BV 811 .D34 1874 Dale, James W. 1812-1881 Christie and patristic baptism AN INQUIRY INTO THE USAGE OF BARTIZH, AND TIIIC NATUKE OK CHRISTIC AND PATRISTIC BAPTISM, AH ICXIIIIIITICI) IN Tint HOLY SCRIPTURES AND PATRISTIC WRITINCIS. BY JAMES W. ])AI:E, ]).1). TAHTOlt OK WAVNIC rKKSllYTKKI AN CIHIKOII, DICr.AW A UK COUNTY, I'A. " V<5i'l(.ii(.(i iimuircstatu, (umIuI, coiihuoUicIo vorltatl." CONCIU CAKTIIAdlN. "Td 1 1 im, I lie Kiiit; of (I'lil li, wliDSir urciii wonls I luivc, iliiri'd In ex |iiiiiiiil, aiid » Iidnd Uslitcst Hdlitiincui oiitw(!i).;li.s nil l..i' ImmiUn (if iijiii, Im il r(>imiicli(l(Ml, — to hli'ss that which Ih truo, but to forgive and In lender liaiinlcus ils Ihiiiuiii (lolucts." — StIICU. ril 1 LA I) K L I' II I A : WM. RUTTEJi tt (U). 18 7 4. " Sed malumus in Scripturis minus si forte sapere, quam contra. Proinde sensum Domini custodire debemus atqiie prseceptum. Non est levior trans- gressio in interpretatione, quam in conversatione." — Tertullian. "Right exposition is at variance witli all heresy ; and a fuller and more literal apprehension of Scripture is, at the same time, a shield against doc- trinal error." — Pusey. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, By JAMES W. DALE, In the Oifice of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. CAXTON PRESS OP SHERMAN & CO., PUILADELPHIA. fROPERTTo? PEIXTCETOIT RtC. NOV IBbO THSOLOGIG^L. COURSE OF ARGUMENT. I. What is Christic Baptism? 1. Real; 2. Ritual. A modern theory. Objections to this theory : Philo- logical, Chronological, Symbological, Exegetical, .... 17-26 1. Baptism of Jesus by John. A covenant baptism. Not " the baptism of John." A formal covenant, with ritual symbol, " to fulfil all righteous- ness," 27-31 2. Baptism of Jesus by the Holy Ghost. Real Baptism. Qualifying to fulfil the covenant assumed, ........ 31-34 3. Baptism of Jesus into Penal Death. Emblemized as a drinking from a cup. Drank through life, in Gethsemane, on Calvary. Not martyr bap- tism. The ground baptism of Christianity. Baptism by drinking from a cup, a common baptism among the Classics. Baptism " into Christ" by the Holy Spirit secures the blessings obtained by Christ through his personal baptism into an atoning death, 34-52 II. Christ, the Baptizer by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost abides in Christ as his divine anointing. Christ abides in the Holy Ghost and in the fulness of his influence lives, overcomes Satan, preaches his gospel, works bis miracles, offers up himself upon the Cross, rises from the dead, ascends on high, and baptizes the souls of his people, 52-58 1. The Apostles Baptized for the Apostleship. A baptism, admittedly, without a dipping or a covering. By " pouring," language based on actual baptism by pouring. " Baptism = subjection to full influence." Cloven tongues the emblem in this baptism as water in ordinary baptism, and as the Dove in the Saviour's personal baptism. The importance of this bap- tism, . 58-95 2. Cornelius and other Gentiles baptized by the Holy Ghost. " A higher baptism than with water," ........ 95-98 3. Saul's Baptism by the Holy Ghost. No evidence of a ritual baptism. Real baptism for the apostleship, 98-112 4. Baptism of the Samaritans by the Holy Ghost. Why such baptism, 112-117 5. Baptism of the Corinthians by the Holy Ghost. Translation. Ad- mission. " Baptism = participation in influence." All share in it, 117-129 III. Christian Baptism Preached. 1. To Jews and Proselytes. Translation. Interpretation ; Campbell, Pusey, Baptists. Nature of the baptism, spiritual, "into the remission of sins " through repentance and faith "upon" the Name of the Lord Jesus. Baptist Quarterly, 129-153 2. The Baptism received by the Gladly Hearing. "Baptized" used abso- lutely. Difficulties of water dipping. Reasons for Real baptism, . 153-162 ( "i ) IV COURSE OF ARGUMENT. lY. Baptism Preached incorporated in a Kite. 1. Ritual Bnptlsjn of Samaritans. The formula declarative of the Real baptism symbolized in the rite. " Into the Name of the Lord Jesus." Im- port. But "one baptism," realized in the soul by the power of the Holy Ghost, symbolized in the rite by the nature of pure water, applied to the body, 1G2-181 2. Ritual Baptism, of the Eunuch. The only case under Christianity ap- pealed to by the theory. " Some Water." The Chariot. Went down. Came up.. Into. Out of. "The rack." 182-201 3. Ritual Baptism of Gentiles. Perpetuity of ritual baptism. " The water." Observance of the rite commanded "in the Name of the Lord." The use of " water," not quantity, ordained, 202-209 4. Ritual Baptism of John's Ephesian Disciples. "Into the Name of the Lord Jesus," 209-216 5. Ritual Baptism of Crispus and Gaius. "Into the name of Paul?" 216-218 V. Ritual Baptism of Households. 1. Lydia and her Household. 2. The Jailer and all his. 3. Stephanas and his Household. The family a divine institution. Family unity. Family headship. Individualism, 219-240 VI. Doctrinal Truth grounded in Real Baptism. 1. Real Baptism begets Holy Living. " Baptism into Jesus Christ = into his death " is not ritual baptism with water, but real baptism by the Holy Ghost, Carson, Ripley, Errett, Fee. Wilson, Halley, Beecher, Stuart. Dr. Pusey, Patrists, 241-275 2. Real Baptism makes full in Christ. " Baptized into Christ," the equivalent of "made full in Christ," 275-282 3. Real Baptism makes Christlike. " Baptized into Christ," the equiva- lent of "put on Christ." Ritual baptism not the equivalent of the one or the other, 282-293 4. Real Baptism into Christ, antitype of tlie type baptism "into Moses." The Hebrew of Moses and the Greek of Paul. Israel "baptized into Moses " = m,ade fully subject^ ........ 293-310 5. Real Baptism, into Christ inconsistent with Baptism into Paul. Sub- jection to two Masters impossible, 310-315 6. Real Baptism into Christ secures Resurrection unto Life. Baptism for the dead, what? Historical facts uncertain, .... 316-317 7. Real Baptism hito Christ makes " one body." The work of the Holy Ghost. All members of the body of Christ so baptized, . . 318-323 8. Real Baptism beyond comparison with ritual baptism. Not the opinion of all. Ritual = Real. Ritual same relation to salvation as Repentance and Faith. Ritual magnified. Pepper, Curtis, .... 324-328 9. Real Baptism, is by Repentance and Faith through the Holy Ohost. Repentance and Faith can baptize. Baptizings. Baptism into unchastity by teaching, ,.......■■■ 328-335 10. Real Baptism is saving antitype baptism. The Ark type of salvation, 335-343 11. Real Baptism is the " ONE BAPTISM " of Christianity. Ritual bapiism is not a second, diverse bapti.sm, but is the same one baptism declared by words and shadowed in a symbol, . 344-351 COURSE OF ARGUMENT. VII. Supposed Allusions to Kitual Baptism. 1. John 3 : 25, A question about purifying. 2. John 3 : 5, Bo7-7i of water and the Spirit. 3. 1 Cor. 6: 11, Wasukd, soticti/ied, justified. 4. Ephes. 6 : 26, Cleavsing it with the washing of water 5. Titus 3 : 5, Saved us by the washing of regeneration. 6. Heb. 10:22, Our bodies washed with pure water .^ .......... 352-384 VIII. Eeal Baptism into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost, through Discipleship into Christ. 1. John 20:21-23. 2. Luke 24:44-50. 3. Acts 26:17, 18. 4. Mark 16:15, 16. 5. Matt. 28: 19, 20. Discordant translations. Diversified interpretations. Unsatisfactory. Exposition. Syriac Version. " Baptize into " is the equivalent of the Syriac Stand firm, and of the Hebrew Lean upon, Believe in. Import, subjection, reconciliatioyi, and affiliation with the fully revealed Deity through " the ful- filment of all righteousness " in the incarnation, obedience, death, and me- diation of the Son of God, . . . . . . . . 385-469 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. I. BAIITIZQ IN General Usage. Agreement with Classic usage. Diiferences as compared with Inspired writers. Use of analogous words. Ideal element. Spiritual in religious sphere, 473-487 II. BAHTISMA. This word in Patristic and in Inspired writings expresses a spiritual and not a physical condition. Diverse names. Aou-pov, spiritual washing. Di- verse baptisms; blood, tears, fire, clinic, sjn-inkling, pouring. Without dip- ping, pouring, or sprinkling, ........ 488-543 III. TAATI Kai. nNEYMATI. Water and Spirit conjoint agencies in Patristic baptism. Special quality and power given to water on which its power to baptize exclusively depends, 544-565 IV. 2YN0AnTi2. Water dipping neither Christian nor Patristic baptism. Symbol of burial with Christ in his rock sepulchre. Burial applied to sin drowned and left in the water, 566-580 V. BAIITIZQ in Special Usage. In religious usage neither expresses a dipping nor & physical baptism of any kind. Other words to express covering and uncovering in water. These words do not appear in Scripture baptisms because there was no covering and uncovering in water known to them. Proof. Another class of words expressive of washing, cleansing, purification, (spiritual) represent panriCu. Proof. Usage of tingo. Its special char- acter; susceptibility of double use. Tertullian's usage of tingo as a substi- tute for (SaTTTi^u. Complementary relations of /JaTrW^w ideal. Proof No physical use in religious sphere. Proof, 581-622 Conclusion. Origin of Inquiry. Results in brief ; special, final, . . . 628-630 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTUEE EXPOUNDED. Matt. 3 : 15, Baptism of Jesus by John, John 1 : 32, Baptism of Jesus by the Holy Ghost, Mark 10 : 38, 39, Baptism of Jesus through a Cup, John 1 : 33, Jesus, baptizer by the Holy Ghost, . Acts 1 : 5, Apostles baptized by the Holy Ghost, Acts 11 : 15, 16, Cornelius baptized by the Holy Ghost, Acts 9 : 17, 18; 22 : 13, 16; 26 : 14-18, Baptism of Saul, Acts 8 : 15, 16, Baptism of Samaritans, Acts 19 : 6, Baptism of John's disciples, 1 Cor. 12 : 13, Baptism by special gifts. Acts 2 : 38, Baptism through Repentance and Faith, commanded Acts 2 : 41, Baptism through Repentance and Faith, received, Acts 8 : 12-16, Ritual baptism of Samaritans, Acts 8 : 35-38, Ritual baptism of the Eunuch, Acts 10 : 47, 48, Ritual baptism of the Gentiles, . Acts 19 : 3-5, Ritual baptism of John's disciples, ^1 Cor. 1 : 13-15, Ritual baptism of Crispus and Gaius, Acts 16 : 15, Ritual baptism of Lydia and her household, . Acts 16 : 33, Ritual baptism of the Jailer and all his, [l Cor 1 : 16, Ritual baptism of Stephanas and his household, Rom. 6 : 2-4, Real baptism into Christ, CoLOSS. 2 : 9-13, Real baptism into Christ, .... Gai,. 3: 26, 27, Real baptism into Christ, .... A Cor. 10: 2, Real baptism into Moses, type of Real baptism into Christ, La Cor. 1 : 13, 15, Real baptism into Paul destructive of Real baptism into Christ, 1 Cor. 15: 29, "Baptism for the dead," 1 CoR. 12 : 13, Real baptism makes Christians " one body," J. 1 Cor. 1 : 17, Real baptism is not Ritual baptism, . . . . Heb. 6 : 2, Real baptism through Repentance and Faith, 1 Peter 3 : 21, Real baptism is Antitype baptism, . . . . Ephes. 4 : 5, Real baptism is the " One baptism," . . . . John 3 : 25, About purifying, John 3 : 5. Born of water and the Spirit, 1 Cor. 6 : 11, Washed, sanctified, justified, Ephes. 5:26, Washing of water by the word, Titus 3: 5, Washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 10:22, Heart sprinkled, body washed, John 20: 21-23, The Commission, Luke 24: 44-50, The Commission, Acts 26: 17, 18, Saul's Commission, Mark 16: 15, 16, The Commission, Matt. 28 : 19, 20, The Commission, (vi) PAGE 27 31 34 52 58 95 98 113 114 117 130 153 163 182 202 209 216 219 219 219 241 275 282 294 310 316 318 324 328 335 344 352 355 366 369 375 381 385 386 389 390 403 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. (vii) AXJTHORS AND WORKS REFERRED TO. JEsop. Achilles, Tatius. Alcibiades. Alexander, Prof. J. A. Alford. Ambrose. Apostol. Canons. Arnold, Prof., Bapt. Th. Sem., Chicago. Athanasius. Athenseus. Augustine. Baptist Bib. Vers. Baptist Manual. Baptist Quarterly. Barclay. Basil, of CEesarea. Basil M. Beecher, Presid. E. Bengel. Bloomfield. Booth. Brantley, Rev. Dr. Brentius. Brunner, Presid. Calvin. Campbell, Alex. (Beth. Coll.) Carson, Alex., LL.D. Cathcart, Rev. Dr. Chase, Prof., Newton Th. Sem. Chrysostom. Clarke, Adam. Clemens, Alex. Clemens, Rom. Codex Sinaiticus. Conant, J. T. Conon. Cox, F. A. (London). Cremer. Prof. Hermann. Curtis, Prof. Cyprian. Cyril, of Jerus. Dagg, Prof. J. L. De Wette. Didymus, Alex. Ebrard. Ellicott. Ernesti. Errett, Isaac. Evenus. Ewing, Prof. (Glasgow). Fairbairn. Fee, Prof. J. G. Firmilian. Fuller, R., D.D. Gale. Gill, Dr. Godwin, Prof. (London). Greg. Naz. Hackett, H., Prof, Roch. Th. Sem. Halley, Presid. R. (England). Harrison, Prof., Univ. of Va. Herodotus. Hilary. Hodge. Homer. Ignatius. Ingham (London). Irenseus. Jelf. Jerome. Josephus. Jewett, M. P., Prof. J. M. R. (Western Recorder). John of Damascus. Judson, Dr. A. Justin, M. Krehl. Ktihner. Kuinoel. Lanee. Lightfoot. Lloyd, J. T. (Rel. Herald). Lucian. Luther. Marcus Eremita. Matthies. Methodius. Meyer. Middleton. Morell (Edinburgh). Murdock, J., Prof Neander. Newcome, Archbishop. Olshausen. Origen. Owen, Rev. John. Pearce, Rt. Rev. Pengilly. Pepper, Prof, Crozer Th.Sem. Plato. Plutarch. Pusey, Prof. E. B. Ripley, Prof., Newton Theol. Sem. Rosenmiiller. Schaaf, Prof. Stier. Stovel, C. (London). Stuart. Tertulliau. Turretin. Veuema. Vitringa. Wardlaw. Wayland, Presid. Wesley, John. Wickham. Wilson, Prof. (Belfast). Winer. Xenophon. Zuingle. ( viii ) CHRISTIC BAPTISM. WHAT IS ITS NATURE AND HOW DOES IT ILLUSTRATE THE USAGE OF B A n T f ZQf WHAT IS CHRISTIC BAPTISM? Christic Baptism is Christ's baptism in its various aspects : 1. The baptism received by Christ personally; 2. The immediate baptism of sinners administered by Christ personally; 3. The ritual baptism of such authorized by Christ to be administered b}' others ; 4. The everlasting baptism secured by Christ for the re- deemed. Christic baptism as established b}'^ Christ has a twofold character: 1. Real; 2. Ritual. Real Christic baptism is a thor- ough change in the moral condition of the soul effected by the Holy Ghost and uniting to Christ by repentance and faith, and through Christ re-establishing filial and everlasting relation with the living God — Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Ritual Christic baptism is not another and diverse baptism, but is one and the same baptism declared by word, and exhibited (as to its purify- ing nature) by pure water applied to the body ; symbolizing the cleansing of the soul through the atoning blood of Christ by the Holy Ghost. Every symbol is necessarily imperfect as compared with the wholeness of that which is symbolized. No symbol can exhibit everything which enters into the object symbolized. A symbol, ordinarily if not necessaril}', exhibits one thing and not many things. The type lamb slain on Abel's altar exhibited one thing — the death of the Antitype Lamb slain on Calvary. The Bread and the Wine in the Lord's Supper as sources of life to the body sym- 2 (17) 18 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. bolize one thing — the body and the blood of Clirist as sources of life to the soul. The antecedent type (the Lamb slain) sets forth substitutionary death ; the consequent symbols (Bread and Wine) set forth life proceeding from that deatli. Water has by universal acknowledgment a physically purifying quality, and hence, has been accepted in all ages as a symbol of purity, in religious rites. The fundamental characteristic of baptism by the Holy Ghost (Real Christie baptism) is moral purification. This characteristic is selected by divine wisdom for symbolization by water in ritual Christie baptism. And having performed this one duty, we say that the symbolizing function of the water is exhausted. It is a matter of universal admission, that if this be the sole office of the water then, neither quantity nor mode of use has any place for consideration. But such sole office is denied. A modern theory respecting ritual Christian baptism throws into deepest shadow this idea of purification, and declares, that another and diverse baptism, namely, a dipping into water (not found in and not possible to the real baptism), constitutes both the spirit and the substance of the rite ; and, that in it is exhibited a death., a hurial, a resurrection., a grave, a womb, a pollution, and somewhere, somehow, a purification. This theory is so unique in the complexity and perplexity of its symbolism, and is so grievous, (as declared by them) to its friends in compelling a separation from all God's people who receive but "one baptism" (the real Christie baptism by the Holy Ghost and its ritual Christie bap- tism by water), that it becomes necessary to draw out its details for a rational judgment and a Scriptural determination. This I will endeavor to do by briefly adducing the statements of those who arc of acknowledged authority among its friends. 1. This theory says: God commands, in baptism, a definite act to be done, which act is expressed by the word Ba-vi'^w, "a word which has but one meaning, to dij) and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." Evidence: " In baptism we are commanded to i)erform the act represented hij the word baptize." Prof. M. P. Jewett (p. 40). " The word baptize is perfectly sufficient for me wh3' baptism implies immersion without a particle of evidence from any otlier thing." Carson (p. 144). "The action which Jesus Clirist commanded in tlie word lianri%w calls for exact obe- dience; this word indicates a specific action, and can have but one meaning; it derives its meaning and immutable form from Bdr.Tw, and therefore inherits the proi)er meaning of the bap, which WHAT IS CIIRISTIC BAPTISM? 19 is dip:' Alex. Campbell {pp. 110-120). " The text (Matt. 28 : 19) shows the appointment of immersion in water." Stovel {p. 47 D). " As soon as the convert goes down into the water to ohey Jesus . . . cease to resist the truth. . . . Can you trifle with baptism ? . . . 'Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.' These are the words of God himself, and take care how you slight tliem. It is a plain duty which you may not evade without insult to the Saviour and peril to your soul, ... I warn you that the gospel " (dipping into water) ''is to be obei/ed as well as believed. . . . ' lie that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.' Saved or damned?" Fuller (pp. 9, 104). 2. The theory says: The water in baptism represents a grave. Evidence: "In baptism we are figuratively put into the grave along with him. In our baptism we are emblematically laid in the grave with Christ." Carson (p. 143). 3. The theory says : Death precedes the baptism or takes place in and by the baptism. Evidence: "The external ordinance represents a burial and supposes, of course, a death to have taken place. . . . We do not believe in death by drowning as being represented in this ordinance, although this appears to have been the belief of a few Baptists." Ingham.! London (p. 258). 4. The theory says : The burial in this symbol water-grave is of varied significance. Evidence: 1. It refers to a burial in Jor- dan. "The baptismal water reminds of the Jordan when Jesus went down into the water and was buried." Prof. Pepper., The Relation of Baptism and Communion (p. 10). 2. It refers to a burial in the rock sepulcln-e of Joseph. " As Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph, so we are buried by baptism. We are buried with Christ." Ingham (^o. 251). 