty thanks. In the mean- while, if our restricted communion does have in us a look of Pharisaism, or superior self-righteousness, this very look, we trust, is enough to keep us duly humble. We certainly hope and trust, that, in ourself at least, we have never experienced the " ill eifects of Baptist doctrine" as enumerated by Hutchings ; namely, "self- complacency," "self-conceit," " spmtual pride," " censorious- ness," " uncharitableness," &c. : and we opine that the bodj' of Baptist behevers is quite as free from denominational bigotry and real exclusiveness as some other religious bodies we could mention. But, after all, the great trouble, as we have already intimated, lies farther back than in the question of communion. Mere "open communion," as matters now stand, wiU not heal aU the difficulty, or -secure the much-desired Christian charity and union. Carson was an open-communionist, and 3'et he does not appear to have been over-ardently loved by Pedobaptist writers. When the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel joined the body of Baptist behevers, many a hard and bitter word was spoken against him and his course, although he was an advocate of " free communion." In- deed, open communion without the fuUest reciprocal church-fe\k>w- ship is, in reality, but a mocker}^ and a farce. Hence we do not think that much is gained hy those Baptists, who, like Spm-geon, practise a free communion, and yet keep a " close " church. For the retort will still be, " How do 3'ou expect we can be gathered into one fold and church above, when you debar us from j'our church on earth? " Certain it is that mere unrestricted communion wUl not 380 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. prevent the "profane scoffs" of which Dr. Wall was ashamed, and the Church of God will still be " islanded " off into impassable sects. With the present sharp diversity of views, and frequent bitterness of controversy, there may possibty be an outward " communion," but no union in heart, and no general ecclesiastical fellowship and unit}". The Saviour's seamless garment will stiU have an unseemly rent. When will His prayer, that all believers in Him may be " one," be answered? Is there in prospect a possibility that there shall be a general church-fellowship among Protestant evangelical believers ? Dr. S chaff closes his incomparable ' ' History of Ancient Christianity ' ' with these words : ' ' We believe in, and hope for, one holy Catholic Apostolic Church, one communion of saints, one fold, and one Shepherd." This belief and hope might perhaps be partially realized, could our Pedobaptist ministers and churches consistently and heartily adopt the views and feelings of Dr. E. de Pressense on the subject of immersion and of infant-baptism ; since this, most certainly, would create an era of good feeling, so far, at least, as Baptists are concerned, even if it did not lead to a general or partial intercommunion. For such ministers and such churches would be essentially baptistic in spirit; and, though they practised but the " compends " or abridgments of a proper baptism, they would not hesitate, as Cj'prian did not, to acknowledge them as such ; and though, unlike Cj'prian, they should practise them when necessity did not compel, they would jet endeavor to do so with the fuller meaning of the ^'■unabridged" rite kept in view. But how is it possible that any clear-headed Evangehcal Protestant Clu^istian can for a moment entertain the idea that any " church " has the right essentially to " modify a form and rite " of Christ's appointing ' ' according to times and places ' ' ? Baptism as a sj'mbolical rite "is," in the words of Dr. Hovey, "first of all pictorial language, a vi^id and divinely chosen em- blem, working with the power of truth on the soul, and they [to whom the value of that rite depends upon what it expresses] would as soon think of changing the original text of Scripture as of changing this significant rite." What individual member, or what churches of any of our Protestant denominations, would dare so far to " modif}^ " the form and rite of the Lord's Supper, that, in order "to comprehend the value of this august symbol," we should be obliged to go back to the times of the patrists and the STUDIES ON BAPTISM. 381 apostles, and "consider it under its iDrimitive form " ? Yet the example of a Calvin, a Pressense, and a Stanley, shows that such a thing lies within the bounds of possibility.^ The words of Pressense, which we quote from Dr. Tlovej's article in "The Baptist Quarterly" for 1875, p. 146, and with which we shall close our present discussion, are as follows : "To comprehend the value of this august sj'mbol (baptism) , we must consider it under its primitive form. I declare at the outset, that I admit the right of the church to modify a form and rite accord- ing to times and places. The new covenant is not bound, as was the old, to a Levitical code which rules absolutely all the details of worship, all religious usages. The details are left to Christian liberty ; and forms may be varied, provided the spirit of the gospel be not changed. Let it, then, be well understood that we raise no objection to the actual form of baptism in our churches. We believe that it would be an act of Judaism to protest against it, giving thereby an exaggerated importance to a question of this nature. The West can reproduce with difficult}^ the ceremonies of the East, and we understand very well that sprinkling has been substituted for immersion.^ Nevertheless, to seize with entire 1 It would seem that some Pedobaptists in this country are following in the steps of Calvin and Pressense. Professor L. L. Paine, D.D., of the Bangor Theological Seminary, speaks thus decisively of immersion as the physical act of primitive baptism. He says, " The testimony is ample and decisive. No matter of church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all church historians of any repute agree in accepting it. We can- not claim even originality in teaching it in a Congregational seminary, and we really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point on which ancient, medi93val, and modern historians alike. Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. And the simple reason for this unanimity is, that the state- ments of the early fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these state- ments from the early customs of the church is so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to " (see Burrage's Act of Baptism, p. 37). Yet Professor Paine, in justification of the use of compends, alleges that the essence of the sign consists in the fact that water is used without regard to quantity ; that the essence of baptism does not consist in external act, but iu a "spiritual cleansing;" and that the ^'form of the rite is suhject to the laws of Christian Uhert]/." ^ Dr. Wall remarks, that it was in France, not a cold country, where the compends of baptism, pouring and sprinlding, first came into general use ; 382 STUDIES ON BAPTISM. clearness the primary idea of the sacrament of regeneration, we must in some way make a primitive baptism assist us. The neo- phyte was first plunged in the water ; and then, when he had emerged, he received the imposition of hands. These two acts of baptism represented the two grand sides of the Christian life, — re- pentance and faith, death and the new life. The neophj-te is buried under the waters in sign of his voluntary death to self, in which every serious conversion begins : he becomes one who is planted in the crucifixion of his Saviour. Then he emerges to light in sign of his inward renewal : he becomes one who is planted in the resur- rection of Jesus Christ. Thus is figured in a manner the most expressive and solemn all this grand drama of regeneration." In reference to infant-baptism he thus remarks : ' ' The practice of baptizing the newly born was early introduced into the church ; though it does not reach back, in our belief, to the apostolic age. . . . We thinli it would be better, in a world where illusions are so eas}^, not to. place the sign before the thing signified, for fear that the symbol might be considered as sufficient, and faith be dispensed with, under the pretext that one has received the august mark of it. We hope the church will reform its practice on this point, and thus approach the apostohc type. ... I hope that in the future this need" (which pious parents feel of consecrating their children to God), "so natural and so Christian, may be satisfied in a manner altogether legitimate, by the introduction of a simple and affecting ceremon}' which will content the heart, without subjecting to any alteration a great ordinance of primitive Christianity, and without tempting the unbelieving multitude to a deadly formahsm." To which expressed deskes we can only say, ' ' Amen and Amen." and that it was in the same country that anti-pedobaptism first made its appearance. He supjjoses there was a causal connection between the two events, and he presents this as one reason why the clergy of the Church of England should practise the "primitive baptism." We believe that " sprin- kling," as one mode of baptism, was first authorized at a council in Ravenna, A.D. 1311, by him whose prerogative it is " to change times and laws." Its language was, "Ipsam formam . . . recensemus: Petre! Ego baptize te . . . sub trina aspersione vel immersione." , APPENDIX. APPENDIX. NOTE I., P. 42. It is well known that neither the English nor the American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer recognizes sprinkling as baptism, but that dipping (especially in the English rubric) is enjoined as the general rule, and pouring only in extraordinary cases. So " the prayer immedi- ately before the immersion, or the pouring of water on the infant," thus reads : " Sanctify this water, . . . and grant that this child now to be baptized therein," &c. And also the Catechism : " What is the outwardi visible sign or form of baptism? Ans. — Water, wlierein the person is baptized," &c. The opening prayer, too, of the baptismal service makes mention of "the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ in the River Jordan." The first prayer in the Baptismal Office of 1549, taken almost verbatim from the Cologne liturgy as prepared in 1543 by Martin Bucer for Archbishop Hermann, from Luther's " Tauf biichlein " of 1524, or his Latin version of 1526, is still more explicit : " Almighty God, which in old time didst destroy the wicked world with the flood accord- ing to thy terrible {Jwrribili) judgment, and didst preserve only the family of godly Noah, eight souls, of thy unspeakable mercy ; and which, also didst drown in the Red Sea obstinate Pharaoh, the king of the Egyp- tians, with all his army and warlike power, and causedst thy people Israel to pass over with dry feet ; and wouldst shadow in them holy bap- tism, the laver of regeneration ; furthermore, which didst consecrate Jor- dan with the baptism of thy Son Christ Jesus, and other waters to holy dipping (arf sanctam demersionem), and washing of sins : We pray thee, for thy exceeding mercy, look favorably iipon this infant; give him true faith and thy Holy Spirit, that whatsoever filth he hath taken from Adam it may be drowned and be put away by this holy flood (per hoc sacrosanctum diluvium in eo • submergatur, &c.). See "A. History of tlie Book of Common Prayer," by Francis Procter, M.A., Vicar: of Witton, p. 364, and Goode "On Baptism," p. 544. The prayer of consecration 886 386 APPENDIX. in 1549 thus reads : " O most merciful God our Saviour Jesa Christ, . . . upon whom, being baptized in the River Jordan, the Holy Ghost came down in likeness of a dove, . . . sanctify this fountain of baptism, . . . that, by the power of thy word, all those that shall be baptized therein may be spiritually regenerated, &c. O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in them that shall be baptized in this fountain may be so buried, that the new man may be raised up again. Almighty, ever-living God, . . . grant that all thy servants which shall be baptized in this water," &c. This form of consecration was, at the instance of Martin Bucer, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, omitted in the revision of 1552 (the second under Edward VI.), together with the mention of the destruction of the old world, and of the " obstinate " Pharaoh by water. The " Venerable Bede," born about A.D. 672, author of the early Eccle- siastical History of England, thus speaks of the baptismal mersion of his day : " The person to be baptized is seen to descend into the font ; he is seen when he is dipped in the waters ; he is seen to ascend from the waters (pidetur aquts intingl, videtur de aquis ascendere) : but what effect the washing of regeneration works in him can be least seen. Thus the piety of the faithful alone knows that the candidate descends into the font a sinner, but ascends purified from guilt; he descends a son of death, but ascends a son of the resurrection ; he descends a son of apos- tasy, he ascends a son of reconciliation ; he descends a son of wrath, he ascends a son of mercy ; he descends a son of the Devil, he ascends a son of God " (see Burrage on " The Act of Baptism," p. 230 ; also Cathcart's "Baptism of the Ages," p. 34). The following is Bede's account of the baptism of King Edwin by Paulinus : " King Edwin, with all the nobility of the nation, and a large number of the people, received the faith and the washing of the holy regeneration in the eleventh year of his reign, which is the year of the incarnation of our Lord six hundred and twenty-seven. He was baptized at York on the holy day of Easter, being the 12th of April, in the Church of St. Peter the apostle, which he himself had built of timber whilst he was being catechised and instructed in order to receive baptism. ... So great was then the fervor of the faith, as is reported, and the desire of the washing of salvation, among the Northumbrians, that Paulinus at a certain time, coming with the king and queen to the royal villa called Adgefrin, staid there with them thirty-six days, fully occupied in catechising and baptizing ; during which days, from morning till night, he did nothing else but instruct the people, resorting from all villages and places, in Christ's saving word ; and, when instructed, he washed them with the water of abso- lution in the River Glen. . . . These things happened in the province of the Bemicians ; but in that of Deiri also, where he was wont often to be with the king, he baptized in the River Swale, which runs by the APPENDIX. 