3. It refers to a burial of the old man. " In our baptismal burial we emblematically deposit our moral corruption.^' Prof. Ripley .^ Reply to Stuart (p. 94). 5. The theory says : The lifting out of this water-grave is a symbol of the resurrection. Evidence : " Baptism might have a reference to burial without resurrection. These two things are quite distiiict." Carson (p. 140). This resurrection, like the burial, is multiple in character. 1. It refers to the resurrection of Christ. " The resurrection of Christ is set forth in baptism." Prof. Pepper (p. 10). 2. The resurrection of the baptized. " 'IMie central prophecy of baptism is the believer's glorious resurrection at the Lord's second coming." Prof. Pepper (p. 19). 3. The resurrection of the new man. " The external act of baptism is a 20 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. symbol of the burying of the old man and the rising up of the new man." Christian (C. B.) Quarterly (July, 1872, p. 405). 6. The theor}' sa3's : The acts in baptism which make up a dip- ping (putting into and taking out of) are of a symbol character. Evidence : " It is possible that an ordinance performed by immer- sion might have had no instruction in the mode. It might have been all in the water. Had not the Apostle explained this ordi- nance we should have had no right so to do." Carson (p. 456). "" In scriptural baptism there is a literal going down into the water and there is a literal rising up from the water. The literal action included in baptism represents spiritual and important truth. This is the Divine arrangement and purpose in connection with this ordinance, as it is also with the breaking of bread, &c., in the Lord's Supper." Ingham (p. 252). 7. The theory says : The water in baptism is a womb. Evi- dence : " To be born of water most evidently implies, that water is the womb out of which the person who is born proceeds. To be born of water is that birth which is represented by being immersed in water. To emerge out of the water is like a birth." Carson (p. 47r.). 8. The theory says : The grave of baptism is a place for the de- posit of pollution. Evidence : " Baptism proclaims the sinner's pollution." Pengilly (p. 113). "When we rise from this grave we leave our moral loathsomeness behind, and rise to a new and holy life." Prof. Ripley {p. 94). 9. The theory says : The water in baptism is an emblem of purification. Evidence : " The water in baptism must be an em- blem, not a means. The purification of the heart is b}^ faith. This washing takes place before baptism. Baptism is an emblem of this washing and regeneration." Carson (p. 479). " If in baptism there be a perfect emblem of purification, immersion must be the mode." Ingham (p. 260). This washing must be of the entire body, because depravity is entire. " There is good reasou for employing so much water as to immerse the body. If the Chris- tian felt his entire depravity, his utter defilement from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, and desired to be thoroughly washed from his iniquity, he might crave the entire immersion of his body in the waters of baptism, as symbolic of the universal cleansing which he sought by the influence of the Holy Ghost." Prof. M. P. Jewell {p. 99). 10. The theory says : Baptism is emblematic of suffering. Evi- WHAT IS CHRISTIC BAPTISM? 21 dence : " Baptism is a figure of our Lord's overwhelming suffer- ings.^^ Pengilly (p. 114). II. The logic of this theory as declared by its friends is this: Outside of this theory there is no baptism, no Lord's Supper, no Christian ministrj^, no Christian church — and by the same inex- orable logic, no Christian man. Evidence : " Christian baptism is immersion of a believer in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost — nothing else is. Baptist churches are the only Christian churches in existence. Pedobaptists have no right to the Lord's Supper. Whenever they partake of the Lord's Sup- per they partake unworthily and eat and drink damnation to them- selves." J. T. Lloyd (Religious Herald). " For Baptists to call Pedobaptist bodies churches having the right to administer the Lord's Supper is logical insanity and idiocy." J. 31. R. {Western Recorder). Which is the more curious, the theory itself or these logical deductions, it would be difficult to estimate. This however is certain : All who accept the one, or the other, or both, have a just claim on our deepest sympathy, because of that intellectual and moral burden which they have unwittingly assumed, and which they declare to be " grievous and hard to be borne." Conscience is a sacred thing. It is still venerable in its root even while re- volting in its fruit in verily thinking, that it does God service by filling Saul with threatenings and slaughter, and sprinkling his garments with martyr blood, or in prompting the theory to exclude from the body and blood of Christ his redeemed ones when the memorial ordinance is spread b}' its friends, and declaring that they act a lie — an unintelligent lie* — when they venture to sit, down at the Lord's table among themselves. Every high priest taken from among men should be one " who * " A believer, acting as a believer, cannot act a lie. But if one with fall knowledge of the import of the rites begin with the Communion, he does act a lie. He says in act, in a most solemn, formal act, ' I have a spiritual life which did not begin.' If he be baptized after he has communed, he lies, for he solemnly, sacramentally affirms, I now first begin a life, which yet he has long declared to be his. He comes into Christ for the first time, though he has been already abiding in him. In declaring such acts to be lies, it is only on the supposition that the acts are performed intelligently, with an understanding of their true nature. Our argument requires the considera- tion of no other cases." G. D. B. Pepper, Prof, of TheoL, Crozer Sent. Bap- tism and Communion {p. 34). 22 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way ; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity'." We should be mindful of this " infirmity," and be emulous" of this high priestly spirit in dealing with this most remarkable theory, " speaking the truth in love " fully persuaded, that the theory and its logic are alike held " in all good conscience," even when, In their characteristic vocabulary, they stigmatize God's people as Communion Table liars. OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY. There are some objections to this theory which appear on its face, that it may be well to state briefly before entering on a more detailed prosecution of our inquiry. 1. Philological. This inquiry has advanced sufficiently far to warrant the statement, that the philological basis of the theory neither has nor ever had any existence. The corner-stone of the theory (not the stone supporting one corner, but every corner and all between the four corners) is the word BanTi^w. Now, if anything out of mathematics was ever proved, it has been proved that this word does not mean to dip ; that it never did, that it never can so mean, without there be first an utter metamorphosis as to its essential character. That which above all other things discriminates and puts a great gulf between BaTzri^u) and " dip " is the time of intusposition demanded, respectively, for their objects. " Dip " puts its object in a condition of intusposition momentarily ; it puts in and draws out ; BaTzii'l.o) demands a con- dition of intusposition for its object without any limitation as to •the time of continuance in such condition, but allows it to remain for ages or an eternity. There are no writings in which these discriminating characteristics are more essential or more boldly presented than in the Scriptures. It is obvious, that under these meanings no one can be baptized into water', for death must fol- low, and therefore, the theory apologetically introduces " dip " and says : " The command of God to baptize Christians into water cannot be obeyed, therefore dipping into water must be substi- tuted." But might it not be well to review the theory and in- quire, whether God ever gave any command to baptize his people into water ? In fact, there is not a particle of evidence for any such command. Inasmuch as there is no element in Banri^u) for withdrawing its object from the water, there is nothing in Chris- tian baptism to play the part of " resurrection from a grave," or OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY. 23 of " birth from a womb." And if there is no provision for taking out of this grave and womb, it will be hard to find any one who will be willing to go into this water-grave-womb. As the theory cannot exist without a dipping^ and as DanziZu) makes no provision for a dipping, its philological foundation falls out bodily. 2. Chronological. A second difficulty confronting the theory is chronological. Dr. Pepper, Prof, of Tlieology in Crozer Baptist Theological Seminary, says (Baptism and Communion, p. 26), " Turn now to the two ordinances, and note the times of their institution. The puerile inquiry, raised in defence of Rantism, whether John's Baptism was Christian Baptism, we may assume, can have only one answer, and that affirmative. The time of the institution of Baptism is thus fixed at the beginning of John's ministry." Not caring, just now, to engage " in defence of Rantism" (whatever that may be), nor to intermeddle in any *' puerile inquiry," I propose a chronological inquiry in relation to burial and resurrection as entering into a baptism by dipping into water. The inquiry is this : Where from the beginning to the ending of John's ministry is there one word said about "burial and resurrection" being elements in baptism? Extend- ing the chronological range I would inquire : Where in all the ministry of Peter, beginning at the baptism of Pentecost among the Jews, and extending through the baptism at Csesarea among the Gentiles, to the Bible close of his Apostolic work, where does a burial or a resurrection appear in his baptizing ? Extend the period through the entire history of the Church as given in the book of Acts, and where among its many recorded baptisms do we find a record of burials and resurrections ? It is not until more than a quarter of hundred years after " the institution of Baptism" that such terms are found in connection with the word baptize, and then not in the administration of ritual baptism, not in the exposition of ritual baptism, and not in connection with ritual baptism in any way. '" Buried with Christ by hapthnX into HIS death" is no more burial with Christ by bapitisni into water, than George the Third of England is George Washington of America, because " George " appears in both names. " The Third of England" expounds the first George, and "Washington of America" expounds the second George; so, "into his death" expounds the first "baptism," and "into ti;afer" expounds the second "baptism." And these baptisms ai'c as diverse from each other as the George of England is diverse from the George of 24 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. America. It is an embarrassment which confronts those who make bnrial and resurrection the grand features of ritual baptism, that from the time of John until the time of Paul's epistle to the Romans, more than a quarter of a century, there is not one word of Scripture on which they can hang their theory. But there is a longer chronological period which claims atten- tion. It extends through a thousand years. And what I would ask of the friends of the theory is this : What is the name of one man who during a thousand years after the institution of baptism wrote or said or believed that dipping into water was Christian baptism? In other words, tell us of one man among the millions of ten centuries who believed the theory, or would have thought it worthy of consideration. Do not mistake my demand. The inquiry is not, for one who practiced the covering of the body in water in ritual baptism ; nor is it, for one who interpreted such baptism as a burial and resurrection ; there is not only one such, but one legion ; but what is sought is quite other than this, to wit : one who believed that this covering with ivater was Christian Baptism. If this theory of baptism is so alien from the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, that no one for some thousand and a half thou- sand years ever found it there, then, there is a portentous chron- ological diflSculty in the way of its acceptance in these latter days, so long as we have the Bible in our hands. If it should be asked, Why these ancient worthies "covered with water" in baptism? I answer: For the same reason that they baptized men and women naked. And precisely here (in the absolute nudity of the ancients and in the water-tight India- rubber vestments of the moderns) is revealed the antipodal char- acter of these baptisms. The ancients believed, that there was a vis baptismatis in the water which applied to the body reached to the soul, and thus effected Christian Baptism ;• therefore this water was applied to the whole body naked for the better devel- opment of its baptizing power. The friends of the modern theory adopt the empty water covering of the ancients while they reject their soul baptism, substituting for it the unknown, un- scriptural, impossible baptism — dipping into water. 3. Symbological. Another difficulty of the theory is its very remarkable symbology. Symbols, lilte words, have one definite meaning. If words in the same utterance cannot have many and diverse meanings, neither can symbols. The Bible is full of sym- OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY. 25 bols, t3'pes, and emblems, from the Tree of Life in Eden to tlie River of Life flowing out of the throne of God and the Lamb in heaven ; but in no one through all these intervening ^.ges can there be found many and diverse meanings. A false interpreta- tion once taught, that the words of Scripture meant all that could be put into them ; the theor}^ adopts this principle in its interpre- tation of ritual Baptism. Out of the elements entering into this ordinance are selected as s3'mbolic, the water, the believer, and the double action putting into and taking out of. The administrator is not used in the interpretation, only his eliminated acts ; neither is any use made of those great words (the very soul of the ordi- nance) ^'' into Christ," "into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," save in a jejune and destructive interpretation, " by the authority of." What is left out, however, has its compensation in the quantity of that which is put in. .The water appears in three offices : 1, of a grave ; 2, of a womb; 3, of the blood of Christ. As a grave the living "believer" is put into it; (1.) As dead with Christ; (2.) As dead, by natural death ; (3.) As " the old man " dead, to be buried and to be left in the grave. And he is taken out of the grave, (1.) As risen with Christ; (2.) As risen at Christ's second coming; (3.) As risen " a new man" to holy living. This would seem to be enough of symbolization for one transaction. It is, however, only the beginning. The water must, again, appear in a wholly new office, that of a womb. The interpretation, here, is not so complex but is more perplexed ; since the putting into the water and the taking out of the water are both represented as a birth, hi its third office the water appears as the blood of Christ. And Pro- fessor Jewett tells us (with a humanism which responds to the naked baptism of old), that total depravity calls for a total cover- ing in this S3'mbol blood. Into this symbol blood the " believer" is dipped, and under it he leaves his pollution, being drawn out washed and without spot. It is hardl}^ necessary to saj', that such exposition is no more grounded in the Scripture than it is in common sense. It is vain to plead, that burial with Christ, and resurrection, and new birth, and cleansing b}' the blood of the Lamb, are in the Scriptures. They are there ; but they are not there impossibly and absurdly piled up upon the ritual water whose one and sole office it is to symbolize the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ, through the H0I3' Ghost. If the theory did not lose every element 26 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of life under its absolute repudiation bj' philology, if it could find a better status in the chronolog}^ of ages, still, such symbolization must constitute a monument under which it must be forever buried. 