387 Tillage of Cataract; for, as yet, oratories or baptisteries could not be made there in the early infancy of the church" (see " Act of Baptism," p. 79, and "Baptism of the Ages," p. 30). A council held at Celichyth, England, in 816, enjoins upon the priests, that, "when they administer holy baptism, they must not pour the sacred water upon the heads of the infants, but these must always be immersed in the font, as the Son gave His own example to every believer when He was thrice immersed in the waters of Jordan." The Council of Worcester, A.D. 1240, orders " trina semper fiat emersio baptizandi," — that the trine immersion should always be used. A council in Exeter, England, 1287, enjoined immer- sion, even in the case of sick and dying infants. Erasmus, in the early part of the sixteenth century, says, " Perfunduntur apud nos, merguntur apud Anglos : " i.e., with the Dutch, pouring is customary ; but in Eng- gland they are dipped. Trine immersion was also enjoined in the Sarum Manual of 1530, and was customary in the days of Henry VHI. ; his own children, Mary, Edward, Elizabeth, having been " thryce dypped " in the font. So the first Liturgy of Edward VI., 1549, directs that " The Prieste shall take the childe in his handes, and aske his name, and, namyng the childe, shall dyppe it in the water thryce, first dipping the right side, seconde the left side, the third time dipping the face towarde the fonte so it bee discretely and warely done." Bat, "if the childe be weak, it shall sufiice to pour water upon it." In the Second Book of Edward VI., in the First Book of Elizabeth (1559), and in King James' " Hampton-Court Book " (1604), the " tluyce " is omitted, and the order runs thus : " Then the priest shall take the child in his hands, . . . and, naming the child, shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done. . . . And if the child be weak,'' &c. The liturgy, as finally revised and settled in the Savoy Convo- cation under Charles II. (1661), and sanctioned by Parliament (1662), thus reads : " Then the priest shall take the child into his hands, and shall say to the godfathers and godmothers, Xame this child ; and then, naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the child may well endure it), he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily. . . . But, if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." In obedience to this rubric, John Wesley, in Georgia. A.D. 1736, refused to baptize a healthy child because its parents would not con- sent to a dipping. The record of his journal thus reads: ^'Wedne^daij, May 5. — I was asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker, second bailiff of Savannah. But Mrs. Parker told me, 'Neither Mr. Parker nor I will consent to its being dipped.' I answered, ' If you certify that your child is weak, it will suffice, the rubric says, to pour water upon it.' She replied, 'Nay, the child is not weak; but I am resolved it shall not be dipped.' This argument I could not confute. So I went home, and 388 APPENDIX. the child was baptized by another person " ("Wesley's "Works," vol. i. p. 134). The first Prayer-Book (1549.) prescribes, for the private baptism of infants, this form : " First, let them that be present call upon God for His grace, and say the Lord's Prayer, if the time will suffer [this is in case of danger of the child's death]. And then -one of them [that is, of the'midwives or assistants present] shall name the child, and dip him in the water, or pour water upon him," &c. And this form stood down to the time of the Hampton-court Conference (1604) under King James, whose "Highnesse " expressed a strong dislike against the "baptizing by women and laikes." In 1689 a commission appointed by William IH., consisting of such names as Stillingfleet, Patrick, Tillotson, Beveridge, &c., attempted to "prepare such alterations of the liturgy and canons ... as might most conduce to the good order and edification and unity of the Church of England, and to the reconciling, as much as possible, all differences; " in other words, to draw in as many dissenters as pos- sible. Among the alterations proposed by the commissioners, amount- ing to five himdred and ninety-eight articles (had these been adopted, there probably would have been no " Ref orined " Episcopal Church in our day), was one which recommended sprinkling, along with dipping and' pouring, as one form of baptism. But the labors of these com- missioners finally "miscarried," and amounted to nothing. For further testimony relating to the mode of baptism in the early Anglican Church see Appendix I, Note B, p. 6, seq., ot Dr. S. S. Cutting's "Historical Vindications ; " the " Baptism of the Ages," by Dr. Cathcart ; the " Act of Baptism," by Rev. H. S.- Burrage ; also Crosby's " History of the English Baptists," and Robinson's "History of Baptism." Francis Simpson, in his work on English " Baptismal Fonts," says, " From the time of the Reformation to the days of Puritanic fury in the reign of Charles I., there was a strong propensity to remove or neglect the font, and use a basin instead. This was checked so long as it was possible." According to D?. Wall, pouring (in case of health) was introduced into England in the time of Queen Elizabeth by those " Presbyterianly inclined," and mainly through the influence of the Geneva Church and of Calvin, who, as Wall says, "was the first in the world that drew up a form of liturgy that prescribed pouring water on the infant absolutely, without saying any thing of dipping." "For two reigns," says this same author, "pouring water on the face of the infant was most in fashion." Subsequently, "these men [the Presby- terians], out of opposition to the Chui'ch of England, I think, brought the external part of this sacrament to a less significant symbol than Calvin himself had done (for he directs pouring water on the face), and in most places changed pouring to sprinkling. This scandalized many people ; and indeed it was and is really scandalous " (" Defence of APPENDIX. 389 the History of Infant-Baptism," pp. 127-130). Dr. Wall, it will be ob- served, was not cordially " inclined " towards the Presbyterians, or their famous Westminster Assembly, where, under the leadership of Dr. John Lightfoot, "they reformed the font into a basin" ("about the bigness of a syllabub pot ") for sprinkling, whereby, as it seemed to the learned Selden, "the parson baptized his own fingers rather than the child." But the good doctor might have told us that not all the Westminster divines were in favor of legalizing sprinkling at the expense 6f dipping, as there were twenty-four votes for retaining dipping along with pour- ing and sprinkling, and only twenty-five (a majority of one) against it. " So many," ■writes Dr. Lightfoot, " were unwilling to have dipping ex- cluded, that the votes came to an equality, within one. . . . And there grew a great heat upon it," ^ &c. The American rubric declares less emphatically for dipping than the English ; yet it places immersion before the pouring of water. The spe- cific direction for baptizing the child is this : "And then, naming it after them, he shall dip it in the water discreetly, or shall pour water upon it." Yet the two bishops (Seabury and White) who had most to do with the Prayer-Book revision of 1789 both conceded that complete immersion was the apostolic practice; the former asserting "that the original mode of Christian baptism was ... by washing or immersing the whole body in water," and that "this, too, seems most congruous to the general expres- sions of Holy Scripture ; " while the latter says, " I dare not deny or con- ceal, that in the gospel age, and for some ages afterwards, immersion was the usual mode ; " and also acknowledges "that the present general prac- tice is a deviation from what it was originally, which it is desirable to restore," &c. NOTE H., P. 145. The true site of Muon is a matter of much uncertainty.' Eusebius and Jerome locate it in the north-easterly part of Samaria, between 1 Dr. Wall, after speaking of their " reforming the font into a basin," says, " This learned assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians long before the beginning of Po^iery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptism, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery: and that, accordingly, all those countries in which the usurpetl j^ower of the Pope is, or has formerly been, owned, have left off dipping of children in the font; but that all other countries in the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still use it; and that basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves." — History of Infant-Baptism, part ii., p. 303, edition of 1705. 390 APPENDIX. seven and eight miles south of Scythopolis or Bethshean, " near to Salim and the Jordan." The first three evangelists state or imply that John baptized in the Jordan, without mentioning any other place or water: hence, when the fourth Gospel speaks, apparently, of his baptizing in Bethabara, or, according to the best MSS., Bethany, beyond or across the Jordan (thus distinguishing it from the Bethany near Jerusalem?), it is rightly supposed that this Bethany was situated on the east bank of the Jordan, and that thus John baptized in this river. ^ In like manner, Winer, in his " Realwoerterbuch," gives it as his opinion, that if ^non, in accordance with the above tradition, lay near the Jordan, then John administered the rite in this river, as was his custom, and not in any of ^non's fountains. W. N. Cote, in his "Baptism and Baptisteries," p. 100, afhrms, without any misgiving, that "John the Baptist immersed in the River Jordan at ^non, where there was much water." We observe also that Dr. G. W. Samson, in his " Sufficiency of Water for Baptizing at Jerusalem, and elsewhere in Palestine," adopts the same view. He speaks of it as an established fact, that "it was situated on the Jordan.''' But the gospel narratives nowhere indicate any connection between JEnon and the Jordan, as they do in regard to Bethany. The very name " Ainon " — meaning, probably, not Tauben-quell, or Dove-spring, as Meyer has it, nor " Fountain of On," as C. Taylor supposes, but simply "fountains" — bears witness, we think, against its location on the Jordan. These fountains, being probably several in number, and forming, we 1 Bethany, or Bethabara, " where John was baptizing," has been com- monly located (as by Kiepert) easterly from Jerusalem, near to Jericho and the Dead Sea : but Stanley puts it near Succoth, about half way from Jericho to the Sea of Galilee; while Lieut. Conder places it not far indeed from the ^non of Eusebius and Jerome, near to Beisan, the ancient Bethshean, in Korthern Samaria, about tv.'enty-two miles from Kefr Kenna, or Cana, to which place our Saviour seems to have come from the Jordan Bethany, as some suppose, in one day (see John i. 4-3, ii. 1). Professor Hackett, we may remark, supposes that Jesus was baptized in the Lower Jordan, bordering on the " wilderness of Judsea," and not in Bethany, on the east side of the Jordan, since the Judean wilderness did not, even in part, lie on the east of that river; and consequently, that when Jesus, after the forty-days' tempta- tion, rejoined the Baptist (at Bethany), "it was at a diiferent place from the one where He Himself had been baptized." Lieut. Conder says that " Ba- thania, meaning ' soft soil,' was the well-known form used, in the time of Christ, of Bashan ; which district was in Persea, or the country beyond Jor- dan." He also supposes that "perhaps the original text contained both names, ' Bethabara in Bethany,' beyond Jordan." 'Abdrah means " passage," or " ferry; " and the only place where this word is found on the maps is " just above the i^lace where the Jalud Eiver, flowing down the valley of Jezreel and by Beisan, debouches into the Jordan." (See Tent-Work in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 64, seq.) APPENDIX. 391 may sni)i>ose, but tme stream, -were the source of a large supply or great abundance of "water, and thus furnished a fit place for the immersion of great numbers. Hence the evangelist informs us of the presence of " many waters " or much water in ^non as a reason for John's baptiz- ing there ; and the plain and natural imislication of his whole statement is, that these many waters were employed solely for the purpose of bap- tizing. Our friends may, if they please, metamorphose these " hudata polla " — a phrase which elsewhere in the Scriptures denotes a large collec- tion or great body of water — into many "springs " or many " streams," provided they leave us, as they generally do, a sufl&ciency of water for immersion. If, now, ^non was distant from any river, and its springs were the source of the waters which were used for the baptizing of great multitudes, then there is a manifest and sufficient reason why the evangelist, in accounting for John's baptizing in ^non, should state that there was " much water " in that place. But if ^nou, like Bethany, bordered upon the Jordan, then it were as superfluous and senseless to make mention of its many waters in connection with baptism, as it would have been to speak of the many waters of Bethany, ^non and Salim, says Dr. Robinson, " were probably at a considerable distance from the Jordan ; otherwise the evangelist would hardly have mentioned the abundance of water." If, as Dr. Dale intimates, this Bethany (meaning the "house of dates," or, as some suppose, "house of ships; " although, according to Robinson's " Physical Geography of the Hbly Land," p. 165, " it does not appear that a boat ever floated on the waters of the Jordan until the present century, . . . the stream was everywhere forded") lay some .dis- tance "beyond the Jordan," then we can only conclude that the events referred to in John i. 19-27 transpired in this Bethany, while the place " where John was baptizing " was the Jordan. It is not in the gospel narrative distinctly stated, as is the case with ^non, that John was baptizing in Bethany. Dr. Dale, as we have seen, from the force of the word " also " in John iii. 23, makes both John and Jesus baptize in one place, though in or at different springs. But nothing in the original demands this interpretation : and we prefer, for many reasons, the rendering of Meyer; to wit, that " John was also engaged in baptizing," as well as Jesus. "When Jesus," says Olshauscu, " left the city. He bent His steps towards the Jordan, where He baptized. . . . John, also, was baptizing in the neighborhood (iEnon), because the water there, being deep, afforded con- veniences for immersion." It is a little singular that a modern Greek sea-captain, as we somewhere have read, should speak of the shallow waters, where his vessel could not easily float, as being oliga, or " few." One chief object of Dr. Robinson in visiting the northern GhOr of the 392 APPENDIX. Jordan, on his second tour in Palestine, was "to make all possible search for Salim, and the JEnon near by, where John is recorded as bap- tizing ; " but, after making constant and persevering inquiries, they " could obtain no trace of corresponding names or ruins," and were obliged to confess, " Our search was fruitless." He further adds, "that, so far as the language of Scripture is concerned, the place near which John was baptizing may just as well have been the Salim, over against Nabulus, where, as we have seen, there are two large fountains " ("Biblical Researches," vol. iii. p. 333). Lieut. Conder, in his "Tent- Work in Palestine," vol. i. p. 01, also locates iEuon in this vicinity; to wit, at " the springs which lie at the head of the great Far'ah [' Fari'a '] Valley, the open highway from the Damieh ford of Jor- dan to Shechem. . . . The head-springs are found in an open valley surrounded by desolate and shapeless hills. The water gushes out over a stony bed, and flows rapidly down in a fine stream surrounded by bushes of oleander. The supply is perennial ; and a continual succession of little springs occurs along the bed of the valley, so that the current becomes the principal western affluent of Jordan south of the vale of Jezreel. The valley is open in most parts of its course, and we find the two requisites for the scene of baptism of a huge multitude, — an open space, and abundance of water. Not only does the name of Salem occur in the village, three miles south of the valley, but the name ^non, signifying 'springs,' is recognizable at the village of Ainun, four miles north of the stream. . . . 'the site of Wady Far'ah is the only one where all the requisites are met, — the two names, the fine water-supply, the proximity of the desert, and the open character of the ground." It is our opinion, not that Samaria, but that the country of Judaea, or its "wilderness " (lying east and south of Jerusalem, bordering on the Lower Jordan and the Dead Sea), where John was born (in Juttah, as E,eland and Robinson suppose), and where he lived and labored, and •near which, in the Castle of Machserus, on the eastern coast of the Dead Sea, as Josephus relates, he lost his life, must furnish the baptisteries for all of John's baptisms. Hence we have been greatly interested in the discovery, by J. T. Barclay, M.D. (a missionary of the Campbellite persuasion), of "many fountains" and of "much water" in the Wady Farah, about six miles north-east of Jerusalem (see his " City of the Great King," pp. 558-570). Having heard of " a wonderful monster fountain " near the junction of "Wady Farah (Valley of Delight) with Wady Fuwah, they were determined to visit it. " Arrived at the spot," he says, "we found, that, though not exactly realizing the American idea of a river, it was certainly a most copious [though intermittent] fountain and 'depth springing out of the valley,' capable of driving several mills as it gushes forth from the earth. . . . We passed some APPENDIX. 393 half-dozen expansions of the stream, constituting the most beautiful natural natatoria I have ever seen ; the water rivalling the atmosphere itself in transparency ; of depths varying from a few inches to a fathom and more, shaded on one or both sides by umbrageous fig-trees, and some- times contained in naturally excavated basins of red-mottled marble, an occasional variegation of the common limestone of the country. These pools are supplied by some half-dozen springs of the purest and coldest water, bursting from rocky crevices at various intervals. ' Verily,' thought I, ' we have stumbled upon ^non.' ' Many fountains,' I believe, is what Professor Robinson, the great biblical geographer and lexicographer, prefers rendering the ' polla hudata ' of ^non : and here are not only ' many fountains,' but literally ' much water ; ' thus accommodating each translation. . . . On inquiring [of a native], when within a mile and a half of the fountains, ' Shu ismo hatha ready ? ' (' AVhat is the name of this wady ? ') I had the satisfaction of hearing him pronounce the identical word (Salim), and soon was conducted to the site of an ancient city. It is true, that, on further inquiry of others, it was pronounced somewhat differently, — Sillim, Silim, Sulim, Saleim, SaUem, Selam, &c. ; quite as near an approximation, however, to the present Hebrew orthography, as could be expected from the slippery tongue of Arabs. . . . The perfectly limpid water of the upper fountain, being received into a somewhat hemispherical or bowl-shaped excavation in reddish and greenish mottled marble, eight or ten feet diameter, and about half as deep, is not inaptly compared to a bird's eye when reflecting the hues of the sky." The waters, after "tumbling eastward ten miles," empty into the Jordan under the name of Kelt; which wady (or valley), as Dr. Robinson conjectures, "may have beea the Brook Cherith, where the prophet Elijah hid himself, and was fed by ravens" (1 Kings, xvii. 3, 7). Dr. Barclay expresses "an assured conviction that this place is indeed no other than the ^non (fountains) near to Salim where John was baptizing, ' because there was much water there.' " We hope to hear further from this interesting locality. NOTE III., P. 180. Many subterranean reservoirs have been discovered in the Holy City since even the time of Dr. Robinson; yet he himself, as it appears to me, has, by his own description of the fountains, cisterns, and pools in and around Jerusalem (in his " Biblical Researches in Palestine," vols. i. pp. 323-3^8, and iii. pp. 243-251), effectually removed the " apparently insuperable difficulty in the scarcity of water " which to his mind " lies against the idea of the full immersion " of the thousands (eight, as he 394 APPENDIX. supposes) who were converted and baptized at and soon after the time of the Pentecost. He finds, it is true, but "three small fountains" outside of the city. The first of these three, and the one nearest the city on the south-east, is the Fountain of the Virgin (sometimes- called the Fountain of Siloam, in distinction from its pool); perhaps, says Eobinson, the "King's Pool" of Neh. ii. 14, and " Solomon's Pool" of Josephus, and designated by Capt. Charles Warren (in the "Eecovery of Jerusalem ") as the En Rogel of the Old Testament. From its inter- mittent flow, Eobinson conjectures that it may have been the Pool of Bethesda. Contrary to the usual opinion, this fountain, perhaps ttie fons perennis aquce of Tacitus, appears to have no connection with the subterranean fountains or pools of the temple-grounds; yet Capt. War- ren makes mention of " a passage cut seventy feet into the rocky hill- side on a level, [opening] into a perpendicular shaft running upwards for fifty feet, then a flight of steps, a long, broad passage, and again a flight of steps leading to a vault on the side of Ophel, inside the city walls." By this means, as he supposes, the waters of the fountain were made available to "the people of the city from the inside," when Hezekiah. " stopped " the fountain on the outside (2 Chron. xxsii. 4). (See War- ren's " Underground Jerusalem," p. 332.) Other writers, we may re- mark, have regarded this rock-cut passage as having been connected with the drainage of the city, and have spoken of it as "an ancient sewer." The basin of this fountain, which is reached by descending two flights of steps, twenty-six in number (or twenty-nine according to Professor Hackett), is ""fifteen feet long by five or six wide." Lieut. Conder strangely supposes that this fountain is the " Upper Gihon or ' spring-head,' whence Hezekiah's aqueduct still leads down to Siloam or Gihon in the valley." " Every day," according to this writer, "crowds of both sexes go down to the spring, and, entering the dark archway, descend the steps, and await the fitful troubling of the waters, which rise suddenly and immerse them, fully clothed, nearly up to the neck " (see " Tent- Work in Palestine," vol. i. p. 313). Query: What do they do with their wet clothes'? Connected with this fountain by a subter- ranean passage seventeen hundred and fifty feet long (through which Dr. Eobinson " crawled," — the first foreigner, we believe, who performed that feat), though the distance by a straight line is but twelve hundred feet, is the Pool of Siloam, at the foot of Ophel (see ISTeh. iii. 15, 16 ; John ix. 7), — "a most disappointing pool " to Lieut. Conder, yet one which, in Josephus' time, had "sweet water" (nowadays some call it " brackish," others " insipid ") "in it, and this in great plenty " (" Wars," .5: 4, 1, and 5 : 9, 4). This pool — supposed by George Williams (in his " Holy City," p. 478) and by Capt. Warren to be the veritable pool of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 20), or the " King's Pool" (Neh. ii. 14, iii. 15), APPENDIX. 