4. Exegetical. The theory which makes Christian Baptism to consist in a dipping into water in the name ("b}' the authority") of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is as absolutely rejected by a just exegesis of the Word of God, as it is by phi- lology, chronology, and the law of Symbols. This it is now our business to establish. The result will, we think, show beyond any question, that this modern theory teaches a baptism which is not only not commanded in the Scriptures, not only imperfect in its nature, but is a pure and absolute abandonment of that bap- tism which God has ordained in his word. We will now proceed to a consideration of individual cases under Christie Baptism. CHRISTIC BAPTISM: BAPTISM RECEIVED BY CHRIST. BAPTISM OF JESUS BY JOHN. Matthew 3 : 15. OvTU yap nptwov lariv rj/uv irXTjpuaaL ndaav SmacoavvTjv, " Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS RECEIVE FROM JOHN ? A Covenant Baptism. JoHANNic Baptism concluded with a cousideration of the place where the Lord Jesus was baptized by his Forerunner. The nature of the baptism then received was not considered, because it did not pertain to "John's baptism," but was grounded in that peculiar work for the accomplishment of which the Son of God was made manifest in the flesh — "the fulfilment of all righteous- ness." It is one thing to be baptized by John and quite another thing to receive the " baptism of John." Therefore, while the Scriptures teach us that Jesus came to the Jordan to be baptized by John, they do not teach us that he came to receive John's baptism. Indeed it is impossible, in any just aspect of the case, that he could have received it. Whatever involves an absurdity must be impossible and untrue. That an absurdity is involved in such a supposition is thus shown: "The baptism of John" was for sinners; demanding "repentance," "fruits meet for re- pentance," and promising "the remission of sins." But the Lord Jesus Christ was not a sinner, could not repent of sin, could not bring forth fruit meet for repentance on account of sin, could not receive the remission of sin. Therefore the reception of "the baptism of John" by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd. Again: The baptism of John was "to prepare a people for the Lord." But to address such a baptism to the Lord (preparing the Lord for himself) is absurd. Therefore the reception of John's baptism by the Lord Jesus is impossible, untrue, and (27 ) 28 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. absurd. It is just as absurd to suppose that be received this bap- tism formally but not substantially. A baptism exists only while its essence exists. The essence of John's ritual baptism is found in its symbolization of purification in the soul through repent- ance and remission of sin. But in the Lord Jesus there was no basis for such symbolization, and consequentl}' there was no basis for the baptism of John. The idea that John's baptism could be received representatively is just as impossible. To the glory of God in the highest, the Lord Jesus did "bear our iniquities," was "made sin for us;" but he was not hereby the more qualified to receive John's baptism. The Lord Jesus did not represent peni- tent sinners, nor sinners whose iniquities were remitted. He came as the Friend of publicans and sinners, to call sinners to repentance, to give repentance to Israel ; there was no adaptation in the baptism of John to such Sin-Bearer. He must accomplish a baptism for himself; it must be of blood and not of water; " without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin " such as Jesus bore. In his character as Bearer of the sins of others, be neither had nor could have anything to do with John's baptism. The Bearer of Sin must be baptized ; but it is with a baptism which none other can share. It must be the baptism of one who is able "to fulfil all righteousness," and to bear the penalty of a broken law, in order to the redemption of the guilty. This bap- tism, this "one baptism," may form the basis for John's baptism; but to suppose that the Originator of the baptism by atoning blood could enter personally or representatively into the baptism of Jolin, is as absurd as to suppose that the foundation of a house can rest upon the house which is builded on it, or that a fountain can be supplied by the stream which flows from it, or that a rock can enter into the shadow which it casts for the weary. The Lord Jesus never baptized any with water symbolizing spiritual blessings. It was as unsuitable for the Dispenser of all spiritual blessings to do so, as to give symbols of healing to the blind, and deaf, and dumb, and lame, and sick. And it was just as unsuit- able for him to receive from John not merely the symbol involving the impossibilities of repentance and remission, but the symbol of any spiritual blessing, he himself being the source of all spiritual good. But if it were not too grossly earthy to suppose that our Divine Sin-bearer could go through the fiction of confessing sin, declaring repentance, and receiving remission, he would know, and John would know, and all would know, that such service BAPTISM OF JESUS BY JOHN. 29 was no administration of "John's baptism." All who came to John's baptism were exposed to, and " warned to flee from the wrath to come." From what wrath to come could Jesus flee? There is no aspect in which the ministry (preaching or baptism) of John can be considered which will allow of the Coming One to be made subject to it. John himself recognizes this truth, and promptly declares it when Jesus comes to him. And it is not until an explanation is given, reminding him of the peculiar rela- tion in which they stand to each other, and indicating the nature of the baptism sought, that John's embarrassment is removed. This is effectually accomplished through those brief but most sig- nificant words — "thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." This language cannot apply to the ritual baptism of John, That was not a thing of law. One confessing himself a sinner, and fleeing from the wrath to come, could hardl}' claim for him- self the doing a work of righteousness. David did not imagine that he was doing a work of righteousness when he presented before God "a broken heart and a contrite spirit." An act of righteousness and godlj^ sorrow for sin do not belong to the same category. It cannot be claimed that the Lord Jesus was under obligation to undergo this baptism as a part of "all righteous- ness ;" 1. Because there is no righteousness in it ; 2. Because what there is in it is just that which he did not come to do. He did not come to repent for sinners, nor to exercise faith for sinners. These things do not enter into that " all righteousness " which he came to fulfil. And he did not come to receive John's baptism ; which is just as far removed from the wondrous work which he came to do. These words must be received at their full, normal, scriptui-al value. They describe with divine brevity, ful- ness, and force, the work which the Mightier than John came into the world to do — "to fulfil all righteousness." Never was there a time more suitable for its announcement. They are the first words of his public life. To no person could they be more suitably spoken. The Forerunner is hereby notified that the Coming One has met him. Nothing could be more appropriate to the amazing mission which brought him into our world, than some expressive and visible covenant declaration and act. No one could share in such inauguration with a fitness comparable with that of his great Foi'erunner. And to this fitness of rela- tionship reference is had in the words — "thus it becometh us '' — "thus," by baptism ; "us," administered by thee, my Forerunner, 30 CHRTSTIC BAPTISM. to me, the Coming One proclaimed by thee; "now," entering upon my covenant work which I now dechxre and am ready to begin — " to fulfil all righteousness." Can there be, in view of the persons, the time, and the circumstances, any other satisfactory interpretation of these groat words ? Stier (Words of the Lord Jesus, I, 30-33) recognizes this bap- tism, although not always with accurate discrimination, as far dif- ferent from tliat of John's baptism. "'For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' First of all we cannot but be pro- foundly impressed bj* the lofty contrast between (his avowal of righteousness, and the confession of sin of all the others, who came to be baptized. And it is strange that Theologians in their search for testimonies of the sinlessness of Jesus, do not find here the first and most luminous dictum probans from his own mouth. This was the decisive declaration which set John perfectly at rest. . . . Here at the very first does tire Lord openly announce to John : Placing myself in the likeness of sinners, taking their sins upon me, I shall and will fulfil righteousness for them. . . . This baptism is truly and essentially the true heginning point of that Obedience, the consummation of which, in the death of the Cross in order to the Resurrection, it pretypifies; '//^ws,' not herein nor hereby^ is an expression of comparison, which points forward to the thing compared. This baptism is his anointing to that sacri- fice of himself for sinners which now first properly begins. He afterwards was baptized with the baptism of death, in which he, as the Lamb of God, bore our guilt; which was not to him the wages of sin, but the highest meritorious righteousness for us all. ... He presents himself, saying — Behold I come to do thy will ; the Father responds — This is my beloved Son ! This acceptance and obligation is to him what the confession of sin is to the sinner. Therein our sins are confessed as done away in his righteousness, and the future baptism for the true forgiveness of sins, which should be ours by virtue of his baptism, is foreannounced." These extracts show a great gulf separating this baptism of the Lord Jesus by John from " the baptism of John." Yenema says : " The water of baptism denotes tlie punishing justice of God. Lito this justice Christ was immersed. Tliis is the baptism of Ciirist concerning which he speaks, Matt. 20 : 22 ; and this was represented by the ba[)tism of water which was ad- ministered to liim by John." Such views, as just as profound, preclude our accepting the barren and superficial conception, that BAPTISM OF THE LORD JESUS BY THE HOLY GHOST. 31 this baptism of Jesus is to be swallowed up iu myriads of like bap- tisms received by the people of Jerusalem and Judea! It is not a like baptism. It stands solitary and alone. But one could re- ceive it. In it there is an announcement of the work of redemp- tion and a covenant engagement by the Son of God to accomplish it. This announcement and assumption of covenant obligation the Father accepts and declares himself " well pleased." The Holy Ghost makes like declaration by descending upon and bap- tizing the covenanting Son for his amazing work now assumed at Jordan, but "finished " only on Calvary. Bengel (Matt. 3:15) speaks with characteristic wisdom and penetration : " It becomes me, as the principal ; thee, as the min- ister. In the mind of Jesus it might also have this sense, ' It becomes me and my Father that I should fulfil all righteousness.' This (all righteousness) is effected not by John and Jesus, but by Jesus alone, who undertook that very thing in his baptism ; whence the appellation 'baptism ' is transferred also to his passion, Luke 12 : 50. Jesus uttered the words here recorded instead of that which others who were baptized, being sinners, confessed concern- ing their si7is. Such a speech suited none but the Messiah him-^ self." ... 1 John 5:6; " He not only undertook, when he came to baptism, the task of fulfilling all righteousness, Matt. 3:15, but he also completed it by pouring out his blood,'''' John 19 : 30. And Ambrose (IV, 680) says : " It was becoming that the precepts of the Law which he had established, he should fulfil, as he says else- where, ' I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil.' " Also, Hilary (I, 927) : " All righteousness must be fulfilled b}^ him, by whom onl}' the Law could be fulfilled." This baptism is a covenant " to fulfil all righteousness." John 1 : 32. "On TedEa/iat to Uvev/ua KarajSaivov djaec ■KcpicsTephv ef ovpavov, nal i/ieivev en' avrdv, " I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."— Jo/in 1 : 32 {Matt. 3 : 10; Mark 1 : 10; Luke 3 : 22.) BAPTISM OF THE LORD JESUS BY THE HOLY GHOST. The term baptism is not immediately applied to this transac- tion. It is, however, very clearly involved in the words immedi- ately following — " Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descend- ing, and remaining on him, the same is 6 liar.ri'^wv Iv fhsuimrt 'Ayia)J^ 32 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. This title, " The Baptizer by (iv) the Holy Ghost," is predicated on the previous personal baptism of our Lord by the Holy Ghost as none other had been or could be (inimitably) and therefore wield- ing all the power of this Divine person in baptizing otliers. But apart from this statement there is no want of evidence for author- izing this transaction being called a baptism. Evidence, to excess, has been furnished for the existence of baptisms where no envel- opment was to be found in fact, or could rationally be conceived. The usage, under such circumstances, being based on a similarity of condition with that produced on a class of bodies susceptible of being penetrated, pervaded, and so receiving qualit}^ from some enveloping element. Therefore this descent of the Holy Ghost and his abiding upon our Lord is called a baptism, and not because of any irrational and impossible external envelopment. That the whole being of " the Christ " was henceforth under the influence of this anointing the Scriptures abundantly testify: 1. By declar- ing through the Forerunner (John 3 : 34) that " the Spirit is not given by measure unto him," and therefore the farther statement, "Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost." That such a gift would have a controlling influence, we are not left to infer; but it is ex- presslj' declared by John — " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." 2. This gift was as unlimited in continuance as it was in measure — " I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon him " (John 1 : 32). 3. Under this influence he preached — " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, ... to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears " (Luke 4:18, 21); "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts 10:38). 4. His miracles were wrought by this power — " If I by (^v) the Spirit of God cast out devils then the kingdom of God has come unto you " (Matt. 12 : 28). 5. The offering up of himself as the Lamb of God was through the same Spirit — " Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God" (Heb. 9: 14). This offering was the con- summation of that covenant assumed at his baptism by John when he engaged " to fulfil all righteousness.'' And it was the trium- phant ending of that work in loving sympathy with which the Holy Gliost descended and abode upon him until the sacrificial offering was " finished." BAPTISM OF THE LORD JESUS BY THE HOLY GHOST. 33 It was conclusive evidence of the pervading and controlling influence of a baptism, that the Saviour immediately after such baptism is represented as being under the full influence of the divine Spirit — " Then was Jesus led up by {^'■^) the Spirit into the wilderness" (Luke 4 : 1). And when he came out of the wilder- ness he came invested with all the singular potency of this Divine agent — ''Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4: 14). And in this condition of baptism did our most blessed Lord con- tinue during all the period in which he was engaged in accom- plishing his covenant "to fulfil all righteousness." All must be struck with the irreconcilableness between this baptism and the theorj'. The theory requires a dipping ; where is the dipping in this baptism ? The theory requires a covering; where is the covering in this baptism ? The theory requires momentary continuance ; where is the momentariness in this life- long baptism ? On the other liand, the identity between the con- clusions reached in Classic baptism, illustrated in Judaic baptism, and confirmed by Johannic baptism, and the features of the bap- tism before us, is obvious. Here, as everywhere, we find the presence of a controlling influence, a thorough change of condi- tion, and no limitation of time. It is as impossible for the theory to expound the baptisms in the Bible or out of the Bible as it is impossible for a sieve to hold water. It is not without practical value to notice the harmony between this baptism of our Lord, on entering upon his oflfice work, and that baptism of the Apostles at Pentecost, when entering upon their office work. Both baptisms were by the Spirit. Both bap- tisms were, in their nature, qualifying for office. Both baptisms were distinct from, while essentially related to the "one baptism." Both baptisms were of life-long continuance. Neither baptism was connected with a water symbolization. The "like as a dove" well betokened the Holy Ghost and not a particular gift ; while the "like as of fire" tongues, aptly set forth the more specific endowments conferred upon the Apostles. The Saviour was not covered over in the "like as a dove" appearance; nor were the Apostles covered over in the " like as of fire " tongues ; yet both were as much covered in the one or the other as men and women were covered in the symbol water of their baptism. While there are harmonies between the baptisms of our Lord and of his Apostles by the Holy Ghost, there is also diversity which separates them measurelessly and precludes the use of the 34 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. phraseology ("immersed in the H0I3' Ghost") insisted on by tlie theory. The New Testament proffers to men a "baptism into re- pentance— into the remission of sins — into Christ." Did any one ever imagine that if a myriad should receive either of these bap- tisms tliat they would not receive identically the same baptism ? Is it not absurd to suppose that those who should be " baptized in the Holy Ghost " would receive diverse baptisms ? And yet the Lord Jesus, the Apostles, and Cornelius, received essentially diverse baptisms, while all are declared by the theory to be alike "immersed in the H0I3' Ghost!" It is not true, therefore, that there is any baptism in the Holy Ghost taught in the Scriptures, but a baptism by the Holy Ghost leaving this Divine Agent to " divide to each severall}' as he will." Bloomfield, Acts 10:38, says: "'Anointed,' by a metaphor taken from the mode of inaugurating kings, signifies invested and endued^ namely, at his baptism. And in Ilvsu/iari 'Aycw xat Suva/iei there is a hendiadys. The sense is. With the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit." Rev. Isaac Errett (Campb.), Christian Standard (Campb. Bapt.), Aug. 9, 1813, thus acknowledges a peculiarity in the bap- tism of Christ : " Now, not to speak of the peculiar design of the baptism of Jesus — as peculiar to himself as was all else that made up his mediatorial mission — which unfits it to set forth the design of baptism to a penitent sinner." .... This baptism is not a dipping, but an abiding "without meas- ure" of the Spirit, in order to "fulfil all righteousness." BAPTISM BY DRINKING FROM A SYMBOL CUP. Mark 10: 38, 39. ^vvacds nielv to TTOT^ptov 6 eyw ttivo) koI to /JdrcTtafia b eyu panTii^ofiai (ian- TiadfjvaL:; Qi 6s eIkov ovtu, Avvd/ieda. 6 6e 'IrjaovQ elirev avTo'ig, To fiiv noTr/ptov b kyu TTivu^ nleade /cat to (SdnTtajua b kyu (iaTTTi^o/iaij (ia-rrTindt/aeaOe. <• Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of and be baptized with the baptism that 1 am baptized with? And they say unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized." BAPTISM INTO PENAL DEATH. The theory which makes Christian baptism to consist in a dip- ping into water, in the name (" by the authority ") of the Father, BAPTISM INTO PENAL DEATH. 35 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, appears to regard the use of the term baptism to describe the transaction announced in this pas- sage as a matter of rhetoric, and applied somewhat irregularly to a case standing out of the line of true baptisms, and with which as baptisms thej' have no concern. By such a view the theory shows itself (as uuder every other crucial test) to be a pure error from centre to circumference. This baptism, so far from being out of the line of Bible bap- tisms and bearing a common title with them e gratia only, is the ver}^ centre of all Bible baptisms, and reflects upon them its own great claim to be the " one baptism " of the Scriptures, in which all other baptisms are grounded and from which they derive their character and worth. This baptism was singularly Divine. The Subject of the bap- tism was God the Son, manifest in the flesh to this very end ; the Upholder of the Divine-human Subject of this unutterable baptism was God the Holy Ghost, Sj^mpathizer and Comforter, descend- ing and abiding upon him ; and the Executor of this baptism is God the Father, who holds the cup full of penal woe to the lips of his "forsaken" (Matt. 27 : 4G) but "beloved Son." As that cup is drunk "the just dies for the unjust" — baptized into jjenal and thus made atoning death. In this baptism are grounded all the typical baptisms of Judaism with their power for ceremonial purification; the baptism of John with its spiritual but imperfectly unfolded baptism " into repent- ance " — " into the remission of sins ;" the fully developed bap- tism of Christianity "into Christ" — " into liis death;" and the remoter, yet from the beginning purposed, baptism of all the redeemed " into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." But among all these baptisms we look in vain, in the Bible or out of the Bible, for that baptism bearing the self-contradicting title — "dipping into water;" this can be found only in the theory. Its ambiguous life can find nurture in no other atmosphere. Although this baptism is stated absolutely, without any defining adjuncts, still there has been a universal agreement in referring it to the atoning death and fulfilment of all righteousness, by the Lord Jesus. Tlie evidence in support of this conclusion is abundant: 1. There is a suggestion of diflSculty and suffering. This is plainh' involved in the questions, " Can ye drink ?" " Can ye be baptized?" A Cup may be used to express what is productive 36 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of gladness and life, but here evidently it points to sorrow, if not to death. What gives character to the contents of the cup, must give character to the baptism also. 2. Allusion to this same baptism, on another occasion, confirms this view ; Luke 12:50, " I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished." This language is indicative of distress and oppression. It shows, also, that the baptism was exclusive in its character, beai-ing only on the Saviour himself. And we are farther led to the conviction that this baptism was familiar to his mind, and that he was now passing through it while on his way to Calvary, where it was to be "finished." 3. The context develops suffering and death distinctly; Mark 10:. 3-3, 34, "The Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes ; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles : And they shall mock him, and scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him.'''' Matt. 20 : 28, " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." 4. Parallel passages abound in which this baptism, in its elements of suffering and death, is brought to view ; Matt. 16:21, "Jesus began to show to his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, aiid be killed;^' Matt. 17:22, "Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men ; and they shall kill him; " Luke 9 : 22, "Jesus said, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain;" Luke 9 : 30, " Moses and Elias talked with Jesus amid the glory of the Transfiguration of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." These and like passages show unmistakably the nature of this cup and its baptism. 5. The repeated use of the same figure as the bap- tism draws nigh its accomplishment, removes all doubt ; Matt. 26 : 39, " 0 my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me ; " v. 42, " 0 my Father, if this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, thy will be done ; " Luke 22 : 44, " And being in an agony he pra^^ed more earnestly ; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." At a later hour of the same night he says : " The cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it ? " Jolin 18:11. That CUP was at his lips, upturned by his Father's hand, the last drop of penal woe passing from its brim when in untold woe he cried, BAPTISM INTO PENAL DEATH. 37 "Eli! Eli I lama sabachthani?" and gave up the ghost, bap- tized into death I This baptism of course does not suit the theory. What true baptism ever did ? The Cup (that onlj' source of his baptismal sorrows recognized by our Lord) must be got rid of. It is too small for the theory. More, shall I say, more penal woe than the Father could put into that Cup for the baptism into death of his beloved Son must be secured ? no, not more penal woe, but more Water. So Dr. Carson says: "This figure represents the suffer- ings of Christ as an immersion in water" (1). It is in vain to quote the poetry of David iu vindication of a " dipping." What is there of a " dipping" in Ps. 42 : 7 — "Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water-spouts ; all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me;" or Ps. 69:1, 2 — "Save me, 0 God; for the waters are come in unto ray soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing ; I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me ; " or Ps. 88 : 6, t — " Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves." To make a " dipping" the measure of these poetical outbursts is only to give another illustration of the truth that the sublime and the ridic- ulous are separated but by a single step. A dipping with its essential triviality constitutes the baptism of the theory. Neither dipping nor triviality ever made up any true baptism. Sprink- lings and pourings have, as baptisms, been abundantly ridiculed. Whenever we sa}^, that the conception in a baptism is measured in its height and depth and breadth by a sprinkling or a pouring, we will not object to any who will, saying ne teneatis visum; but when we say that a certain class of baptisms (Jewish) may be effected by a sprinkling or a pouring, or when we say that another class of baptisms (Christian) may be symbolized as to their spirit- ually purifying character, by a sprinkling or a pouring, and are so ordained of God to be ritually celebrated, then we give kindly notice to all indulgers in merriment, that "As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the man who is not a son of Solomon." It is not a mark of interpretative wisdom to take the glowing poetical forms of the Psalms and incorporate them in the calmer pi'osaic statements of the Gospels. Nothing could more justly and more vividly delineate persistent and oppressive sorrows than the language of David ; but there is no approach to any such 38 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. picturing by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, when they speak of the sutferings of their Lord. David might fitly so write as a poet. The writers of the gospels were not poets ; they were historians. There is neither statement nor implication in any language used by them of " waves," " billows," " water-spouts," or " waters." The unutterable woes of the Redeemer of a lost world are ex- pressed under the simplest and quietest of figures, the drinking from a cup, while the result of that drinking penetrating and pervading his whole being "even unto death," is expressed as a baptisma; a term never employed either in profane or sacred writings to express a covering in water. It would be a "blunder " perhaps " worse than a crime " to displace the sublimely simple language of the Gospels in order to make room for the "waves," and "billows," and " watei'-spouts " of the Psalms, so illy accord- ant with the narrative of Gethsemane and the calmly self-con- tained spirit of the Lamb of God in his death hour. But if such things should be introduced, they will onl}^ serve to make (under the shadow of this cross baptism) more boldly erroneous the notion, that a dipping can be a baptism. PATRISTIC BLOOD BAPTISM. ' Patristic writers speak of baptisms by blood and by water, equall}^, as baptisms. The differences as to the quantity, or as to the manner of using the blood or the water, are never considered as having anything to do with the inatter. A true baptism because of a dipping ,• a false baptism because of no dipping ; are things unheard of. The origin and coequal value of these baptisms is thus declared by a writer in Tertull. Ill, 1198 : " ' I have another baptism to be baptized with' (Luke 12:50); 'Can ye drink the cup which I drink ; or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with' (Mark 10:38)? quod sciret homines non solum aqua, verum, etiam sanguine suo proprio habere baptizari : ita ut et solo hoc Baptismate baptizati fidem integram et dignatiouem sinceram lavacri possint adipisci et utroque modo baptizari, asque tamen unum, baptisma solutis et honoris pariter et aequaliter consequi. Quod enim dictum est a Domino, 'I have another bap- tism to be baptized with ; ' hoc in loco non ut secundum Baptisma, ac si sint duo Baptismata, significat, sed alterius quoque specici Baptisma ad eamdem salutem concurrens donatum nobis esse demonstrat. Because he would teach men to be baptized not only PATRISTIC BLOOD BAPTISM. 39 by water, but, also, by their own blood : so that baptized by this baptism only they may secure a true faith and pure cleansing, and baptized in the one way or in the other equally to secure one baptism of salvation and honor. Because the Lord says, ' I have another baptism to be baptized with,' he does not mean a second baptism, as though there may be two baptisms, but he shows that Baptism has been conferred upon us issuing, under the one species or the other, in the same salvation." This passage (as well as other writings in these days) shows, that a dipping bap- tism was an unknown baptism, and blood baptism and water baptism are declared to be "one baptism" and not two baptisms. But this latter statement is an absolute falsehood stated in the most naked terms, if baptism is a dipping. Cyril of Jerusalem, 440: "If any one should not receive bap- tism, he has not salvation, except martyrs onl^^, who may receive the kingdom even without the water. For the Saviour who re- deemed the world by the cross, being wounded in the side, poured out blood and water ; that some in times of peace (ew udan fia-Kriq- dwacv, ol ds ev xatpoiq dcajy/xaJv iv ouecotq acfxaffi ptaizTiaOwaY) might be baptized with water, but others in times of persecution, might be baptized with their own blood. For the Saviour called martyr- dom baptism, saying, • Can yQ drink the cup that I drink V " In this baptism, as in the preceding, whatever diversity there may be in "water" and "blood" as "species," and whatever diversity there may be in quantity of the one or the other, and whatever diversity there may be in the application of either to the body, their applicability as agencies in baptism is of Divine authority ; each equally effects a baptism, and each effects identically the same baptism. It is a matter of indifference whether it be iv uda-c or iv aciiari; in either case the issue is eiq a^zaiv aij.a.fjrt.i3ing into water " is on its face absurd, as well as in absolute contradiction to their statement, that baptism is Si udo.zoq — di aqia- roq — dia daxpbcov The water was believed by them to be an agenc}' ; and that agency was believed to operate more properly and more effectively on the naked body; and hence the violence to natural modesty and Christian decency in order to secure an assured baptism {dq aipzaiv aimprtuyv) into the remission of sins. CALVARY BAPTISM AND MARTYR BAPTISM. While the baptism by martyr blood is grounded in the blood shed by Christ on the Cross, we are not to supijose that these baptisms were believed to be of the same precise nature. The likeness is exhausted in a common purifying charactei-. Martyr baptism was to purif}^ the martyr. The baptism of Christ was the sacrificial death of "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." So, John of Damascus speaks of (7o ISdnrtdfia 81 aiiJ.aruq xat jiaprupiou 6 y.a\ 6 Xptaroq unep ijtuuv i[iaTZTi(!n-ti) " The baptism through blood and martyrdom with which Christ was bap- tized for us." Here is declared the vicarious character of the Saviour's baptism " by the Cross of his passion." And it was by virtue of the atoning blood shed in that passion, constituting a baptism into penal death under the demand of broken Law, which constituted martyr blood a baptism into the remission of sins. Thus the words of the loving Redeemer were verified, and the disciples became partakers of the baptism of their Lord — " bap- tized with the baptism with which he was baptized." " Without the shedding of blood " (not of any blood, not of martyr blood, 44 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. but of atoning blood) " there is no remission of sins." " He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." " This cup is the New Testa- ment in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins." These passages and a thousand others are steeped in this blood baptism of the Lamb. No wonder that he should exclaim as he presses on toward this baptism and through this baptism — " How am I straitened until it be finished." Origen, IV, 1384, in commenting on Mark 10:38, speaks in- structively on martyr baptism. He sa^'s : " Martyrdom has a twofold significance, of which the one is called {izoryipiDv Gcozrjpioo) the cup of salvation, the other baptism (j3d7:TC(T/j.a) ; so far as one bears suflferings, a cup is drunk by him who bears whatever is brought upon him, enduring and as it were drinking sorrows, neither repelling nor rejecting and vomiting them out ; but as he who bears these things obtains the remission of sins, it is a baptism.''^ In this indication of the application of the terms "Cup" and "Baptism" to martyi-dom, Origen speaks in entire harmony with classic writers with whom baptism by drinking from a cup was one of the most common forms of baptism. CUP BAPTISM. Matt. 20:22. Avvaade ttleIv to norypiov b eyu /leXXu niveiv^ " Are ye able to drink the cup that I shall drink of?" Luke 12 : 50. HdTTTia/ia 6e ix'^ ^airrcadf/vai, Kal Trtjf avvexofiac twf otov reXeady. " I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened until it be finished." Matthew, according to the Codex Sinaiticus, speaks only of the Cup to be drunk; while Luke (in another connection how- ever) speaks only of the baptism to be received. Mark, as we have seen, conjoins the Cup and the Baptism. In other words, Matthew includes in the Cu}) the unstated eftect of drinking that Cup, and Luke, reversely, by stating the Baptism would indicate the Cup causative of that Baptism. Mark makes express state- CUP BAPTISM. 45 merit both of the Cup and of the Baptism, of the cause and of the effect. Dr. Carson objects to a remark of Mr. Ewing of Glasgow — "There is perhaps a more intimate connection between a 'cup' and a 'baptism' as belonging to one allusion, than some readers of Scripture have as yet remarked, as shown b}' Matt. 20 : 22, &c." Dr. Carson (p. 117) says: "These figures both respect o/ie object, but they have not, as Mr. Ewing asserts, 0)ie allusion. They are figures as independent and distinct, as if one of them was found in Genesis, and the other in Revelation. One of them represents the suflTerings of Christ as a cup of bitterness or poison, which he must drink; the other represents the same suf- ferings as an immersion in water." Here arises the question. What is meant b}' "an immersion in water"? The error of the theory is shown most clearly by the loose and inconsistent use which it makes of its own select terms. Does " an immersion in water" mean a dipping in water? Then the phrase is as incom- petent to express intense suffering, much less atoning suffering, as any that could well be invented. Does it mean "an immer- sion in water" up to the chin? How does that express suflfer- ing ? Does it mean an entire covering in water ? Then we have an expression not of suffering but of death ; and how does that accord with a " dipping " ? The whole subject of baptisms is, in every aspect, unmanageable by the theor3^ Di*. Carson adds: "When the Psalmist says, 'The Lord God is a sun and shield,' both the figures represent the same object, but the}^ have a sep- arate and altogether different allusion. The sun is one emblem, a shield is another." This is very true ; and because it is true proves Dr. Carson to be in error. The sun and the shield are diverse in nature, and must in figure represent diverse things. They do so here ; they represent essentially diverse relations in which the Lord God stands toward his people. According to Dr. Carson these diverse things should be taken to express precisel}'' the same thing. For he declares that while a Cup and a baptism are as distinct from each other as is Genesis from Revelation, yet they represent precisely the same thing, namely, " the same suf- ferings." It is irrational to suppose that a drinking and a dipping would be used in the same sentence to express precisely the same thing. Besides, this interpretation fails to meet the breadth of the unfigured and expository language of our Lord. In the con- text immediately preceding the cup and the baptism of Mark we 46 » CHRISTIC BAPTISM. are told : " And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes ; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles : and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him." And again (Matt. 16:21), " Jesus began to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed ; " (Luke 9 : 22), " The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected b}' the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, ayid he slainy And in the context (v. 28) immediately following the announcement by Matthew of the cup to be drunk, our Lord saj^s, " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." Thus in all these prophetic teachings death stands out in the boldest relief as the great fact, the one momentous and essential result in which all antecedent sufferings issue. But "death" is neither in the cup nor in the baptism of Dr. Carson — "the cup represents the sufferings of Christ," baptism " represents the same sufferings." That is to say, the ver}' essence of this pro- phetic announcement — an atoning death, the theor\Ms unal)le to grasp. To admit that baptism has within itself the power of death, would be to give over to death a dipping baptism. The death of Christ must be interpreted out of his atoning baptism in order that the theorj^ may live. We adoringly accept the inter- pretation by our Lord of his own words as given again and again, and recognize the cup filled with penal woe such as was never held to the lips of anj^ other, and the baptism into death conse- quent upon the drinking of that cup, as meeting the demands of a broken law — " the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." In vindication of this understanding it ma}'' be observed: L It is in tlie most absolute harmony witli the representation of Scrip- ture— suffering and death, suffering caamiive of death. This is evident from the quotations already given as well as tlie whole tenor of Scripture. 2. It is in no less harmony with the force and usage of BaizTi^w and lid-naixa, as used in the Classics and in the Scriptures. The Greek verb is frequently used in Classic writ- ings where it is causative of death — "The dolphin l)a[)tizing killed him" (iEsop); " I baptizing you by sea waves, will destroy you " ( Alcibiades) ; " Baptizing others into the lake," drowned CUP BAPTISM. 47 them (Heliodorus) ; " Whom it were better to baptize," to drown (Themistius). We do not find Bdnrifftia iu Classic writings. Its form is expressive of the action of the verb as a result. What- ever power there may be in the verb to effect death, the same power is in the substantive to express death. Whatever may be the competency of Bdnnaim to express the condition of an object physically baptized, yet as a matter of fact it is never so used in the Scriptures. Its usage there is limited to express baptisms which are verbal or purely ideal in character. It is once used with the verbal form expressed (Rom. 6 : 4) d'A zoo BanriatiaToz £(? TOv Odvarov, which is implied in the passage under consider- ation— " Can ye be baptized with the baptism (into death) with which I am baptized." 