395 and to have been connected -with " a much larger reservoir than the present, immediately to the east of it," and still further designated by- Williams as the " Lower Pool" of Isa. xxii. 9 — is fifty-three feet long, eighteen wide, and nineteen in depth. Below this, " at the point where the three valleys of Jerusalem — viz., Hinnom, Kedron, and the Tyropoe- on — meet at the south-east of the city," is the Bir Eyub, the well of Job (or Joab or Nehemiah), probably the En Rogel of the Old Testament. The shaft of this well is sunk one hundred and twenty-five feet deep through limestone roct. "I have seen," says Dr. W. M. Thomson, for many years a missionary in Jerusalem, " the water gushing out like a mill-stream some fifteen rods south of the well, and then the whole valley was alive with people bathing in it," &c. Still below this, " about five hundred yards south of this well," is a place called by the Arabs " The Well of the Steps ; " and here, twelve feet below the surface, Capt. Warren discovered a great rock-cut aqueduct leading some eighteen hun- dred feet northward, and to the west of the well of Job, ending abruptly at the northern terminus, with rock on all sides ; from which circum- stance he supposes that this great work was never completed. Several staircases were found leading down to it ; and the conclusion which the explorer reached was, that this deep cutting was " probably for pure water." Mr. Williams conjectures, that, as the water of the well of Job has not the " insipid " taste of that of Siloam and of the wells in the vicinity of the Haram or temple area, it may be derived from an under- ground Kedron torrent, — " the brook that ran through the midst of the land," which Hezekiah " stopped." Capt. Warren holds that many fountains have been "stopped ;" that, owing to the destruction of the forests, the rainfall in Palestine has greatly decreased ; and that many brooks which once flowed with water have been filled up, and have become dry ; though he supposes that " the brook which overflowed through the midst of the land " was the one which was made to flow, and which, indeed, still continues to flow, through " a rock-cut aqueduct of very ancient construction running north and south," which the ex- plorers discovered deep down below the ruins of " Robinson's arch," near the south-west angle of the liaram walls. In regard to the Kedron on the east of the city, Capt. Warren says, " The present bottom is not the true bed; but so enormous is the accumulation of rubbish on the east side of the temple, so many millions of tons have fallen down the steep slopes, that the bottom of the valley has been quite filled up, and the present bed is really the side of the opposite hill of Olivet, some hundred feet to east of, and about forty feet above, the true bottom. During the rains, water still flows along the true bed of the Kedron, so far underground, and in such volumes, that during a heavy storm our gallery frames were damaged, and partly washed away." And he gives 396 APPENDIX. us to understand that the old water-course in this valley "still runs with water, through many months of the year, deep under the present surface" ("Underground Jerusalem," pp. 160, 161). Certainly, in former days, there were more fountains around Jerusalem than at present, or there would have been no need in Hezekiah's time (2 Chron. xxxii. 4) for '■'■much people" to have "stopped all the fountains and the brook which overflowed through the midst of the land," so that the Assyrian army could not, when besieging Jerusalem, "find much water" (Hebrew, " many waters ") . A writer in Smith's " Bible Dic- tionary " (James Fergusson) supposes that " at one time a very copious source [of water] existed somewhere north of the town, the outflow of which was stopped possibly by Hezekiah, and the water led under- ground to reservoirs in the city and below the temple." " Like Mecca, Jerusalem seems to have been in all ages remarkable for some secret source of water, from which it was copiously supplied during even the worst periods of siege and famine, and which never appears to have failed. during any period of its history." In Williams' " Holy City " descriptions are given of two fountains situated within the city walls. The first is the well to the south of and near the Haram enclosure, which Dr. Eobinson in vain sought permission to enter, but whose descent was subsequently effected, with no slight degree of romantic daring, by our fellow-countryman. Rev. S. Wolcott, whose exploit is fully reported in " Bibliotheca Sacra," 1843, pp. 24-28. He found the well to be eighty-two feet and a half deep, and the water about four feet and a half. At the bottom was a side-passage running south-easterly, which he explored for eighty feet, where he was stopped by a basin or w&ll of unknown depth, on the opposite side of which the wall shut down to the water. Dr. J. T. Barclay, in 1853, also suc- ceeded in descending this well. Pie followed the "stream" southerly for one hundred and five feet, when all further progress was cut off by the roof, the passage coming in contact with the water. The well thus appears to have no connection with the temple-grounds, while its waters have the "insipid" Siloam taste. The next fountain, hitherto un- noticed, says Williams, is within the precincts of the Church of the Flagellation, in the Via Dolorosa. In repairing the church " an immense quantity of water was required, and the well in question was exhausted and cleaned out. In two days it was full again, although it was towards the end of the dry season, before any rain had fallen " (" Holy City," p. 461). Robinson calls it an "ordinary cistern of rain-water." But, if so, how could it fill up so quickly ? Williams says, "I tasted the water : it was the water of Siloam." Thei'e are at present but two large pools within the city walls, — that of Bethesda, so called (the Birket Israil, or Pool of Israel, of the natives. APPENDIX. 397 and the Struthius of Josephus), on the east side, and the Pool of Heze- kiah on the west, called by the natives Birket el Hammam, or Pool of the Bath, because "its waters are used to supply a bath in the vicinity" (Robinson). The former pool Dr. Robinson makes to be three hundred and sixty feet long by one hundred and thirty feet wide and seventy-five feet deep ; and, by measuring under the arches, he found it to be four hundred and sixty feet in length, " and how much more we do not know." Waters from a large Haram cistern flow into this pool. Capt. Warren speaks of it as "an enormous reservoir, nearly a hundred feet deep." Yet, capacious as it is, the exploring-expedition discovered that it had an overflow-passage " twenty-five feet above the bottom of the pool," for the escape of its redundant waters. The so-called " Pool of Hezekiah " (the " Amygdalon " of Josephus, and, in Warren's view, the Lower Gihon), which, as Dr. Thomson's guide told him, " was used chiefly for baths," and which he speaks of as " an immense reservoir, capable of holding water sufficient for half the city," is, according to Dr. Robinson's meas- urement, "about two hundred and forty feet long, and a hundred and forty-four feet wide; " i.e., over three-fourths of an acre in extent. This pool was probably once connected with the Tower Hippicus mentioned by Josejphus, with the royal palace on Mount Zion, and with the "im- mense conduit " recently discovered beneath the mountain (see Robin- son, vol. iii. p. 243, seq.'). The Bordeaux Pilgrim (of the fourth century) tells us that "there are at Jerusalem two great pools at the side of the temple. . . . But more within the city are two twin pools, having fine porches," &c. Capt. Warren thinks that two of these pools are the Souterrains of the Hill Bezetha, under the Convent of the Sisters of Sion. The one is " a deep fosse cut in .the rock, about fifty feet wide and a hundred and sixty- five feet long ; " and the other is " a hundred and twenty-seven feet long, and from twenty to twenty-six feet across." In the "Recovery of Jerusalem," p. 16, Capt.- C. W. Wilson speaks of "a large pool" on the south side of the Haram area, and north of the " wailing-place," which is " partly covered by an arch " (now called Wilson's), "built with stones of great size, but without mortar, and having a span of forty-two feet." Robinson says this tank, "El Burak," discovered in 18-45, is "eighty-four feet long by forty-two feet broad, with a vaulted roof some twenty-four feet high ; " and he thinks it had " some connection " with the aqueduct from Solomon's springs. Capt. Wilson also mentions three pools once existing in the city, now filled up and destroyed ; namely, " one near the Jaffa gate, one near the gate of the Chain of the Sanctuary, and a third near the Church of St. Anne." The principal pools outside of and near the city walls are the upper and lower pools of Gihon, west of the city. The ufiper pool, Mamilla' 398 ■ APPENDIX. (which is, perhaps, the " Serpent's Pool " of Josephus) , is three hundred and sixteen feet long, two hundred and nine feet average width, and eighteen feet deep. This feeds the "Pool of Hezekiah" and other reservoirs of the city. In regard to Hezekiah's bringing water from Gihon " down to the west side of the city of David," see 2 Chrou. xxxii. 30 ; 2 Kings, xx. 20 ; Isa. xxii. 11 ; and Ecclus. xlviii. 17. The lower pool, called also the " Pool of the Sultan," is five hundred and ninety- two feet long, average width two hundred and sixty feet, and about forty feet deep, thus covering about three acres and a half, — an " immense pool," says Barclay; "a cistern," says Thomson, " of prodigious capacity." Capt. Wilson refers to " a pool near the tombs of the kings," north of the city, "now nearly filled with soil," which, he thinks, "must have been the largest pool in the neighborhood of the city." We will now take about a two-hours' ride in a southerly direction, — to Bethlehem and a little beyond that village; and some six miles from Jerusalem " as the crow flies " we shall come to the so-called " Solomon's Pools" (Eccles. ii. 6), and which, as Thomson and J. Wilson aver, "are worthy of Solomon." The upper or westernmost pool is three hundred and eighty feet long by two hundred and thirty-six feet, and two hun- dred and twenty -nine feet wide, its greatest depth fifty feet. The middle one is four hundred and twenty-three feet long by two hundred and fifty feet, and one hundred and sixty feet broad, greatest depth thirty-nine feet. The easternmost, or lowest, and largest pool, measures in length five hundred and eighty-two feet by two hundred and seven feet, and a hun- dred and forty-eight feet in breadth, greatest depth fifty feet. This pool alone covers about three acres and three-eighths ; and " when full," as Dr. Thomson says, ." it would float the largest man-of-war that ever ploughed the ocean." The surface-measurement of the three pools is nearly six acres and a half. Lying just above these pools was the "sealed fountain," and near by was the Ain Etan (or Etam). These waters were led to Jerusalem by two aqueducts (the " high level " and the "low level," as described by Wilson and Warren), and supplied in part the reservoirs and cisterns of the temple-grounds. But were these pools in existence in our Saviour's time ? and were they, indeed, constructed by Solomon? To this query Dr. Thomson (vol. ii. p. 526) thus replies : " So far, therefore, as the works them- selves are concerned, they may date back to the age of Solomon ; and, if speculation and inference were of avail in such questions, we might suppose that when Solopaon was building his magnificent temple, and adapting his capital to be the centre of the whole Hebrew race, he would not fail to make ample provision for the indispensable article of water. He. therefore, may have constructed the pools beyond Bethlehem, and built the aqueduct which brought a supply to the temple sufficient APPENDIX. 