3. But the question arises: Although the Scriptures conjoin " suffering and death," and although baptize and baptism be competent to express death, yet is it allowable to speak of a baptism — a baptism into death, as effected by drinking from a cup ? In answer to this question it may be replied, that there is no one class of baptisms which is more frequently spoken of by Greek writers than just such baptisms — baptisms by drink- ing. It is not true that every kind of baptism can be eifected by drinking ; nor is it true that baptisms which can be eff"ected by drinking, can be effected by drinking any kind of liquid. Baptisms by drinking are various in character, yet all marked by a thorough change of condition pervaded and controlled by the CHARACTERISTIC of the bajjtizing liquid. No liquid which cannot thoroughly change the condition of the drinker and sul>ject him to its characteristic quality, is capable of baptizing. The follow- ing are examples of baptism by drinking: 1. "Whom, by the same drug (zara/SMTrTiW?), having baptized," by drinking from a cup (Achilles Tatius) ; 2. " Baptized (iSeiSanTifrOac) by unmixed wine," by drinking from a cup (Athenaeus); 3. "Baptizing (/Sarr- Tcffaq) powerfully," by drinking from a cup (Athenaeus); 4. "Bap- tized (i3a-Ti(Tar_) Alexander," bj^ drinking fi'om a cup (Gonon); 5. " Baptizes (iSami'^st.) with sleep, neighbor to death," by drinking from a cup (Evenus) ; 6. " He resembles one baptized (ftsi^anrKT- /jrivw)," by drinking from a cup (Lucian) ; 7. "I am one of those yesterday baptized (i3£/?a;rr;^/yi;>wv)," by drinking from a cup (Plato) ; 8. " Baptizing ((ianri'^o'^jsq) out of large wine jars, they drank to one another " out of cups ; 9. " Baptized (iSsiSaTzriff/iivoc':) by yesterday's debauch," l^y drinking from a cup (Plutarch) ; 10. " The body not yet baptized (iielia-Kriaixivov)^''^ by drinking from 48 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. a cup (Plutarch). These cases from classic Greek writings show not only that a baptism may be effected by drinking from a cup, but that this was one of the most familiar methods of effecting a baptism with which they were acquainted. These baptisms were not specifically of the same character. Some were baptisms of drunkenness, in which there was a thorough change of condition in the baptized by the pervading and controlling influence of the intoxicating quality characterizing the liquid drunk. Some were baptisms of opiate stupor, because the characteristic of the liquid drunk was soporific in its nature, and consequentl}', so thoroughly changed the condition of tlie baptized as to bring them under the controlling influence of that characteristic. It is an error of the most primary character to call in question a baptism because it is effected by drinking from a cup. It is a matter of infinite indif- ference what is the nature or form of an act, or what is the char- acter or mode of applying any influence; if the result is a thorough change of condition hy envelopment without limitation of time, or without envelopment by a penetrating and controlling influence, a baptism is effected. 4. As the way is clear for a baptism bj' drinking, so the case itself demands such interpretation. To make two figures each limited to suffering is beyond justification. Any exposition which does not include death is equallj'' without justification. The drinking of a cup is not an end, but a means to an end. What that end is must be determined by the contents of the cup. This cup is full of suffering, of penal suffering, de- manding and only to be satisfied by death. The drinking of this cup, then, has as its issue not suffering but death. The import of a haptiam is the opposite of a drinking. It is not a means, but an end. It is a result reached through some antecedent action. The natural relation, therefore, of a drinking and of a baptism is that of cause and effect. Such is the representation here — " Can ye drink of the cup of penal woe of which I drink, and thereby be baptized with the baptism into an atoning death with which I am baptized ?" All this was in the mind of the Redeemer, and constituted tlie ground of impossibility which was involved in the inquiry, but it was not in the minds of the disciples, and hence their mistaken reply, which their Lord does not attempt to correct but accei)ts, in so far as it was susceptible of a true interpreta- tion, namely, their full participation in the benefits of his I)aptism. 5. The usage of Scripture in parallel cases vindicates this inter- pretation : " For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me : CUP BAPTISM. 49 Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink ye, and be drunken, and spew, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword that I will send among you. And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth." (Jerem. 25: 15-38.) "Thus saith the Lord God : Thou shalt drink of thy sister's cup deep and large ; thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision ; it containeth much. Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of thy sister Samaria. For thus saith the Lord God : I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled. And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords ; and they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire." (Ezek. 23 : 32-47.) These passages arc sufficient to show that in the Scriptures the drinking from a cup is a means to an end, and that in these cases that end was death. They drank, and were bap- tized into death. 6. This figure of a cup is preserved until its resultant baptism is finished : " 0 my Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me ;'' " 0 my Father, if Ihis Cup may not pass from me except I drink it, thy will be done." (Matt. 26 : 39, 42.) " Father, if thou be willing, remove this Cup from me ; never- theless, not my will but thine be done," (Luke 22 : 42.) " Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee ; take away this Cup from me : nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14 : 36). "TTie Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it ?" (John 18 : 11.) In these allusions to "the Cup," there is no omission of the baptism. The baptism is in the Cup. That Cup was upturned, and the last drop of penal woe passed those pale lips as they opened to cry " Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and with it " he gave up the ghost," and the baptism into death — that death which a broken law demanded, that death which only "the just for the unjust" could die, that death which made the dying One " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world," and "the Lord our Righteousness," that death which was the death of Death, was " finished." Finally, this baptism of our Lord is the only baptism of the New Testament which is repre- sented as effected by drinking from a cup. There is no other 4 50 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. baptism which could fitly be so represented. This baptism stands all alone. It was no ordinaiy death baptism, it was no martyr death baptism, it was an atoning death baptism. The ordinary baptisms, agencies, and symbols, are out of place. What so fit, so tenderly beautiful, as a Cup held to his lips by his Father's hand? In that Cup, melted down by the mighty menstruum of the Law, are the Incarnation, the manger, the temptations of the Wilderness, the contradiction of sinners, the scoff, the derision, the blaspheming, the buffeting, the thorn, the nail, the spear, the forsaking by his Father! and He di-.ink it all, and was baptized into death, " that whosoever believeth on him might not perish but have everlasting life." The believer in Christ drinks of the cup of which he drank, but not until it is emptied b}' liis Lord of its penal woe, and is made unto him a " cup of salvation ;" he is "baptized with the baptism with which he is baptized," l)ut not until its death issue is exhausted, and life springs up in its stead. The sinner who comes to Christ, penitent and believing, is bap- tized into Christ, " who is made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." This baptism of soul purifica- tion could not be represented b^^ the drinking from a cup ; this might represent the gift of life, but not the remission of sin ; there- fore Christian baptism, the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ, through the Holy Ghost, is fitly sj^mbolized by pure water, not drunk, but applied to the body. THREEFOLD CHARACTER OF THE BAPTISM RECEIVED BY CHRIST. The personal baptism of Christ is presented by Scripture in a threefold form : 1. As a covenant baptism engaging to the fulfil- ment of all righteousness ; received from his Forerunner on his public assumption of that work which lie came into tlie world to do. 2. As a baptism by the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Godhead, descending upon him and abiding with him in loving sj'mpatliy with the covenant baptism, and purposed co-operation by measureless influence, in order to its perfect accomplishment. In this baptism (sv Ihshtj.an "Ayuo) {he tcati never taken out of it) the Saviour ever lived ; under its i)ower he ever spake and wrought his miracles of power; and finally, "through the eternal Spirit offering himself without spot to God," he did on Calvary redeem the covenant made on Jordan, "fuUlUing all righteousness," and by his blood shed purging the conscience from dead works to serve the living (iod. (Heb. i) : 14.) 8. As a baptism into penal and CHARACTER OF THE BAPTISM RECEIVED BY CHRIST. 51 atoning death. By this baptism, endured as "a ransom for many," the Lord Jesus Christ becomes "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." He is possessed of this power in the most absohite degree. The characteristic quality of au}?^ liquid substance is developed b}^ and communicated in the fullest meas- ure to an object baptized into it. Any suitable object (fruit) bap- tized (not dijjped) into vinegar, becomes pervaded with its acid quality and is thoroughly changed as to its condition, is converted into a. pickle. If the liquid be melted sugar, the saccharine quality pervades the fruit; it is thoroughlj^ changed as to its condition, and becomes ^preserve. If the fluid be alcoholic in character, the fruit is pervaded by this alcoholic characteristic, becomes assimilated to it, and thoroughly changed in condition, as hrandied fruit. These unquestionable facts furnish the basis for the fol- lowing twofold usage: 1. Where a characteristic quality is com- municated, in any way, so as to pervade, assimilate, and thor- oughly change the condition, to wit, as by drinking an opiate, or by the descent, indwelling, and filling of the Holy Ghost, those who receive such communication are declared, alike by heathen and by inspired writers, to be baptized. 2. Where it is desired to express the communication of a characteristic pervading, assim- ilating, and thoroughly changing the condition, but where, in the nature of the case, there can be no intusposition for this purpose, a verbal form (ci? with the impossible receptive element) suggests such communication in the clearest and strongest possible man- ner, and is employed to express a verbal or ideal baptism. This form of phraseology does not appear in the Classics. It originates in the Scriptures. It abounds there ; sometimes expressing essen- tially diverse baptisms, but generall}', under diversified phrase- ology, conveying the same substantial truth. The design of the phraseology appears to be to express the truth taught in the strongest, most explicit, and most impressive manner possible. Concurrent with this design may have been another, namely, to separate in the most marked manner the New Testament baptisms, real and ritual, from phj'sical intuspositions, of which the New Testament knows absolutely nothing. Corollary. If the characteristic of the Lord Jesus Christ, as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," be expressed as developed in the fullest, the clearest, and the most impressive manner, it will be by phraseology expressive of a Baptism INTO Christ. CHRISTIC BAPTISM: BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY CHRIST. BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST. John 1 : 33. OvrSg iariv 6 ^otttiZuv kv Jlvev/narc 'Ayio). " This is he that baptizeth by the Holy Ghost." This passage might be translated, " This is The Baptizer who is in " — full of, invested with the power of — " the Holy Ghost." The translation — " This is he that baptizeth (=:immerseth, dip- peth?) in the Holy Ghost" (Baptist version), making the Holy Ghost the receiving element of the baptized object, is an impos- sible translation whether we consider grammatical law, Greek (Classic and Hellenistic) usage, or New Testament doctrine. The translation — " This is the Baptizer who is in the Holy Ghost," i§ one which is unquestionably possible, quite probable, and not without many and strong reasons to vindicate as the true translation. The following are some of the reasons which sustain it : 1. It is generally admitted (Stuart, Hodge, Ellicott, Olshausen, Winer) that such phraseology may be explained b}' the supply of the participle (aiv) being, or its equivalent. Winer (p. 389) says : "In Rom. 15 : 16 tf flvsufiart ' Ayiu) is employed designedly, in the Holy Spirit (an internal principle). Least of all does iv XpiarSt ever signify per Christum ; but this phrase invariably refers, for the most part in an abbreviated way, to the being in Christ, iivai iv XpirtTu). So, likewise, in 1 Cor. 12: 3, iv ■nv^btiazi denu is to be rendered quite literally, speaking in the Spirit of God, the element in which the speaker lives. The preposition in ^i- dvoimn nvuq sim- ply means in. And something takes place ' in a person's name,' when it is to be set down to his personal activity, of. Acts 4 : t, 'Ev Ttoia duvdfxei yj iv noiw dvoiiari kizotyjirare touto VfieJq ; In what power or in what name have ye done this?" Olshausen (Rom. 9:1) says: "After these words, iv X[n cannot be mistaken. This point is farther established by the statement of Mark 3: 23, ""Otj (iezX^efitihX e/ei, y.ai ore iv toj tipyo'^rt. Twv diuiwviujv . . . Because he hath Beelzebub and because he is in the Prince of the devils he casts out the devils." Here a demon power is expressly declared to be possessed by Jesus, and he is declared to be "in the Prince of demons" whence this demon power proceeds. The relation of ^i', then, is with Ohro<;^ and " this fellow " is declared to be h iSseX^sfiahX, and thus invested with his power. This view is conclusively established by the repudiation of this singularly wicked charge and the claim by the Lord Jesus, that he was in the Spirit of God — " El 8s iyu) iv llveoiiart Beou. If I in (and therefore invested ivith the power of) the Spirit of God cast out devils;" and Luke 11 : 20, " El de iv da/.ruXu} 0eou. But if in (therefore by) the finger of God I cast out devils" . . . . Throughout this narrative the preposition iv has most evidently its instrumental force, grounded in its primary meaning, as bear- THE BAPTIZER IN THE HOLY GHOST. 55 ing upon Oorvq. The same is true as to iv and its relation with 6 [ioLTzri^ojv in the passage under consideration. "The Baptizer" is represented as being in, and hence baptizing by the Holy Ghost. 5. The prophetic declaration of John, Matt. 3:11, " He shall bap- tize you (^y UveO/xaTi ^Ayiu)) being in (and therefore by) the Holy Ghost." The translation of this passage by the Baptist version — " He shall immerse (dip?) you in the Holy Ghost," is untenable in every point of view: (1.) It cannot be vindicated under the theory held as to the meaning of [ia-KTriZw. (2.) The conjunction of (■iar.ri^u) iv to express the transition of an object out of one medium into another medium cannot be vindicated by any Classic usage. (3.) The prophecy put into the mouth of John declaring, that the great characteristic of the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ should be " to immerse (dip) in the Holy Ghost " is without a word of Scripture to support the declaration, and without a fact to evidence its fulfilment. We accept therefore the great announce- ment of John, that his Lord should be in and baptize by the Holy Ghost ; a declaration made ages before by the Prophets, pro- claimed as a fact by the Evangelists, and exemplified with power and great glory in the history of the church. 6. This interpre- tation is confirmed by a contrasted parallelism with the personal condition and power ascribed by the Scriptures to the Fore- runner. In Luke 1 : 17 it is said: "And he shall go before him (ti^ ■Kvsbtj.ari /.at du^d/jLsi ^HXiou) in the spirit and power of Elias." No one, so far as I know, ever questioned, that by this language John was foretold as coming in (therefore invested with and qualified by) the spirit and power of Elias for the great work before him. When now it was foretold by Isaiah, that the anoint- ing spirit of the Lord should be upon Jesus ; when it was fore- told to John that the Holy Ghost should descend and remain upon him ; when it was foretold by John that he should baptize being h Uveu/jiaTi '^Aytw] when John declares he saw the prophetic sign verified with his own e3^es, and on that foundation immedi- ately declares Jesus as Ooroq eanv 6 ^aKTc'^wv h llveuij-an Ayiu) ; why shall we hesitate to accept this multiplied testimony to the per- sonal condition and power of the divine Baptizer, and recognize the truth, that because John came " h Tc^zuixazi /.at duvdnsi 'HXcou,^^ while his Lord came "ev Uveu/Jiarc "^ Ayiu} — iv Suvd/xet xui Uveufxarc deoo " — therefore the Forerunner was " unworthy to bear the shoes " of the Coming One ? The interpretation of this passage will remind us of the rules 56 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of Winer (p. 353) : The present participle (with the article) is often used substantively, and then as a noun, excludes all indica- tion of time. In Eph. 4 : 28 o xX^rrajv is the stealer; Matt. 27 : 40 V -/.o-zaXowi) the deatroyer; Gal. 1 : 23 6 8iw/.wv the persecutor ; and (p. 135) " When an adjunct (consisting of a noun and preposition) which in reality forms with the substantive but one leading idea, is to be linked to the preceding noun simply by the voice, the grammatical connective of the written language (z. e. the article) is wanting, e. g. Col. 1 : 8, zijv upMv dydjzrj'^ iv Ilveuiiart^ your love in the Spirit. This takes place especially in the oft-recurring apos- tolic phrase, l\> Xpiaroj^ Iv xuptu), (^iv Iheu/jLart)^ as 1 Thess. 4:16 ol vexpo} iv XpiffToj the dead in Christ, with which is contrasted (v. 17) oi l^aJvTs^ (iv XpKTzo)) the living in Christ; Eph. 4: 1 dicrixux; iv xupiu) the prisoner in the Lord." On tliis last passage EUicott quotes Fritz. Rom. 8 : 1, ^w Kupioi wv vinctus est he was hound being in the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ — » ^anzi^wv iv Uvsu/iaTi "Ayio) — is " the Divine baptizer being in the Holy Ghost." The interpretation which does not recognize Christ as " in the Holy Ghost," but represents him as " immersing (dipping) in hol}^ spirit," "in the essence of holy spirit," "in abstract holy spirit," "in a holy spirit," shows how an initial error leads on to other and more portentous error. The translators of the Baptist Bible have no ditHculty in seeing a personal Beelzebub in iv rui Ike/.!^si3<)hX, hut the}'^ see no personal Holy Ghost in ev nveO/iart 'Ayiuj, John 1:33, Matt. 3:11, although indissolubly connected with Matt. 3 : 16, 4 : 1 ; Luke 4:1,14; Matt. 12 : 28; Acts 1 : 2, 5 ; Heb. 9: 14 ... . This statement is illustrated by the following quotations from the notes on the Baptist version : " Matt. 3:11, ' He will immerse you in holy spirit ;' note, In holy spirit. By this is meant that divine influence, so often expressed by the Greek words . . . Tlie omission of the article, in this and similar cases, will enable the English reader to make the distinction intended by the sacred writer." " 'John I ; 33, he it is that immerseth in the Holy Spirit.' Note: I would greatl}' prefer to render these words literally. Holy Spirit, without the article. I do not con- sider the meu/m aytov here spoken of to be the personal spirit, con- templated as such, but, simpl}', divine essence, abstracted, in the mind of the writer, from all ideas of personal attribution or rela- tions." Dr. Conant does not appear to approve of this transla- tion as interpreted. Li his Dissert, p. 67, while he repeats the translation of Matt. 3 : 11, "he will immerse you in holy spirit.,^' THE BAPTIZER IN THE HOLY GHOST. 57 he translates John 1 : 33, " this is he that immerses in the Holy Spirits The translator of Acts does not seem to agree with either of his fellow-laborers in the interpretation of this phrase: '"Acts 1 : 5, You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.' Note: The Book of the Acts is not inappropriately called ' The Gospel of the Holy Spirit.' His personal attributes, mission and work, are more full}' developed. . . . Speculative theologians have been much per- plexed in their versions and criticisms upon the anarthrous forms of this Divine person. . . . We judge it expedient to take a criti- cal and full view of this third pergonal manifestation of Jehovah. . . . Thus ■mvs.bij.a becomes definite, because specific, b}' the adjunct d^f«v. There is no room for mistake. So far from the article being necessary to give deflniteuess or individuality to r.vzuij.a dywv^ it is its very definite and individual character that enables it to stand without the article. It is a great mistake to suppose that nveu/ia ayiov is an abstract noun. Ilvso;j.a alone may be used as an abstract noun, but surely not with the qualifying and specific adjunct dycov. . . . The Holy Spirit is set forth in his individual, personal, and specific character, as mtviia ayiov ; not as an influence of something else, but a concurring and self-acting personal divine agent in consummating and completing the work of redemption. . . . Here there can be no mistake. The to ll^suim to 'Ayuiv promised in John 14 : 26 is the msup-a dycov in which the Harbinger promised they should be immersed, the same n^eu^aa dyw^ for which the Saviour bid them tarry at Jerusalem, and the to dywv nvsuiu/. which was to come upon them in order to endue them with power, &c., as found in V. 8. The identity of the subject as indicated b^' the several expressions, ■Kvs.up.a dycov, ro Tzvsuixa to aytov^ and TO ayuiv nvsujia^ Can- not be doubted." This is suflficiently decided as against an immersion (= dipping) "in holy spirit," "in divine essence," "in abstract spirit," "in a holy spirit " (Stovel) ; but how such great office work of the Holy Ghost in a world's redemption accords with a representation of the third Person in the Godhead, being a quiescent medium into which the souls of men are to be introduced by the Lord Jesus Christ, remains to be explained. The passage is to be understood as announcing the peculiar character of the Lord Jesus Christ as a Baptizer. This is done by exhibiting him in a twofold aspect : 1. As being personally kv IlvsujiaTi 'Ayiuj. 2. As a consequence of being ^i' UveufxaTi 'Ayiu), 58 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. being invested with the power of baptizing hy the Holy Ghost. In the use of this phraseology the Scriptures are self-interpreta- tive: Acts 4 : t, " '£V -ilia duvd'i.ei yj b^ Tzotoj o'yoij.aTi^ being in (there- fore working hij) what power, or being in (therefore working hy) what name?" v. 9, ^'- h tjvj, in (therefore by) whom;" v. 10, '•'■ Iv ovoimTi I. X, in (therefore by) the name of Jesus Christ; " v. 12, " iv uXku) ojds'A^ in (therefore by) no other ; " " h w, in (therefore by) whom we must be saved;" v. 30, ev tw, in (the Lord (v. 29) being in) therefore healing by his hand ; " Std rou ovo/iaToq. through the name (by those being Iv tcu S'^j/mrt) of th\^ holy child Jesus." The Lord Jesus being ^v //. 'A. did '■'■ ota II. 'A. give commands" (Acts 1 : 2), and " Scd II. 'A. offered himself without spot to God." (Heb. 9 : 14.) John "coming in the spirit and power of Elias " was qualified to do his work through that spirit and power. John's Lord coining " in the Spirit and power of God " was qualified to do his work through that Spirit and power. Some may prefer interpreting iv ]lv£i>;xarc " Ayio) as qualifying 6 [iar.ri'^ujv as expressing an act rather than in a purely substantive use. Such interpretation will affect the form only of the argument. Acts 1 : 5. 'T/ieig Je ^anTiaOyataOe iv Jlvev/jan 'Ayiu, " But ye shall be baptized by the Holy Ghost." THE BAPTISM OF THE APOSTLES FOR THEIR APOSTLESHIP. This great baptism is a worthy illustration of that divine in- vestiture publicl}'- received by the incarnate Redeemer in entering on his covenant work by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and by reason of which he was proclaimed by his Forerunner to be — " 6 [iar.Ti^Mv h Iheo/j-arc "^Ayioj — the Baptizer who being in the Holy Ghost bai)tizes by the Holy Ghost." It is also a very clear and striking illustration of the diversity in baptisms. The theory does not and cannot consistently recognize diversity in baptisms. The argument is — " A dipping is a dii)ping and a baptism (:= dipping) is a baptism (=: dipping)." There may be a dipping of diverse objects into diverse elements with diverse results, but the dipping remains unchanged and unchangeable. To baptize is to perform " a definite act," to dij) ; and this is its meaning they say always, never being used to express the result of an act, laying aside defi- nite form. That is to say, the friends of the theory still make DR. CARSON AND THE THEORY. 59 their argument as to fio.TzriXuj as formerly in relation to [idr.rut^ to turn on a modal act, exclusive, invariable, and always present in fact or in imagination. Those wlio do not accept this theory deny the foundation (modal action) on which it rests, affirming that fia-Ti'lu) does not belong to the class of verbs expressing modal action, but to that class which makes demand for condition. They farther affirm, that the condition (intusposition) demanded for its object by fiar.ri'^u) does invariabl}?, from the necessity of the case, result in a complete change of condition of the object, and ordi- narily in a farther change of condition in consequence of the object being penetrated, pervaded, and thus assimilated to the cliarac- teristic quality of the encompassing element. And, grounded in this unquestionable fact, it is still farther affirmed, that fianriXio has a secondary usage in which the condition of intusposition does not appear, but a condition identically the same as or analogous to that resulting from intusposition (namely, interpenetration and assimilation), but effected in any way or by any means. The friends of the theory having been confronted by Dr. Carson with the rhetorical enormity of " dipping a lake in the blood of a frog," they abandoned the doctrine that t^dnzoj means "to dip and noth- ing but dip," and accepted a secondary meaning based upon the effect of dipping under certain conditions, namel3', into a dyeing liquid an object fit to receive by interpenetration and assimilation the characteristic quality of the dye, so that dipping in blood {i[id-zez(i rjalp/iri) became transformed into ''^ dyed hj blood," the modal act utterly disappearing. The " fantastic tricks " of rhet- oric resorted to in order to save modal act to frid-zoj are a trifle compared with those which have been found necessary (not to save for it never was there, but) to give, de noco, modal act to iio.-Kz>Xuj. Many of these rich imaginings we have already met with, and shall meet with more, and with one (not the least remarkable) in the passage now to be considered. Dr. Carbon and the Theory. There is a propriety in giving prominence to the views of Dr. Carson on this subject, because he is regarded in Great Britain as without a peer among his fellows; and in America his writings are issued by the Baptist Board of Publication as of standard authority. All must acknowledge that the writings of Dr. Carson have unusual power. This arises in part from the element of 60 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. truth which is obvious ; but still more by the boldest statements declaring that to be true which is untrue (he honestly believing his statement to be true) and the ordinary reader being unable to detect its falsity. Dr. Carson is also a man of the profoundest convictions, of the most daring courage, of imperious will, and an utter stranger to veneration for any human name that stands opposed to him. He sees difficulties only to trample them under foot. He meets opposing suggestions only to fling them behind his back. He writes with the unreserved force of a man who claims that what he writes is "demonstration " and for "eternity." With such characteristics associated with respectable learning, and special study of language in some of its departments, the writings of Dr. Carson could not but be impressive. Other writers are more learned, as Gale; more critical, as Ripley; more broad and judicious, as Conant; more refined and candid, as Morrell; but no writer of his class has the power which belongs to Carson. I am happy to say, farther, that whatever of amenity and polish ma\' be obviously lacking in the author of these writings, there is no less of evidence that he is a truly honest and Christian man. Some of. his friends may think that it was a sad illogicisra which led this earnest defender of a "dipping into the water" not to refuse to others "a crumb dropping from the children's table," and even to allow them to sit down with him and eat of the same "bread" and drink of the same "cup." But this sin surely was not remembered against him when in death he passed into the presence of the Master who gave of the children's bread even to a Syrophenician. If the views of Dr. Carson as to the baptism under consideration appear to be sucl\ as no rational man could entertain, it must be remembered that their very extravagance is proof that Dr. Carson was no ordinary man. A common man, one of an everyday courage, self-confidence, and faith in a theory, would have shrunk back from their promulgation ; it required the nerve and faith of Carson to follow theory into self-contradiction and absurdity with a triumphant step. But let us look at his interpretation of this baptism of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost, as a dipping. ^^ Baptism of the Holy Spirit.'" The section which introduces the discussion bears the heading, " Baptism of the Holy Spirit." This phraseology exemplifies the "baptism of the holy spirit." ^ deceptive and (in view of his fundamental principles) the incon- sistent use of language which so largely characterizes and vitiates the entire book. No friend of the theory has a right to speak of "the baptism of the Spirit." Such language implies either that "the Spirit" is to be the object dipped, or is to be the agent who is to dip some one else; but the theory rejects both these views, and insists upon a dipping of somebody by somebody "^■/^ the Spirit." Then stand by this position. Do not tacitly disavow it by going into the camp of the enemy to borrow their banner. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is our legend. Let those who believe in "a dipping in the Holy Spirit" manfiillj' avow it, boldly display it, and if they can triumphantly defend it. The statements of Dr. Carson under this heading will now be given and followed by needful criticisms. " Figure " — " Immersion " — " Dipping " — " SanctifcatioJi.^' "The baptism of the Spirit is a figurative expression, explicable on the principle of a reference to immersion. This represents the abundance of the gifts and influences of the Spirit of God in the enlightening and sanctifying of believers. That which is im- mersed in a liquid, is completel}' subjected to its influence and imbued with its virtues; so, to be immersed in the Spirit, repre- sents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit to his influence. The whole man is sanctified." "Believers are said to be immersed into the Spirit, not because there is anything like immersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, but from the resemblance between an object im- mersed in a fluid and the sanctification of all the members of the body and faculties of the soul." "But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figurative baptism to which there cannot be a likeness in the literal baptism ; yet, as respects the transaction on the day Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. The disciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts ; but they were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire." . . . "Now though there was no dipping of them, yet, as they were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech which I before explained, they are said to be immersed." . . . 92 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. "Air and fire were elements of the baptism that took place on the cla\^ of Pentecost, but the}^ are not the elements in the stand- ing ordinance of Christ They who were baptized on that day in wind and fire, had been baptized before." . . . "'A dry baptism 1' exclaims Dr. Wardlaw. Be patient, Dr. Wardlaw; was not the Pentecost baptism a dry baptism? Chris- tian baptism is not a dry baptism ; but the baptism of Pentecost, and of the Israelites in the Red Sea, were dry baptisms." "The baptism did not consist in the mode of the coming of the flame, but in the being under it. The}^ were sun-ounded by the wind and covered by the fire above. They were therefore buried in wind and fire" (pp. 104-114). Criticism. 1. "The baptism of the Spirit is a figurative expression, ex- plicable on the principle of a reference to immersion." The term "fio-urative" is without well-defined boundaries. Its use is often- times vague and unsatisfactory. A figurative expression is, most naturally, one which is designed to point the mind to the "figure," form, outline, of something physical, as having some element in common with and expository of something which does not pertain to physics. " A wave of trouble rolled over the land " suggests a resemblance between "trouble" and "the land," such as is found in a wave of water rolling broadl}^ and resistlessly over the ocean. " He has dipped into mathematics " suggests an object put into a fluid for a moment and withdrawn. What is momentary and superficial is necessarily limited in effect. A physical dipping, therefore, expounds a dipping info mathematics as a study limited in time and attainment. " lie is immersed in thought " suggests an object completely covered. Ilow covered, or with what cov- ered, the allusion has nothing to do ; the covering is unlimited in extent and in time. We learn, therefore, that "immersion in thouijht " is complete engagedness in (not aHsimilation to) think- ing to the exclusion of everything else. Such usage is plainly and designedly figurative. The mind is unavoidably led to the physical allusion, and without eff'ort apprehends the reason of it. But there are other phrases which by some are called figurative with less obvious propriety. "The peoi)le are enlightened;" "The man is debased;" "Imbued with love;" "Endued with wisdom;" such phrases are very questionably called figurative. CRITICISM OF THE THEORY ON PENTECOST BAPTISM. 63 They may be all traced to a ph^'sical origin, but not one in ten thousand does so trace them in their nseor in hearing them used. Indeed "debase," "imbue," "endue," have no physical use in our language, and a merely English scholar could not refer to their use in physics to aid him in the understanding of their actual use. In the Greek language jSanrcff/j-a has as little use in physics as "imbue," "endue," have in English. It is never so used in the New Testament. I do not remember any such usage in Christian Greek writers; and it does not appear at all in classic writings. It is of course traceable to physics through the verb, and its value is clearly deducible from such source ; but when it is said to be used " figuratively," the terra is too loose, in such application, without some defining explanation. The phrase, "baptism of the Spirit," does not occur in Scrip- ture. " The baptism of John " is of frequent occurrence, and alwaj^s means the baptism proceeding from John as preacher or administrator. " The baptism of repentance " is also met with, and always indicates that baptism proceeding from repentance as its source. " The baptism of the Spirit," interpreted by par- allel phraseology of Scripture, must mean that baptism of which the Spirit is the teacher or the executive ; but the Scriptures do not represent the Spirit as a teacher of a baptism, while it does represent him as the executor of baptism. This phrase, therefore, can only represent the Spirit as the executor of baptism. But the theory teaches a baptism in the Spirit as the receiving ele- ment, and not by the Spirit as the executor ; it therefore teaches a doctrine unknown to the Scripture, and which precludes their use of the phrase " baptism of the Spirit." The language of Dr. Carson, made consistent with the theory, would read thus : " The dipping in the Spirit is a figurative ex- pression, explicable on the principle of a reference to dipping." This, as Carsonism, is plain enough. It refers us to the dipping (therefore momentary and superficial introduction) of an object into water with trivial effect ; therefore it teaches us that Chris- tians are momentarily, superficially, and trivially, brought under the influence of the Spirit. Such baptism may suit those who believe in the theory ; it will not suit those who believe in the Bible. 2. " This " (baptism = immersion = dipping) " represents the abundance of the gifts and influences of the Spirit of God." A dipping never was used in figure and never can rationally be so 64 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. used to express "abundance of gifts and influences." Its import is the riglit opposite. And if immersion is so used, in figure, it is an unusual use. It may express covering, and so quantity sufficient for such purpose ; but this is a very different conception from "abundance of gifts and influences." But however this may be it is of no help to the theory, for in its vocabulary " immersion " is not immersion^ but a dipping. Baptism is never used to ex- press " abundance ;" its idea is always that of power. A cup of wine will baptize by its intoxicating power; a draught of an opiate will baptize by its soporific power ; a dove-like appearance has jjower symbolly to baptize ; cloven tongues as of fire have power symbolly to baptize; drops of water have power symbolly to bap- tize. A baptism has nothing to do with abundance, but is a resultant condition effected by some pervading, assimilating, and controlling influence. "Abundance" belongs to pouring^ and not to dipping or baptism. And in this connection the idea origin- ates in, and is borrowed from, the '■'' 2iOuring out of the Spirit." 