399 for the ablutions and other services of this great sanctuary ; and as the prodigious assemblies of the national feasts would require a large amount of water in different quarters, and easy of access, he made those pools on the west, and others of smaller size, distributed in and about the city for the greater convenience of the pilgrims. We find in these conditions an adequate emergency and a suitable occasion for the con- struction of these reservoirs, — a great want, a king wealthy and wise and given to building, and a time of peace. It must be remembered that we are speaking of works quite unique and extraordinary. Xo other city in this part of the world had any thing like these cisterns, and the supposition that most of them were made by Solomon and his immediate successors is not extravagant." Dr. Robinson also concedes that " their antiquity may well go back to the days of Solomon " (see his "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 284). Josephus, in his " Wars of the Jews," 2 : 9, 4, states that Pilate expended the sacred treasures, called Corban, " upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs ; " and Lieut. Conder thinks these pools to be " more probably of the same date as the aqueduct passing by them which was constructed by Pontius Pilate." He says, " To the north (of Bethsur) we discovered a ruin; . . . and near it we found the head of Pilat' 's great aqueduct to Jerusalem, never before traced to its real commencement, which is thirteen miles from Jerusa- lem as the crow ffies, and forty-one miles and a half by the aqueduct." And what about the cisterns of Jerusalem ? " The main dependence," says Dr. Thomson (vol. ii. p. 525), " for a constant and convenient supply, is, and always has been, I suppose, the domestic cisterns. Every house has one or more ; so has every church, mosque, convent, castle, and bath. . . . The house I first rented in Jerusalem had three cisterns : that of Mr. Lanneau, my missionary associate, had four; and two of his were very large. No fact in relation to this country is better attested than the extreme antiquity of cisterns, and nothing about old sites has so much surprised me as the immense number of them. Often, where every trace of buildings has disappeared, the whole site is perforated with these underground reservoirs." Dr. Robinson, wliile in Jerusalem, on his first visit to Palestine, resided in the family of Rev. Mr. Lanneau, in one of '• the better class of houses ; " and he gives the dimensions of the cisterns as follows: 1. Fifteen feet long, eight wide, and twelve deep; 2. Eight long, four wide, and fifteen deep ; 3. Ten long, ten wide, and fifteen deep; 4. Thirty long, thirty wide, and twenty deep. This last is enormously large, and the numbers given are the least estimate (" Bib- lical Researches," vol. i. p. 324). We have, of course, neither time nor space to speak of all the more important cisterns and "underground reservoirs" which have already been discovered in the Holy City. 400 , APPENDIX. The truth is, a considerable part of underground Jerusalem is honey- combed with excavations made chiefly for cistern purposes: and this is especially the case with the Haram esh Sharif, the "Noble Sanctuary; " that is, the Haram area, or the temple-grounds of Moriah. " The exist- ence," says G. Williams, " of immense reservoirs under the temple-area . . . cannot reasonably be doubted." And Capt. Wilson, in the " Recovery of Jerusalem," p. 17, remarks, " One of the peculiar features of the sanctuary is, that the ground is perfectly honeycombed with a series of remarkable rock-hewn cisterns, in which the water brought by an aque- duct from Solomon's pools, near Bethlehem, was stored." Tacitus says of the temple hill and grounds, " Templum in modum arcis, — fons peren- nis aquae, cavati sub terra montes, et piscinae, cisternseque servandis imbribus : " that is, "A perennial spring supplied the place with water; subterranean caverns were scooped out in the mountain, and there were basins and tanks as reservoirs for rain-water." The same fact is indi- cated in the native legend regarding the sacred rock of the sanctuary ; to wit, that it "lay on the top leaves of a palm-tree, from the roots of which spring all the rivers of the world." Dr. Hackett, in a note to the article "Jerusalem" in Smith's "Bible Dictionary," states, as one result of the discoveries in the Haram by Capt. Wilson (recorded in the "Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem"), that "on the premises were found twenty vaults or cisterns, varying in depth from twenty-three to sixty-two feet and a half, some containing water, others dry." A later assertion of Capt. Warren, who "had very little time for examining this place," is, that the " great number" of discovered tanks and cisterns (of which between thirty and forty are enumerated by him) do but "point to the number existing yet to be found." In the "Bible Dictionary," and in the works of Messrs. Wilson and Warren, plates are given, on which the position, shape, and size of many of these subterranean pools are indicated. " Some of these cisterns," says Capt. Wilson, " are formed by, as it were, mining out the soft rock (melekeh), and leaving a roof of the hard rock (mezzeJi) which lies above it ; whilst others are made by making an open excavation like a tank, and then arching it over with masonry" ("Recovery of Jerusalem," p. 17). Capt. Warren, in the same work, chap, vii., entitled "The Tanks and Souterrains of the Sanc- tuary," refers to tank No. 1 as " a tunnel about a hundred and thirty feet long and twenty-four feet wide, cut in a rock for eighteen feet from bottom to springing of arch," &c. Of No. 2 he says, " This is a large tank cut in rock ; but there was too much water in it for us to measure it. Length about sixty feet, breadth about fifty feet." Nos. 5, 7, 16, and 17 are noted as very large cisterns. No. 11, he says, "is capable of holding about seven hundred thousand gallons of water." The largest of all is the "royal cistern," "the great sea," marked No. 8, lying in the south- APPENDIX. 401 erly part of the Ilaram area. A small picture view of this sea is given in Van Lennep's " Bible Lands," p. 51, in J. T. Barclay's " City of the Great King," p. 526, and in Professor Sepp's "Jerusalem und das heilige Land," vol. i. p. 321. Barclay gives its dimensions as "seven hundred and thirty-six feet in circuit, and forty-two feet in depth," with a capacity of about "two millions of gallons." In wading through this "excavated sea," he found "the water nowhere much more than knee-deep." Capt. Wilson states that "one of the cisterns, that known as the Great Sea, would contain two million gallons ; and the total number of gallons which could be stoi'ed [in the cisterns of the Haram or temple-area] probably exceeded ten millions" ("Recovery of Jerusalem," p. 17). And, in the " Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem," he states that the cisterns of the Ilaram alone are sufficient to hold a year's supply for the whole city. We notice but one pool more, that marked No. 3, located, like Nos. 1, 2, and 5, near the dome of the Rock, or Mosque of Omar, and which, Capt. Warren sug- gests, *' may have been the ' House of Baptism,' communicating with the room Beth Mokad and the gate Tadi." The Mishna speaks of "houses of baptism" in connection with the temple, — one upon the roof of the chamber of Parva for the use of the high priest on the day of atonement^ and one under the temple for the priests. "If legal defilement hap- pened to one of them, he went out and proceeded in the circuit that went, under the temple, and candles flamed on either side until he arrived at, the house of baptism. And the fire was there, &c. ... He desceadedi and washed; he came up and wiped himself, and warmed himself before the fire-pile" (see Rev. Joseph Barclay's "Talmud," p. 242).. Dr. Lightfoot says that the priests, after suffering defilement, "were to bathe; . . . and the way to the bathing-place is expressed in these words : ' He goeth down a turning staircase that went under the temple.' . . .It ap- peareth it Avas some vault under ground through which they passed, into which vault they went down by a turning pair of stairs out of the north- west room of Beth Mokad. ... It seemeth the bath was under ground, and a room by it with a fire in it to warm themselves at when they had done bathing." "It is clear," says Warren, "that the house of baptism was down in some underground vault," &c. We wonder whether our Pedobaptist friends can find in these representations any. indication of the " mode " of these "Judaic," priestly baptisms, or whether they will deny the possibility of many other "houses of baptism" im the large outer courts of the temple area. Our belief is, that, in these courts alone, there were enough water facilities for the immersing of many times " three thousand " in one day. In Barclay's " Talmud " we learn that many baptisms were prescribed ■for different vessels of the sanctuary, and for differently defiled persons previous to eating the passover, the heave-offering, the tithes, and other 402 APPENDIX. "holy things." Of course the word used by the rabbins to describe these " diverse baptisms " is some form of tabal, to dip. We may see 'what provision Solomon made for having water within the temple by referring to his "molten sea," estimated to hold about seven hundred barrels of water, and the ten other lavers each holding about nine or ten barrels. The " Talmud " tells us that in the molten sea (which, according to the rabbins, was equal to "one hundred and fifty cleansiug pools," each pool [containing forty seahs] sufficient " to cover all his flesh," equivalent to " a cubit square, and three cubits in height," reckoning twenty-one inches (?) to the cubit) " were twelve pipes, that twelve priests might wash at the same time. There was a cavity near them to let the water flow olf during the night " (" Talmud," by Joseph Barclay, LL.D., pp. 350, 370). The rabbins do not appear to term this washing a baptism. For a fuller account of the water-supply of Jerusalem in former times, we refer our readers to J. T. Barclay's " City of the Great King," chap. X. pp. 291-332; also to chap, xviii. pp. 512-543 for the present "water resources of Jerusalem ; " and to chap. xix. pp. 544-579 for " waters beyond the immediate environs, but within seven miles of the city ; " also to G. Williams' "Holy City," vol. ii. chap. v. pp. 458-502; to Pro- fessor J. N. Sepp's "Jerusalem und das heilige Land," sect. xxii. pp. 321-347; " Quellen, Teiche, Kanale, und Cisternen;" and to the afore- cited works of Dr. Robinson, C. Warren, and C. W. Wilson. Whatever of truth there may be in Professor J. A. Alexander's state- ment, that in Jerusalem "there is . . . but a very scanty supply of water," it is certain that no one can truthfully make this assertion with reference to the Jerusalem of our Saviour's time ; and our hope is, never again to hear or to see mention made of the " scarcity of water " in Jeru- salem for the "full immersion" of "three thousand," or of "five," or of •" eight," or, indeed, of almost any number of thousands. NOTE IV., P. 192. Chrysostom, describing the invasion of the baptistery by the sol- ■diers, says, " They came into the church armed, and by violence expelled the clergy, killing many in the baptistery ; by which the women, who were at that time unclothed in order to be baptized, were put into such fright, that they fled away naked, and could not stay, in their terror, to put on such clothes as the modesty of the sex required " (Bingham's ^'Antiquities," vol. i. p. 536, Bohn's edition). The Latin translation of Chrysostom's Letter to Pope Innocent, as given in Montfaucon's edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. iii. p. 618, seq., is as follows: "Ipso magno APPENDIX. 403 sabbato collecta manus militum, ad vesperam diei in ecclesias ingressa, clerum omnem qui nobiscum erat vi ejecit, et armis sanctuarium undique obsedit. Mulieres quoque sacrarum asdium quae per illud tempus se exuerant ut baptizarentur metu gravis istius iucursus nudte aufugerunt ; neque enim concedebatur ut se velarent, sicut mulieres honestas decet; multse etiam acceptis vulneribus ejiciebantur, et sanguine implebentur piscinse et cruore sacri latices rubescunt," &c. See also Palladius' " Life of Chrjsostom," chap, ix., Montfaucon's edition, vol. xiii. p. 38; and, on the subject of nude immersion, Bingham's " i\ntiquities of the Christian Church," Dr. Brenner's "Darstellung der Verrichtung der Taufe," pp. 20-23 (and pp. 36, 37, where a full and vivid description of the baptism of the Pomeranians, men and women, bj Bishop Otto, is given), also Smith's "Christian Antiquities," vol. i. p. 160, and Dr. Ilovey's article on the " Present State of the Baptismal Controversy," in " Baptist Quarterly " for 1875, p. 129, seq. By consulting these authorities, we learn that the sexes were baptized apart; that the deaconesses prepared the women, led them into the waters till all but their heads were covered, when the priest came to the side of the font, and, pressing down their heads under water, pronounced the formula, and then departed. The dea- conesses then took them out of the water, and clothed them in white garments. By the use of curtain-fixtures also, as suggested in Smith's "Christian Antiquities," art. "Baptism," and other like arrangements, the attempt, at least, was made to do every thing "decently and in order." According to Hofling (" Sakrament der Taufe," vol. i. pp. 48-5, 486), the claims of modesty were met as far as possible in three ways : 1. Xotwith- standing this nudity, the parts of shame could remain covered and con- cealed ; 2. Men and women were baptized apart, and were generally kept apart from each other ; and, 3. The administrator could see and touch only the head of the