3. " That which is immersed in a liquid is completely subjected to its influence and imbued with its virtues ; so to be immersed in the Spirit represents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit to his influence." If Dr. Carson used language at its true value, and used it cou- sistentl}^, and there was any such statement in the Scripture as "immersed in the Spirit,*' then this language would express im- portant truth, and the theory would be rejected as "Nehushtan." But unhappily none of these things are true. The opportu- nity, however, is given for bringing into relief some things wliich are true. (I.) The radical difference between dip and im- merse precluding their interchangeability. Dr. Carson saj's: "That which is immersed in a liquid is completely subjected to its influence and imbued with its virtues." This is perfectly true using "immersed" at its proper value ^ within a fluid without limitation of time, and the object being of a nature adapted to that influence or virtue belonging to the liquid. But now substi- tute for "immersed" dipped^ and how will the statement appear? "That which is dipped in a liquid is completel}' subjected to its influence and imbued with its virtues." Could a statement be more utterly devoid of truth? A vegetable "immersed" (by the force of the word without limitation of time) in vinegar becomes completely sulyected to its influence and imbued with its virtues, and is thoroughly changed in condition — converted into a pickle. CRITICISM OF THE THEORY ON PENTECOST BAPTISM. 65 Is this trueof sivegetsibledijjped (bj^tbe force of the word limited to momentary continuance) in vinegar? Is it completely subject to the influence of the vinegar, imbued with its virtues, and trans- formed into a pickle ? (2.) The shifting in argument from im- merse to dip, and from dip to immerse, using them respectively in their distinctive value as the exigenc}^ of the case may de- mand, and again interchanging them as though they had no dis- tinctive value, 'is a wrong to truth, is destructive to argumenta- tion, and is proof of the falsity of the cause which demands such support. But such shifting runs through Dr. Carson's writings, and constitutes his club of Hercules. (8.) But this statement of Dr. Carson has special value as vindicating a radical principle in this Inquiry. It has been insisted upon that fian-i'^u} did not mean to dij), that it did make demand for intusposition without limitation in the time of continuance. It has farther been in- sisted upon that the effect of such intusposition on suitable ob- jects was to bring them under the controlling influence of the in- vesting element interpenetrating, pervading, assimilating, and controlling, or (to use Dr. Carson's words) "completely subject- ing them to influence of the liquid and imbuing them with its virtues." And proof has been adduced that on this basis was grounded a secondary usage of /JaTmCw in which the investing ele- ment disappeared, and a condition (the result of some pervading and assimilating influence) was directly expressed. Dr. Carson now admits (to the destruction of a dipping) that "complete sub- jection to influence and imbuing with virtues" is the result of a baptized condition, and he expounds the baptism under consider- eration as one in which no dipping^ no immersion, is to be found. Thus the radical truths developed in Classic Baptism, and x^e- vealed throughout this Inquiry, are vindicated by the admissions of Dr. Carson, and a secondary usage grounded in the effect of the primary is established. 4. " To be immersed in the Spirit represents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit to his influence. The whole man is sanc- tified." This interpretation again subverts the theory : (1.) A dipping cannot subject the soul, body, and spirit to any influence. (2.) If " immersion in the Spirit " accomplishes this profound, abid- ing, and assimilative change, then the word which expresses " im- mersion in the Spirit " cannot express dipping in water. (3.) 5 66 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. While the Scriptures do not teach an " immersion in the Spirit," they do teach a "baptism into repentance" (e;? /leravour^), and if Dr. Carson will apply his exegesis as above, he will find all so baptized (not dipped) "completely subjected to the influence of repentance and imbued with its virtues." The Scriptures also teach a baptism (not a dipping) " into the rernission of sins " (e/? aiion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, but from the resemblance between an object immersed in a fluid and the Sanctification of all the mem- bers of the body and the faculties of the soul." Observe (1.): The shifting from "immersed in the Spirit" to " immersed into the Spirit." This is far from being a trivial mat- ter. It is not only erring in translation (which all may do), but it is a usurpation of that language which the Holy Spirit has es- tablished as a barrier against the error of the theory. There is no such language in the history of the work of redemption as baptism ^Hnto the H0I3' Spirit." The prepositions dq and iv^ in connection with baptism throughout the New Testament, are used with a severe discrimination which has no exception. The former (e:?) is invariably employed to designate the receptive element (which is always ideal), and the latter (^v), or the dative alone, is always used to denote the agency, whether efficient that of the Holy Spirit, or symbol that of water. This discrimination is a silent but impressive warning against confounding what God has dis- tinguished. But the theory has not only converted the Holy Spirit into a receptive medium under the plea that iv means in^ but having done this is dissatisfied that her self-created baptism should stand alone bearing a mark alien from all divine baptisms, and so has displaced Iv (the divine mark of agency) and of her own will has substituted et'?, thus taking away from and adding unto the word of God in most vital points. Observe (2.) : In this unhappily entitled " immersion into the Spirit," there is "not any- thing like immersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit;" the baptism consists solely in the effect i)roduced, a thorough change of condition, namely, "the Sanctification of all the mem- bers of the body and the faculties of the soul." If Dr. Carson had grasped this truth and followed its guidance in the interpretation of Classic baptisms, it would have saved him and his friends from whole seas of bad rhetoric of the lake-frog-blood class. It is a master-key truth, that in Classic, and Jewish, and Christian bap- tisms there is a large proportion of baptisms in which " there is not anything like immersion," but solel}' a thorough change of condition analogous to the effect produced on a class of objects by 68 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. immersion without limit of time. And the settled establishment of this j)oint will be an adequate issue to this Inquiry. But ob- serve (3.) : The explanation of Dr. Carson lacks both correctness and congruit}'. If " believers are immersed into the Spirit," then it is neither correct nor congruous to speak of the manner in which the}^ " receive the Spirit." Whatever a man is " immersed into " receives him, not he it. Blot out this " immersion into " (and in also) which is not in the Scriptures and which is a burden heavj^ to be borne by the theory, and then the way will be clear to speak of " the manner of the reception of the Spirit " when baptized by the Spirit. There is a farther error and incongruity when " be- lievers are said to be immersed in the Spirit because of the resem- blance between an object immersed in a fluid and the Sanctification of body and soul." That is to sa}^, the baptism of the Spirit con- sists in the Sanctification of the body and the soul without having an3'thing to do with or with an3-thing like dipping or immersing, and yet this is called baptism because of its resemblance to an ob- ject immersed in a fluid. Is not tliis on its face incorrect and hope- lessly incongruous? How can what is not ("there is not anything like an immersion ") resemble that which is = "an immersed ob- ject"? Or, is the baptism (= Sanctification) like "the object" (a rock) apart from the immersion ? This is impossible. What then is meant? Is it this, Dr. Carson has severely condemned his friends for admitting that an effect could be called a baptism ; hut here he is brought face to face with such a ba2)tism, and in his extremity he shrinks from acknowledging "eflfect" (so destruc- tive in its bearings) and writes in its stead " immersion," logically meaning the effect of immersion ? Whether Dr. Carson so meant or not such is the truth. It is impossible for a sane man to talk of a resemblance between " Sanctification of body and soul " and an " immersed object." Sujjpose that object to be a flint rock or a mass of iron, what is tlie resemblance to a Sanctified body and soul ? Who has the courage to attempt an answer ? Resemblance to an ''^immersed object" must be abandoned. Try now an object whicli is capable of receiving influence, of being changed in con- dition, made assimilant to the characteristic of the enveloping element; for example, take some fruit put into melted sugar a year ago; what is its condition now? Is it not penetrated, per- vaded, and assimilated to the saccharine characteristic of the element in which it has been immersed? Is not its condition as fruit thoroughly changed? Does any one hesitate to recognize CRITICISM OF THE THEORY ON PENTECOST BAPTISM. 69 the resemblance between such an effect produced upon the fruit (thoroughly changing its condition by an influence pervading and controlling it by its own characteristic) and the effect produced upon the soul, thoroughly changing its condition by an influence of the Holy Spirit pervading and controlling all its faculties, and making them subject to its own holy characteristic ? The bap- tism of the Spirit, then, is an effect produced in the soul without a dipping, without an immersing, without anything like either; but which is like the effict produced on certain'objects by baptism in a fluid having a special characteristic, and which thus receive and are made assimilant to such characteristic. In other words, it is admitted that the terms baptize and baptism have ceased to express dipping, or immersing, or "anything like" them, and does directly express an effect like to the effect of physical bap- tism, in ivhatever way such effect may be produced. By this ad- mission (ianriZu) and fidnrcu are placed side by side as to the ground of their secondary usage. The former laj-s aside its modal con- dition of intusposition, and adopts the effect of such intusposition on a certain class of objects as a secondary meaning; the latter lays aside its modal action of dipping, and adopts the effect of such dipping on a certain class of objects as a secondary mean- ing. As Dr. Carson's protest against the rhetoric of his friends which would dip a lake into drops of blood was triumphantly suc- cessful, inducing its prompt and universal abandonment and the establishment of a secondary meaning for (Sd-rcj in which there was no dipping, so may his repudiation of " anything like immer- sion " in the baptism of the Spirit prove to be no less happy in its results, and relieving his friends of their singular rhetoric, estab- lish among them a secondary meaning for jSaTzrcZw in which " any- thing like immersion " shall forever pass away. G. " But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figurative baptism to which there cannot be a likeness in the literal bap- tism, yet as respects the transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. The dis- ciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts ; but they were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire." (1.) Dr. Carson has admitted that the baptism of the Spirit is not a " figure " of dipping or immersing, for there is not anything like these things in it ; but it is called a baptism because it pro- duces an effect which resembles the effect produced by physical 70 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. baptism. These effects have individual differences, yet have this common feature, namely, a thorough change of condition assimi- lant to the characteristic of that which effects such change. Now of such effect the baptism of the Spirit is not a " figure," but is an exemplification. It is therefore a real baptism — not changing the condition of an object by introducing it within a physical cover- ing, nor (what is a very different thing) the condition of an object through an influence operating by means of a physical envelop- ment, but changing the condition of an object in like character as an influence operating through envelopment changes it, develop- ing its influence, however, in other ways than by envelopment. Denying therefore that any envelopment, real or imaginary, exists in these baptisms (the correctness of which denial Dr. Carson ad- mits), and aflflrming that the name applied to them (baptism) is derived from that class of baptisms in which the envelopment is only a means to an end, namel}', assimilative cliange, we farther affirm, that this mode (by covering) for effecting such changes ceases to be exclusive, and any act or injiuence competent to effect like change is accepted as effecting a baptism. The thorough change in the condition of the soul, effected by the Hol}'^ Spirit assimilating it to itself, is therefore a real baptism, and is not "the figure " of a dipping, or an immersion, or a covering. (2.) " The disciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts." As there is no baptism " into the Holy Spirit " in his official working in the scheme of redemption, and the nature of his rela- tion to the scheme of redemption as the great AVorker in the souls of men, does not allow of his being regarded as a quiescent medium out of which some one else is to extract virtue by putting the souls of men into it, this statement is erroneous. But who confers " the abundance of his gifts "? Is "it the Holy Spirit ? Then the Holy Spirit "immerses into the Holy Spirit," for this immersion is '•'■by the abundance of his gifts." This is not the wisdom of the Scriptures. Does some one else bestow " the abundance of his gifts "? Then what becomes of the office of the Holy Spirit ? In this statement Dr. Carson is leading us in a circle. He has already told us that " immersion in the Spirit " confers " abun- dance of gifts " and " sanctifies body, soul, and spirit." We are now told that " abundance of gifts " previously conferred has a power to "immerse into the Spirit." Error cannot square with the truth. CRITICISM OF THE THEORY ON PENTECOST BAPTISM. 71 (3.) " There was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. . . They were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire." (a.) " A real baptism " (!) no " figure " here, (b.) " In the em- iriems of the Spirit." There were no " emblems of the Spirit " present at Pentecost. The Spirit does not baptize " in emblems." All baptisms of the Holy Spirit are real baptisms of the soul, not coverings of the body in " sound " and " cloven tongues." The "sound as of a might3' rushing wind " proclaimed the presence of the Deity ; and the " cloven tongues as of fire " symbolized the gift conferred to speak in other languages. The " appearance as of a dove " descending and remaining on the " beloved Son " when he was baptized "without measure" by the Spirit, was an emblem of the Holy Ghost ; wind-sound and cleft tongues are not. (c.) " They were literally covered with the appearance of wind and fire." If there had been but one Bible in the world, and that under lock and key in Dr. Carson's study, this statement might have received some credence, or, if there were but one intellect (though erratic) in the world, and from its supreme wisdom had come such announcement, the remainder of a witless race might have accepted this " real baptism " in " the appearance of wind and fire." As, however, there are other copies of the Scriptures in the world, and happily so written that " a fool may not err " in such a case, we withhold our faith from this "real" "appearance" baptism. 7. "Now, though there was no dipping of them, yet as they were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the cata- chi-estic mode of speech which I before explained, they are said to be immersed." On reading such a statement there is a natural impulse to ask : Was it propounded in a lunatic asylum ? Solomon in one of his Proverbs uiiites with the common sense of all ages to forbid a formal answer to such extravagance. One element in it, however, may be noticed. It is this : Dipping, as a modal act, is the theo- retic sine qua non of baptism with Dr. Carson. That this is so, is placed beyond all doubt by the necessity felt by Dr. Carson to make out a modal dipping in a " real baptism " where there was claimed to be an unquestionable " surrounding " and " covering." With some this would have been sufficient to vindicate a baptism, but not so with Dr. Carson ; he insists that " to baptize " is " to dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature," and there- 72 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. fore he undertakes to make out a dipping where there is confess- edly none, and this he does by his old and trusty friend Cata- chresis, whom we have heretofore met with as " the Old Guard,* reserved for dire exigencies. We call attention to the fact, that it is out of the bowels of dip that Dr. Carson has drawn the fila- ment with which he has woven his theory, because this little word has suddenly fallen into such disrepute that the Baptist Quarterly denounces it, and enters a denial that Dr. Carson ever believed in it. The reed on which we once leaned when breaking and piercing our hand is condemned and rejected as worthless. It is not well, however, in discarding a trusted friend to say — We never leaned upon you. There is another point hardly second in im- portance to this, which is developed in this same sentence. It is this: the use of dip and immerse as equivalents, having precisely the same meaning. We are told, " though there was no dipping yet, by Catachresis^ they are said to be immersed " = dipped. A dipping was what was lacking ; a dipping was what Dr. Carson set out to find, and under the guidance of Catachresis he finds it in "immersed." But in a previous sentence Dr. Carson has used "immersed in the Spirit" not in the sense of dipping (= momen- tary introduction and withdrawal), but in the sense of unlimited continuance. Thus a claim is set up for a word to mean both momentariness and continuance unlimited only by the eternal ages. The legs of such a theory are too unequal to allow it to walk erect. 8. " The baptism did not consist in the mode of the coming of the flame, but in the being under it. They were surrounded by the wind, and covered by the fire above. They were there- foi'e buried in wind and fire." Dr. Carson was certainly something more than an extraordinary man. If there is a second friend of the theory in the Old World or the New who would venture to write these three sentences it would be a pity, for no wonder would be left to be expended on him. Times Avithout number we have been told by Dr. Carson and his friends, that we show the greatest stupidity in talking about " the mode " of baptism. With a knowledge exhaustive of all truth upon the subject we have been informed, that baptism itself is mode and nothing but mode ; and to talk about the mode of bap- tism is as witless as to talk about "the mode of dipping." But our Instructors now tell us, that they have discovered a " baptism which does not consist in the mode of the coming of the flame, TRANSLATION. 