candidate. The fathers seemed to have thought that this nudeness better represented the putting off of the old man, the thorough cleansing by the blood of Christ, as also the nakedness of Christ himself on the cross. It is, however, a disputed point, whether this "naked- ness " was an absolute nudity. The expression, " Xeophytarium sine tunicis et calceamentis existensium (in baptisterio)," that is, "the newly-baptized, without tunics and sandals." and some referehces of the fathers, when speaking of baptism, to the nudeness of birth, .of Christ on the cross, and of Adam in Paradise (as in Ambrose, 7iudi in sceculo nascimur, nudl elimn accedimus ad lavacrum, &c. ; so also in Cyril of Jeru- salem, Chrysostom, and others), seem to indicate entire nakedness. This may not, however, have been the case generally, if at all. Chrysostom, in vol. ii. p. 268, says, "They send you along, after your instruction, unsandaled and disrobed, with only a c/dtonUcos [under-tunic]. naked 404 APPENDIX. and barefoot (gumnous Tcai anupndetous), to the words of the exorcisers," &c. ; which, as we think, is rightly translated in the accompanying Latin version, " naked and barefoot, clad in a single tunic " (una tunica oper- tos); and rightly explained in the Index of his works, " Baptismnm accipiebant nndis pedibus nnica tunica operti," &c. ; that is, they received baptism [as well as exorcism] with naked feet, and covered with a single tunic. Few persons, we suppose, will maintain that the catechumens were entirely naked during the ceremony of renunciation and exorcism in the church, or in the porch of the baptistery (for there appears to have been a twofold renunciation of Satan), prior to profession of faith, the preparatory anointing, and the trine immersion ; yet Chrysos- tom says they were at that time "disrobed" and "naked." Notwith- standing this twofold declaration of nudity, we know that they were not then stark naked, but that, in the words of another, "to this exor- cism they went barefoot, and strij)ped of their upper garments " (see art. " Exorcism " in Smith's " Christian Antiquities ") ; and our belief also is, that they were not entirely nude, even when they entered the baptismal font. The Apostolical Constitutions, after describing the renunciation of Satan, his service and his works, and the anointing with the oil of exorcism, then says, " And let the bishop or the presbyter receive him thus unclothed to place him in the water of baptism. Also let the deacon go with him into the water, and let him say to him, helping him that he may say, ' I believe,' &c. And let him who receives (baptism) repeat after all these, 'I believe thus.' And he who bestows it shall lay his hand upon the head of him who receives, dipping him three times, confessing these things each time." Some writers, however, following the description of the rite as given by Cyril of Jerusalem, suppose this under-tunic was put off for bodily anointing previous to baptism. After speaking of the candidate's renouncing Satan, his works, pomp, and service, in the porch or outer chamber of the baptistery, he says, "Bat, when you were entered into the inner house, you took off your garment (chiton, not the chitoniscos, or undermost garment), and thus you were anointed with the holy oil from the top of the head to the sole of the feet. . . . Then you were conducted to the font of the holy baptism, and every one of you was asked whether he believed in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And you made the sound confession of faith, and were three times baptized in the water." When this church father says, " After these things [the preparatory anointing, &c., which, in the case of females, was performed by the deaconesses] ye were led by the hand to the sacred font of the divine baptism, . . . and each one was asked if he believes, &c., . . . and ye professed the saving profession, and sank down thrice into the water, and again came up," &c., no one, we think, would naturally infer from this representa- APPENDIX. 405 tion any indication of absolute nudity. Others, however, as Lundy, regard this one cJiitoniscos of the candidate (of which Chrysostom makes mention) as the white tunic to be worn after baptism ; which, of course, supposes entire nudeness during the long process of exorcism, with its attendant insufflation, imposition of hands, insignation of the cross, and prayer. But, if they were wholly nude, why refer to their being bare- foot ? for this would be understood as a matter of course ; and yet this destitution of sandals, or nakedness of feet, — a comparatively slight cir- cumstance, — is almost always referred to in the patristic descriptions of baptism. Basnage thinks it probable that "nudo capite nudis pedibus, in fontem potuerunt immergi, cunctamen obtsgentur mediae corporis partes ; " that is, that, during immersion, only the upper and lower parts of their persons were in an entirely nude condition. Thus the Pseudo- Dionysius says, that, before making renunciation, the catechumen was divested of his upper garment, and, standing barefoot and in his chiton only (whether afterwards divested of this is not said), made three sepa- rate renunciations, looking toward the west, the place of darkness ; and then, turning to the east, made thrice his confession of faith, and alle- giance to Christ. Augustine also speaks of the "humbled neck" and the "humility of the feet" of the catechumens during exorcism. His language is, " Singuli producei-emini in couspectu totius ecclesise ibique cervici humiliata, quae male fuerat ante exaltata, in humilitate pedum, cilicio substrato, in vobis celebratur examen, atque ex vobis extirparetur diabolus." Yet Chrysostom speaks of the candidates as being "dis- robed, naked, and barefoot " during the public exercises of exorcism and insufflation, prior to baptism ; which nudeness we know could not have been entii-e. In Smith's "Christian Antiquities," art. "Bax^tism," sect. 102, is a picture from a pontifical of the ninth century, which represents the immersion of an adult " wearing a tunic in the font." The writer of a work recently published bj' the London Religious Tract Society, speaking of the catechumens, says, "They then came with their feet bare; and, after they had put off their ordinary dress, they were clothed in a single tunic, and not stripped naked as Bingham relates." And the author of the sketch of Chrysostom's life in Smith's " Dictionarj' of Christian Biography," vol. i. p. 528, speaks of the "removal of outer garments " only, when the candidates were baptized ; and, when referring to the invasion of the baptistery, says that they rushed, " half dressed, shrieking, into the streets," to the baths of Constantine. In reference to the same event; the writer of the sketch relating to Easter ceremo- nies in Smith's "Christian Antiquities" thus remarks: "Many of the female catechumens were driven out only half dressed, having laid aside their outer garments in preparation for baptism." And the Rev. Mr. Marriott, in his article " On Baptism " in the same work, says, 406 APPENDIX. " Possibly a cincture' of some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have been -worn as indicated in some mediseval works of art." The Apos- tolical Constitutions, speaking, in book iii. 15, 2, of the need of deacon- esses in the baptism of women, direct that "the deacon shall anoint only their foreheads with the holy oil, and after him the deaconess shall anoint them ; for there is no necessity that the women should be seen by the men, but only in the laying on of hands the bishop shall anoint her head," &c. Again : in book iii. 16 the Constitutions thus di- rect : " Thou therefore, O bishop ! shalt anoint the head of those that are to be baptized, whether they be men or women, with the holy oil, for a type of the spiritual baptism. After that, either thou, O bishop ! or a presbyter that is under thee, shalt in the solemn form name over them the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and shalt dip them in water, and let a deacon receive the man, and the deaconess the woman, that so the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with a becoming decency." Epiphanius, as quoted in Casaubon, says, "There are also deaconesses in the church : but this office was not instituted as a priestly function, nor has it any interference with priestly administrations ; but it was instituted for the purpose of preserving a due regard to the modesty of the female sex, especially at the time of the baptismal washing, and while the person of the woman is naked, that she may not be seen by the men performing the sacred service, but by her only who is appointed to take charge of the woman during the time that she is naked" (see Epiphanius' " Haer.," 79, 3). Yet Dr. Brenner asserts that the baptism of wholly nude candidates took place "publicly before *the whole church," and quotes in confirmation of this the words of Cyril : " O wonderful thing ! you were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed." But, if this were absolute nudity, how does it comport with the needed presence of deaconesses, and with the claims of a "becoming decency"? C. Taylor goes so far as to assert that the nude female catechumens must have been immersed by the deaconesses (prior to the baptismal pouring, or sprinkling, as others will have it), and that only in this way could a "becoming decency" have been observed. Methihks, however, one, rather than run counter to so much positive testimony, had better change his views as to the complete nudeness of the candidates. We have referred in a previous chapter to the baptism, by Bishop Remigius or Remy, of Clevis (together with his sister Albofleda and other women) and more than three thousand of his army on Christmas Eve, A.D. 496: which period, we suppose, was before the reign of nudeness had passed ; for Dr. Dale tells us that even " females were dipped naked into water for a thoiisand years, and they who did it 'saw no impropriety in it.'" Verily "they who did it ' ' and they who suffered it must have felt dipping to be a necessity APPENDIX. 407 in baptism to have practised it and to have endured it under such circumstances. The baptism in the case referred to was, as we shall see, no pouring or sprinkling, but immersion. Gregory of Tours says, " The king was the first to request baptism from the pontiff. The new Constantine advances toward the bath (ad lavacrum), about to wash away .the disease of ancient leprosy and the filthy stains, borne a long time, with the f I'esh water. As he goes to baptism, the saint of God with eloquent voice addresses him : ' Sicamber, gently bow thy head ; adore what thou hast burned; burn what thou hast adored.'" Hinc- mar, Archbishop of Rheims in the first half of the ninth century, speak- ing of the baptism of Clovis by his predecessor Remigius, says, " After confessing the orthodox faith, in answer to questions put by the holy pontiff, he was, according to ecclesiastical custom, baptized by trine im- mersion (^secundum ecclesiasticnm morern haptizatus est trina mersione) in the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, — and, received by the pontiff himself from the holy font, he was anointed with sacred chrism with the sign of the holy cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, from his army three thousand men were bap- tized, without counting women and children" (Cathcart's "Baptism of the Ages," p. 90). And the liturgy which Remigius was accus- tomed to use, as given in Burrage's " Act of Baptism," p. 229, reads thus : " The presbyters or the deacons, or, if need be, the acolyths, unsandciled, and robed with other clean garments, enter the water of the fonts, and, receiving them from their parents, baptize first the males, and then the females, by trine immersion (sub trlna mersione), invoking but once the Holy Trinity, and saying, ' I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and dip once (riiergis semel), and of the Son, and dip again, and of the Holy Spirit,' and dip the third time." Certainly there is nothing in all this description which looks like a baptismal compeud, or like absolute nudity. Bunsen, describing the bajttismal ceremonies in the time of Bishop Hippolytus, who died a martyr in Rome, A.D. 235 (?), says, •' The deacons assisted the men, and the deaconesses the women, to take oft" ail their ornaments, and put on the baptismal dress." And he quotes a canon as saying, "... let them undress themselves ; and the young shall be first baptized ; and, after the adult men have been baptized, at the last the women, having loosed all their hair, and having laid aside their ornaments of gold and silver which were on them. Let not any one take a strange garment with him into the water." (See Bunsen's " Hippolytus and his Age," vol.- ii. pp. 105- 124; also the Apostolical Constitutions as above.) Origen also, in his Homily, xi. in Exodus (translated by Rufinus), says, "Lota sunt semel vestimenta tua, cum venisti ad gratiam baptismi, purificatus es cor- pore mundatus es ab omni iniquinamento carnis et spiritus : " i.e., 408 APPENDIX. ■ " Once were thy garments "washed when thou didst come to the grace of baptism ; thou wast purified in body ; thou wast cleansed from every defilement of the flesh and spirit." This serves at least to show us what our friends have often denied, that our bodies, even with our clothes on, can be "washed with pure water." Every student of the classics and of the Christian Scriptures, moreover, knows that persons were said to be "naked" when they wore only the tunic, or one garment, or were lightly clad. It would appear, however, that both sexes among the Greeks and Romans commonly wore two tunics, — a chiton, and, as in Chrysostom's reference, a cliitoniscos, or chiionion, a tunica and suhucula (see "Tunica" in Smith's " Greek and Roman Antiquities"). In view of these things, we think it very doubtful whether adult candidates were ever baptized in a perfectly nude state. But, be this as it may, it is certain that there is no necessary connection between a genuine immer- sion and nudeness. The numerous baptisms of persons in the classics involved no nudeness, and had no reference whatever to nudeness. "We can be " buried " in the baptismal waters with our clothing, even as the robed corpse is buried in the tomb, and as Jesus was buried in the sepulchre. Yet Bingham asserts that "immersion necessarily presup- poses nudeness." The Rev. William Hodges avers that immersion " stands or falls with naked subjects." The " venerable " Dr. l^Iiller and Professor J. A. Alexander affirm, in substance, that we have as much evidence in favor of immersing divested of all clothing as we have for immersing at all; and that consistency would require of us, as Baptists, to practise nude immersion at the present time. And, still later. Rev. S. Hutchings of Orange, N. J., has thrown this "nude immersion" at us in reproach, as though either we, or the idea of a genuine Christian immersion, were responsible for it. If this kind of aspersion is still to be cast upon us, we may have to remind our friends of the pseudo- baptism occasionally practised by their Pedobaptist fathers upon babes unborn, and even upon abortions. Nor can we greatly, blame those fathers if they held, with Fulgentius, truly a durus pater infantium, that parvuli, little ones, dying in utero matris, without the sacrament of holy baptism, "are punished with everlasting punishment of eternal fire" (Bingham, vol. i. p. 447, Bohn's edition ; Wall, pt. ii. chap. vi. § o). In reference to these kinds of pedobaptisms, one may consult the authori- ties in Brenner's " Darstellung," pp. 180, 224, 249; in Hofling's " Sakra- ment der Taufe," p. 128, seq. ; also in Dr. Hovey's article, p. 132, not in English, indeed, but in the Latin and German. " Rev. Charles Stan- ley," in Hutchings' "Mode of Baptism," published by the Congrega- tional Publishing Society at Boston, might have dilated, not only upon "nude immersion," but upon other and related themes, before his naixed audience (on paper) of young gentlemen and ladies . APPENDIX. 409 In regard to the number of presbyters at Constantinople who assisted at the baptizing, we are not fully certain. Chrysostom, speaking in his letter to Boniface of the multitudes who, as "oves dispersse," were driven outside the city walls on that festal night, says that " more than forty bishops who communicate with us were, without cause, put to flight with the people and clergy." Were there forty administrators of baptism on this occasion, this were comparatively a less number to perform the baptism, when all the attendant ceremonies of a patristic trine immersion are taken into account, than would be the •• twelve " in the administration of the Pentecostal baptism with its single immersion. Most of our readers, with an unspeakable thrill of gladness, have heard of the more than Pentecostal ingathering of souls in our "lone- star" mission among the Teloogoos, during the mouths of June and July, A.D. 1878. Our missionary Rev. J. E. Clouglx reports, in the September number of " The Bfiptist Missionary j\lagazine," " Total number baptized from June 16 to July 7 inclusive, 5,429." The largest number baptized on one day, July 3, was two thousand two hundred and twenty-two. The subjoined statement of the persons and time occupied in the baptizing of this large number has just come to hand : — " Some time ago the announcement was made that the Baptist mis- sionaries laboring among the Teloogoos of Ongole (India) and vicinity had just baptized 2,222 converts in one day. The story appeared to the Kev. J. li. Gunning of Titusville, Penn., to be a large one ; and so he wrote to missionary Clough at Ongole, and asked, ' How many men does it take to baptize 2,222 persons in one day ? ' Mr. Clough was too busy to answer, but passed the letter over to an associate, who replied to IMr. Gunning as follows : — " ' With reference to your question, " How many men does it take to baptize 2,222 persons in one day? " I should say that depends on several things ; but in the present case the simple reply is, " Six." But, lest this be too laconic, I will enlarge a little. Bear in mind that the baptistery was admirably situated for expeditious work. It was at the ford of a river, with a sort of basin on either side ; and no time was lost in coming or going, as the water was sufficiently deep close up to the road. Remember, too, that the examinations and all other necessary prepara- tory work had been previously attended to. The people were arranged in groups according to their villages. Only tw"o jareachers baptized at one time ; when these were tired, two others took their places ; those, in turn, were relieved by the other two ; and so on. The baptizing com- menced at about five a.m., and continued till ten. It was resumed at two P.M., and completed at six. It will thus be seen that the baptism of 2,222 converts occupied two preachers nine hours, or about thirty seconds for each candidate. If the six preachers had all been employed 410 APPENDIX. at the same time, the 2,222 converts would have been baptized in just three Jiours. "'That the time occupied was ample to do it "decently and in order " is proved by an actual experiment made on the 30th of June in Ongole. On that day Brother Clough baptized 212 converts. As he entered the baptistery, he handed Mrs. Clough his watch ; at which she looked, and marked that he began baptizing at seventeen minutes past six; and, as the last candidate rose from the water, it was precisely thirty-eight minutes past seven. The average time will be seen to be twenty-three seconds ; but no effort was made at haste.' " NOTE v., P. 194. " If the eunuch," says Dr. Thomson, " came down Wady 'Aly from Jerusalem, he would follow nearly the same track from Latron that I once took ; and this is now regarded as the easiest and safest route." Dr. Robinson also states that " the most frequented route from Jerusalem to Gaza at the present day, although the longest, is by the way of Ram- leh." See also Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," art. "Gaza." The country from Eamleh to Gaza is " nearly level," and this was the great commercial and military route between Egypt and the northern cities (Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, &c.) and nations. There are, however, two or tlxree other and more southerly routes from Jerusalem to Gaza. One is through Wady Surar via Bethshemesh. Another, and still farther south, is through Wady Musurr, by Eleutheropolis, or Beit Jibrin. Speaking of these routes. Dr. Thomson says, "I know of no brook on the route from Bethshemesh to Gaza ; but there may be one. Dr. Robinson found water in the wady below Tell el Hasy, which is midway between Beit Jibrin and Gaza, and on the direct line between them. This route would lead them near, if not quite into, the desert. The same, however, might have been true of either of the routes out in the centre of the plain, as it is at this day." Dr. Robinson's language is as follows : " "When we were at Tell el Hasy, and saw the water standing along the bottom of the ad- jacent wady, we could not but remark the coincidence of several circum- stances with the account of the eunuch's baptism. This water is on the most direct route from Beit Jibrin to Gaza, on the most southern road from Jerusalem, and in the midst of the country now 'desert;' i.e., without villages or fixed habitations. The thought struck us that this might not improbably be the place of water described " (" Later Biblical Researches," p. 515). Dr. Barclay, in his notes on an " Excursion to Gaza " (see his " City of the Great King," p. 576), says, " We were the more anxious to visit APPENDIX. 411 El Hassy on account of information received recently from a sheik of Felluge, and abundantly confirmed at Burrier, that in Wady el Hassy, about two or three hours distant, at Ras Kussahbeh and at Moyat es-Sid, in the same wady, the stream of water is as broad as our tent (twelve feet), and varies in depth from a span to six or seven feet, occasionally sinking and re-appearing. This was doubtless Moyat es-Sid, the ' certain water ' of which we were in quest; but we were constrained, however reluctantly, to abandon the idea of seeing it," as, on account of the then warlike state of the country, he could neither coax nor hire guides to accompany him thither. On inquiry at Gaza, also, he learned that there was " abundant water four or five hours from Gaza, called Sheriah, the name by which the Bedawin designate the waters of Jordan." Dr. Thomson's objection to this route is, that it "would carry them many miles south of Ashdod." What would he say of a place so far distant from Azotus as Bethsur, adjoining Hebron, whose small though perennial fountain, moreover, could hardly give occasion for a traveller to say, " See, water ! " ? " This certainly," says Dr. Robinson, " cannot have been the water at which the eunuch was baptized; for he was driving in his chariot towards Gaza, and never could have passed on this route " ("Biblical Researches," vol. i. p. 217). Yet this, ever since the time of Eusebius and Jerome, has been the traditional site of the eunuch's baptism; and we see that the Rev. Dr. Samson, in his "Suf- ficiency of Water for Baptizing," &c., adheres to the correctness of this tradition. In opposition to Dr. Robinson's statement as to the impassa-. bility of the road, we quote this statement from Professor Hackett : " It was formerly objected that no chariot could have passed here, on account of the broken nature of the ground ; but travellers have now discovered the traces of a paved road, and the marks of wheels on the stones (see Ritter's ' Erdkunde,' xvi. 1, p. 266, and J. Wilson's ' Lands of the Bible,' i. p. 381). The writer found himself able to ride at a rapid pace nearly all the way between Bethlehem and Hebron. The veneration of early times reared a chapel on the spot, the ruins of which are still to be seen. Von Raumer defends the genuineness of this primitive tradition." The latest statement which we have seen regarding this point is that of Lieut. Conder, in his "Tent- Work in Palestine," vol. ii. p. 76, who rather sides with Dr. Robinson. He says, " The fountain of Dhir- weh " (near Hebron) " is traditionally that at which St. Philip baptized the eunuch, and tx'aces of an old chapel are visible above it; but it seems improbable that chariots could ever have travelled along these stony mountain-paths, and the road to Gaza by which the apostle waa travelling on that occasion should rather be sought in the plain." 412 APPENDIX. NOTE VI., P. 242. The fact that "sponsors" were in early times, and are by some of the more important religious bodies of the present day, appointed to respond or answer for imconscious infants in their baptism, shows that an open profession of faith has been felt to be a proper and indispensa- ble accompaniment of Christian baptism. Augustine says the sponsors' answers are " verba sacramentorum, sine quibus parvulus consecrari non potest ; " that is, are indispensable in the baptizing of infants. The Chm'ch fathers evidently would think but little of a pedobaptism which was unattended by a personal or quasi-personal profession of faith. The earlier sponsors generally professed, in the name of the child, a belief in God and in the remission of sins, and promised to renounce the world, and the devil and all his pofnps. This vicarious principle is strikingly apparent in the present ritual of the Protestant-Episcopal Church. The rubric of that church requires three sponsors to answer for the child's penitence and faith ; and it is, we suppose, chiefly on the ground of this hypothetical faith that the child is baptized, and subse- quently declared "regenerate" in baptism. Some Episcopal writers, alike opposed to the idea of any regeneration in or by baptism, as also to the idea of there being " two distinct and opposite rules for the administration of baptism," have maintained that the child, in answer to the desires and prayers of Christian parents and sponsors, and espe- cially in answer to the prayers offered before baptism, is, or is supposed to be, truly "sanctified" and "born again" by "the Holy Spirit," and " delivered from God's wrath," and thus is qualified to receive " the outward visible sign" of "the inward spiritual grace." We should fear, however, that, in either case, the regeneration would be altogether hypothetical and doubtful. The Rev. John S. Stone, D.D., Griswold Lecturer in the Divinity School of the Protestant- Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, concedes that "the effect of baptism on the mind of infancy is not immediate, but prospective ; " that " baptized infants de- velop the unchanged, unmodified sinfulness of their nature just as soon and just as unmistakably" as do the unbaptized; that, if both classes of infants were placed under the same early religious training, we may expect as many conversions from the one class as from the other ; and that the lesson of experience is, that conversions, whether earlier or later, " are due, not to any marvel supposed to be wrought in or at baptism, but to the power of the Holy Ghost through right religious training." (See " The Christian Sacraments," p. 223, seq.^ Still, the baptismal services of the Prayer-Book evidently regard the regeneration as genuine, since they require, as the qualification for " con- firmation " in after-years, no subsequent conversion or change of heart, APPENDIX. 413 but only a certain mental effort or feat of memory, — to learn and to ^^say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments," &c. So also, in the Catechism, the baptized child is instructed to say that " in baptism " he " "was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." Thus " the strict Episcopal view makes baptism, when it has been performed, stand ever after for regeneration, as the currency represents the coin in the vault; but, at the same time, the Church is so strongly convinced that her issue vastly exceeds the piety which she can show for it, that she asks the 'judgment of charity,' and so virtually goes into ecclesiastical insolvency, while she meanwhile still continues to send forth her bonds." (See article entitled " F. W. Robertson on Baptismal Regeneration," by Rev. A. J. Gordon, D.D., in " Baptist Quarterly" for 1869, p. 411 ; also an article on " Ritualism in the Church of England," by President E. G. Robinson of Brown University, in the " Quarterly" for January, 1869.) But let us now listen to the profession and promises of the sponsors, as made in the name of the child. In the " Ministration of the Public Baptism of Infants," the minister, after speaking unto the godfathers and godmothers, and telling them that " this infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise, by you that are his sureties (until he come of age to take it upon himself), that Tie will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy Word, and obediently keep his com- mandments," then demands of the sponsors individually as follows : "Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them ? Dost thou believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed ? Wilt thou be baptized in this faith? " &c. And the answer to each of these queries is, of course, in the affirmative. In more ancient times, — as we learn, for example, in the letter of Boniface to Augustine, and in one of Augustine's sermons (ccxciv.), — the sponsors, instead of promising or professing to believe in the name of the child, declared that the child already believed. " Credit in Jesum Christum? fit interrogatio. Respondetur: credit." And in the explanation of the sacraments, composed by Bishop Overall, and added to the Catechism in 1604, it is asked, "Why, then, are infants baptized, when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform them?" And the answer given is, "Yes, they do perform them (repentance and faith) by their sureties, who promise and vow them both in their names," &c. At the Savoy Conference, in 1661, the Presby- terians strongly opposed all this sponsor business, and desired that "the entering infants into God's covenant may be more warily expressed, and 414 APPENDIX, that the words may not seem to found their baptism upon a really actual faith and repentance of their own, and that a promise may not be taken for a performance of such faith and repentance, and especially that it be not asserted that they perform these by the promise of their sureties; it being to the seed of believers that the covenant of God is made, and not to all that have such believing sureties who are neither parents nor pro- parents of the child." Again they say, "We know not by what right the sureties do promise and answer in the name of the infant : it seem- eth to us also to countenance the anabaptistical opinion of the necessity of an actual profession of faith and repentance in order to baptism." They therefore desired that the two first interrogatories (which were addressed to the infants, though answered by the sponsors) should be put to the parents, to be answered in their own names, and the last be propounded to the parents or pro-parents, thus : " Will you have this child baptized into this faith ? " But the bishops, in reply, rebutted the charge of anabaptism, and affirmed, that, as " God's sacraments have their effects where the receiver doth not 'ponere obicem,' put any bar against them (which children cannot do), we may say ia faith, of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacra- ment as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no." Yet they were willing to alter the words of the Cate- chism, " Yes, they do perform them," as seeming to imply actual faith and repentance, into "Because they promise them both by their sure- ties," &c. ; and this form of words survives to the present day. Bishop Boniface, as long ago as the time of Augustine (about A.D. 400), was puzzled to know how all this could be promised for the child who had no thought or apprehension of these things, and of whose future character and history nothing could be known. His letter to Augustine reads as follows : " Suppose I set before you an infant, and ask you whether, when he grows up, he will be a chaste man, or whether he will not be a thief ? You doubtless will answer, ' / do not know.' And whether he, in that infant age, have any thought, good or evil ? You will still say, '■ I do not know.' If, then, you dare not assert any thing concerning his future conduct or his present thoughts, what is the reason, that, when they are presented for baptism, their parents, as sponsors for them, answer, and say, they do that of which their infant age is not able to think, or, if it can, it is a profound secret? For we ask those by whom it is presented, and say, ' Does he believe in God ? ' (which question concerns that age which is ignorant whether there be a God.) They answer, '■He does believe.' And so, like^vise, an auswer is returned to all the rest. Whence I wonder that parents in these affairs answer so confidently for the child, that he does so many good things APPENDIX. 415 vrhich at the time of his baptism the administrator demands. And yet ■were I at that very time to ask, ' Will this baptized child, when grown to maturity, be chaste? ' or, 'Will he not be a thief V ' I know not whether any one would venture to answer, ' He will,' or ' He will not, be the one or the other,' as they answer without hesitation, ^ He believes in God; He turns to God.' " His letter concludes thus : " I entreat you to give me a short answer to these questions in such a manner as that you do not urge to me the prescription of the customariness of the thing, but give me the reason of it." Augustine replies in substance, that the sign and the thing signified are frequently used interchangeably, and that thus "the sacrament of faith is faith," and the child partaking of the sacrament of faith and of conversion may be said to believe, and to turn to God. " And so far it will avail, that, if he depart this life before the use of reason, he will, by this Christian remedy of the sacrament itself (the charity of the church recommending him), be made free from that con- demnation which by one man entered into the world." This is on Augustine's principle, " Credit in altero qui peccavit in altero," and *' ad verba aliena infans sanatur, quia ad factum alienum vulneratur." (See more fully in Wall's " History of Infant-Baptism," vol. i. p. 217, and Professor Chase's article in " The Christian Review " for 1863, p. 571, seq. ; and, on the subject of sponsors in general, see Bingham's *' Christian Antiquities," and Hofling's " Sakrament der Taufe," vol. ii. p. 4, seq.) This vicarious^principle, in early times, was occasionally carried a step farther; as when, in supposed accordance with the literal meaning of 1 Cor. XV. 29, a living person was "baptized for the dead." In this case the living, under the dead man's bed, would respond for the dead man's faith, and his desire to be baptized, and then would receive baptism in his stead. Supposing the dead man himself were baptized on the faith of his sponsors, would not Augustine's theory, that "the sacrament of faith is faith " (though, as in the case of infants, involun- tarily and unconsciously received), entitle the dead man also to the name of believer? ^ We may j ust here add a few words in regard to the supposed mean- ing of the phrase "baptized for the dead." Calov (died 1CS6) reckoned up in his day as many as twenty-three different interpretations. We have space here to refer but to few of them. Tertullian answers the apostle's question thus : " ' Why are they, then, baptized for the dead,' 1 The ox)us operatum ef3Sicacy of the sacraments has been deemed so great, that the dead have actually been baptized for the remission of sins; and the eucharist has been placed wdthin their lips, as also on their breasts, when they were buried. These customs, as we might expect, prevailed mostly in North Africa, where we first hear of infant-baptism and infant-communion. 416 APPENDIX. unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized? For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath : its sanctification comes from the answer of a good conscience." Chrysostom says, '"for the dead,' — that is, the bodies; for you are baptized upon this, believing in the resurrection of the dead body." Theodoret gives it the same turn : " The baptized person is buried with his Lord, in order that, sharing in His death, he may also be a sharer of His resurrection. But if the body is dead, and does not rise, why, then, is it also baptized? " Luther sees in it a baptism over the graves of the dead, as, in the early church, bap- tism was occasionally performed over the graves of martyrs. Epiphanius refers it to the baptism of clinics ; that is, of persons about to die, or who had death before their eyes. So, for substance, Calvin and Bengel. Others, as Doddridge and Olshausen, render it, baptized in the room of the dead, in order to fill up their places. " Huper " (for), says Pro- fessor Cramer, " assigns the motive. Baptized for the dead ; that is, not for the advantage of the dead, but that the dead, inasmuch as they will rise again, give the living occasion to be baptized." Billroth, Riickert, Neander, DeWette, Lleyer, Alford, Professor Grimm, and others, take it literally, as baptizing the living for the dead; i.e., for the good of those who died in an unbaptized state. Professor Irah Chase refers it, as do many of the fathers, to the baptism for (the resurrection of) the dead ; that is, a baptism in reference to and in faith of the resurrection. Pro- fessor A. C. Kendrick (in " The Baptist Quarterly " for 1862, p. 669) says, " The passage admits of these renderings, — baptized over the dead, bap- tized on helialf of the dead, baptized in relation to the dead ; " and main- tains that "the passage refers to baptism, as pledging its subjects, especially in apostolic times, to su:ffering and death." (See also the January and July numbers of the " Review " for 1862, and the same "Review" for April, 1852, and October, 1855, also § 18, p. 139, of Matthies' " Baptismatis Expositio," for a fuller discussion of this sub- ject.) "> r- t/ ■ *>> ■" '. , '4 'H': '<■' , u. ..'/..41^^ ''W^U^- ■ ■^■!::^* •ItV.. '' V. '*■ M'. ,i >**• f. fe?'i' -'il»..'.i , ■•.5 '■^ V If* *:*i'v, 1 1 ;fi ."^.■Vd