73 but in the being under it." Well ; may a disciple inquire about "the dipping"? That, I believe, does not mean "being under a flame." Oh! " Catachresis" will attend to that. " They were surrounded by the wind," although there was no " wind ; " " and covered by the fire above," although there was just as little "fire" as there was wind, "therefore they were buried in wind and fire" ! ! ! Well, no doubt just as the naked- ness of an African prince is "buried" out of sight when he goes abroad regally attired in a " covering of wind " and "under "a flaming umbrella. The baptism is remarkable as Dr. Carson puts it; it would be still more remarkable if it was found in the Bible ; but happily neither it nor an}' element as an apology for it is to be found there. This peerless advocate of the theorj^ asks per- mission of none in heaven or on earth to mould the language of Scripture to suit his necessities any more than to call on " Cat- achresis " to help his theory out of difficulties. I conclude this examination by a quotation from President Halley, equally accomplished as a writer and a scholar. " Dr. Carson continues (p. 110) : ' The wind descended to fill the house, that when the house was filled with the wind, the disciples might be baptized with it.' This philosophy of a house full of wind is not of Scripture, but of Dr. Carson, I would have skeptics take notice, lest they should profanely ask, was it ever empt}' of wind ? or if there was more than usual, what kept the building together ? ' Their baptism consisted in their being totally surrounded with the wind, not in the manner in which the wind came.' Of course he means came upon them. Will 3'ou believe me, gentle reader, that his book is written to prove that to baptize is a modal verb, referring exclusively to the manner in which the action is per- formed ; the manner in which the wind, or water, or baptizing fluid incloses a person, by his being put into it, and not by its coming upon him ? " The lake-dipping into a frog's blood by Dr. Gale is hard, round common sense compared with this chaffy, catachrestic dipping of the Apostles into " sound and cloven tongues" by Dr. Carson. Translation. "John truly baptized (vdari) with water; but ye shall be bap- tized (^1^ llveu/xaTc "Ayiio) by the Holy Ghost." The translation of h nvtoiiazt "Ayiu) cannot be baptized " in the Holy Ghost" (making this Divine person the figurative recipient 74 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of the Apostles), because: 1. It is not the grammatical form to express such idea. In Classic Greek, when an object not already in a condition of baptism is spoken of as to be baptized, the re- ceiving element is invariably expressed in the Accusative with elq. 2. When iv with the encompassing element in the Dative, is used by the Classics, it invariably expresses that the object is already' in a baptized condition, and so continues without limit- ation of time. 3. When the Dative without a preposition is used by the Classics (they never use a preposition) it invariabl}' ex- presses the agency by which the baptism is effected, and not the receiving element into which the baptized object passes. 4. In the New Testament when the agency (symbol or real) and the receiving element (which is never physical) ai'e both stated, the agency is invariably expressed by the Dative (with or without iv), and the receiving element by the Accusative with eic;. 5. When the Dative (with or without tv) appears in the New Testa- ment without the Accusative and its preposition, it of necesaily must (both b}' Classic and New Testament usage) express the agency effecting the baptism or sj^mbolizing the baptism effected. Where the receiving element has been previously stated, we are under obligation to supplj', by ellipsis, such element as stated, with the Accusative and its preposition, in all like baptisms ; but when the baptism is special in its character, and the Dative only appears, we are not under obligation or necessity to construct any receiving element by supplying a verbal form in the Accus- ative with £fc, because the agency and the attending circumstances will always indicate the nature of the baptism. The Classics never supply a receiving element with the Dative. They use this case in connection with baptisms of the second class, expressing thorough change of condition without envelopment. The Scrip- tures so use it. It is the Dative only {Iv vdazc, vSuzi, supplied by ellipsis, John could baptize in no other way but symbolly) which appears in the baptism of Jesus by John. The nature of the case and positive statement showing that it was a rite exhibiting a covenant baptism engaging "to fulfil all righteousness." In the baptism of Christ by the Holy Ghost, this Divine agent appears in the Nominative (= instrumental Dative) and the nature of the baptism is indicated by the nature of the case and by positive statement, showing it to be a measureless Divine influence qual- ifying for the wondrous work of redemption. So, in the baptism under consideration there is no receptive element stated, nor is TRANSLATION. 75 any needed; the agency expressed in iv nvev/xazc 'Ayioj, the persons to be baptized, the end in view, leaves not the shadow of a doubt as to the nature of the baptism; it was a thorough change of condition by the Holy Ghost qualifying them for the Apostleship. 6. This phrase cannot denote a receptive element " in" which souls 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, and all fruit baptized in melted sugar must receive the same baptism. But the baptisms of the Holy Spirit are diverse in their nature ; as, for example, the baptism of "the beloved Son" was diverse in its nature from that baptism received by publicans and sinners ; and the bap- tism received by the Apostles was widely diverse from both ; and the baptism of all Christ's people (ci^ ivc II>£u;j.aTc ei<; iv (Tajij.a) "by one Spirit into one body" has diversity as its very essence. Therefore h Ihsu/iart 'Aytoj cannot possibly be the element in which the souls of men are baptized. 7. This cannot be so, because it subverts the revealed economy of redemption. The third Person in the Godhead is everywhere in Scripture represented as, em- phatically, the Agent. It is through his constant, universal, and might}' working in the wondrous incarnation itself (Matt. 1 : 18, Luke 1 : 35), through all the life and death of the incarnate Re- deemer, and among the souls of men, that the fruits of the in- carnation are secured. All this teaching of the Scriptures is swept away by the idea that the Holy Ghost is a Bethesda's pool awaiting some one to bring into it the spiritually halt, and lame, and blind, and who without such helper must remain a long, long time " in that case." 8. The translation cannot be " ^?^ the Holy Ghost " and accord with the principle recognized in the Baptist translation of Matt. 9 : 34, iv rw ap^^ovrt, through the prince of the devils, with this note: " 'i-V with dative of person denotes the one in whom resides the power or authority by which a thing is done ; hence by or through;^'' and Matt. 12:27, ^'' iv BssXZsiSobX, through Beelzebub ; " and v. 28, " iv Uvsufxan dsou, through the Spirit of God," referring for vindication to the above-quoted note on Matt. *9 : 34. The translator of Luke 11:15,' in a note quotes these passages and says, " they should all be translated &?/." This principle must be abandoned, or the Personality of the Holy Ghost must be denied b}'^ translating " iv nvsufian 'Aytuj in the Holy Ghost." And in denying the personality of the Holy Ghost, 76 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. here, there must be a reconciliation with the affirmation of their associate translator of Acts, that " the Holy Ghost, the third Person in the Trinitj'^, is here designated," as well as the multi- plied translations of the same phrase (" hy the Holy Ghost ") throughout their New Testament. We adoringly recognize the third Person of the Godhead in this great work, and translate in accordance herewith and with all other related considerations — "Ye shall be baptized hy the Holy Ghost." The Bwptizer. The original author of this baptism is the Lord Jesus Christ ; the executive agent is the Holy Ghost ; the giver of the Holy Ghost is the Father ; so that, in varying relations, the entire deity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is engaged in this baptism, which is to "endue with power" these men to lay the foundations of that kingdom which is an everlasting kingdom, and to the dominion of which there shall be no end. This truth is evolved by the following passages: Luke 24:49, "I send {^^a-airTilXw') the promise of my Father upon {im) you, but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high." This promise is repeated by this same writer in Acts 1:4,5: "He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father which 3^e have heard of me ; for ... ye shall be baptized {b^ Ihevimn '^Ayioj) with the Holy Ghost not many da3-s hence ;" v. 8, " Ye shall receive (duvafxcv) power after that the Holy Ghost (roD "Aywu flveu/jLaTuq) has come upon you ;" 2 : 4, "And they were all filled (HveufxaToq "Aycou) with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak as (rd IJvsiJ/xa) the Holy Ghost gave them utterance ;" v. 33, " This Jesus ... at the right hand of God being exalted, and the promise (rou ' AyUm Uvsvuaroq) of the Holy Ghost being received, from " (-«/;a hy the side of^ where Jesus stands. Acts 7:55; see Harrison, Greek Prej^os., pp. 372-4) "the Father" {zoo 7ra-/j()?, Gen., whence the Holy Ghost proceeds), " he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." In view of such statements, how can the personality of the Father and of the Son be retained while that of the Holy Ghost is converted into* "abstract spirit," "essence of spirit," "holy spirit," "a holy spirit," "influence?" Does not the Nominative announce the Agent having power to baptize ? Does not the Genitive announce the Agent whence the power to baptize proceeds ? Does not the THE BAPTIZER. 77 Dative and iv announce the Agent in whom the power to baptize resides ? Does not the ai-ticle abound ? Is not its absence in the presence of a preposition just as it ought to be ? Does not 'Ayiou demonstrate the presence of Him of whom Jesus said, " There is none good (H0I3') but one, that is God?" What objection can there be to the interchange, or to the use as equivalents, of " the promise," "the gift," " tlie power," and "the H0I3' Ghost," in whom they meet, on whom they depend, and without whom they cannot exist ? An ancient oracle, it is said, pi'omised to a defeated people that if they would ask a Leader from a neighboi'ing state they would receive power to conquer. The request was made, a Leader was given, and power to conquer was secured. What, now, hinders "promise," "power," "gift," "Leader," from being interchanged, or used as equivalents, in speaking of this transaction ? Why not say "the promise" (=the Leader) came?- "the gift" (=the Leader) endued them with power? "the power" (=the Leader) secured the victory ? Do not promise, gift, and power, meet in the Leader, go out from the Leader, perish apart from the Leader ? And what is "the promise" of Christ, or "the gift" of the Father, or " the power " of the Apostles, apart from the living, divine Hol}^ Ghost who works in all, through all, over all, and without whom we can do nothinsr ? 'Tdarc — 'Ev Tlvsuiiart '^Aytai. The use of the preposition iv with Uvsu/mn 'Ayio) in connection with baptisms b}^ the Holy Ghost is invariable, while the use of kv with vdari in symbol-water baptisms is variable. Can Q.ny reason be assigned for such varying usage ? This may l)e said : The relation between John (the usage only appears in connection with John, although the truth applies to all others) and " water," and the relation between Jesus and "the Hoty Ghost " is not the same. John's qualification for his ministry was in no wise de- pendent upon iv vHart. ; this was derived from his being " h -'^eoiiart y.di (^uvatiEi ' HXioo in the spirit and power of Elias." John was always "in" this spiritual condition, and hy it he fulfilled his ministry. The omission of {h) the preposition making the state- ment, " he shall go before Him hy the spirit and power of Elias," would be quite another statement from that of the Bible, " he shall go before Him tn" (and thus invested with) "the spirit and 78 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. power of Elias." The preposition cannot be omitted. But the use of the preposition (h), in connection with water, rests on quite another basis. It is simply a Hebraistic (also, limitedly, Classical) use expressive of instrumentality. This usage is so common, that the Baptist Bible translators recognize it and so translate it nearly forty times in the single Gospel of Matthew. There is, then, nothing to require a uniform use of h vdart ; on the contrar}', we would look for its abandonment by a more Greekly writer. And such is the fact. Luke, less affected by Hebraism, never uses the preposition, in this connection, in his Gospel or in the Acts. Thus the use and the disuse is fully accounted for, and under such circumstances that both use and disuse establishes the instrumental sense. But the Lord Jesus has nothing to do with "water," and his ministrj'^ has no concern with iv as used in that relation; but the fulfilment of his ministry begins and ends with h Uveoiiart ^Aytw; the relation, therefore, of tliis preposition is with the usage developed in iv nvshfj-an xai dova-iiet ^HXiou^ and not with the very different usage in h vduTt, where symbol agency is directly expressed, and in no wise de- pendent on the idea of antecedent inness. For a reason, then, as obvious as that which allows the disuse of ^i^ in connection with vdan, the persistent use of this preposition is demanded in con- nection with Ihe'j/iarc 'A/coj, as it is demanded in connection with kv 7tvs'j,'j.art xrn 8uvd;j.£c ^HXiou. But inasmuch as this phrase suggests inness with a view to a consequent investiture with power, it will follow, that under diverse circumstances, the one idea or the other will emerge into greater prominence, and the translation be fitW with, 6//^ or in. This is exemplified in Luke 4:14, "Jesus re- turned (iv TTj duvd/iec ruu Uveuimroq) in the power of the Spirit," as compared with the passage before us, "Ye shall be baptized {Iv Ihtuimri ' Ayioj) by the Holy Ghost, in whom Jesus is, and by whom therefore he accomplishes his work." TJie Baptifiin — lis Emblem. The specific character of this baptism is not indicated by the statement that it was " (Iv Ihsofuirt ' AyUp) by the Hol}^ Ghost." The Holy Ghost is an Agent most miglity, most wise, and of infinite resources. Therefore his baptisms (thorougli changes of spiritual condition assimilated to his own wisdom, or power, or other char- acteristic entering into his hol}^ nature) are greatly varied. Tliis THE BAPTISM — ITS EMBLEM. 79 phrase can on]}^ of itself, give some general character to the bap- tism. It was not the ordinary Christian baptism. This is a matter of universal admission. The friends of the theory not only do not claim the presence of a dipping into water, but admit that there was not anything like it. Dr. Carson will not even invoke the aid of Catachresis to make this something out of nothing. He admits (what this Inquiry has proved times without number) that it was nothing more nor less than a baptism consisting in a thorough change of condition resulting from " subjection to influence and imbuing with its virtues." Those who reject the theory declare that it could not be an initiatory baptism, because that is entirely unsuitable to the position of those who had not only been long the disciples of Christ, but also his chosen Apostles. Dr. Carson says it was a baptism of Sanctiflcation, " thoroughly Sanctifying body, soul, and spirit." This he grounds on the idea that there was a baptism " in " and " into the Holy Spirit." This has been shown not to be true, and with the foundation destroyed that which is built upon it must fall. But this is farther disproved as being entirely inadequate to fit for the Apostleship. No man by mere sanctification could be fitted to be an Apostle. Stephen was a man " full of the Holy Ghost ;" but he was not an Apostle, nor is there any evidence to show that he was fitted to be one. The specialty of this baptism consisted in the fitting those who received it for the Apostleship. This is evident from the promise made to those chosen for this office — Luke 24 : 49, " Behold I send the promise of my Father upon j^ou ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high ;" from the express statement in Acts 1 : 2, 4, 5, that these words con- tained a command addressed to the Apostles, and a promise of baptism b}^ the Holy Ghost, which (v. 8) was to endue them with "power " for their wonderful work. Farther evidence is found in the accomplished facts ; they did wait at Jerusalem, they did "re- ceive the promise of the Father," that promise was "sent" by Jesus, they were " baptized by the Holy Ghost," they were " en- dued with power," they did enter upon their work, and from that hour they were thoroughly changed in their spiritual condition as qualified Witnesses for Christ, and endowed with every requisite necessary to discharge the high duties of the Apostleship. Emblem. This interpretation of the specialty of this baptism is confirmed by the emblem of it. Dr. Carson speaks of more than one emblem — the emblems of this baptism = " wind and fire." 80 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. But who ever heai'd of diverse emblems being employed to denote the same baptism ? This is like the drinking from a cup and the dipping into water so incongruously introduced into the baptism of the Redeemer. There could be no dipping in a " cup," and so water is introduced to make up the deficiency. But if Dr. Carson had remembered his present admission as to this Pentecostal bap- tism, he would have understood that no dipping was necessary to a baptism, and that drinking from a cup had a potency "to sub- ject to influence and imbue witji the virtue " of its contents. But there is reluctance to part with an old friend. And as " nothing like dipping" could be found in the baptism of the Spirit it must be found in something related to it. But "'the fire" (?) is no larger than a cup and will not answer. The " wind " (?) then must be introduced as " sound " is too unsubstantial. It is made to fill all the house. This is enough (much wind) for a dipping, at least by Catachresis, for there is none in fact ; but it will not answer for the human addendum emblem wholly to exclude that of divine provision, therefore " the fire " (?) rather ornamental than useful, for the dipping by Catachresis is already complete in the house full of "wind" (?), is made quite superfluously to rest above the top of the head. This richness of invention, however, must fail after all. There is no " wind ;" there is no " fire." We must, therefore, be what most persons have been, content with a single emblem for a single thing, even such as the divine wisdom has provided, namely, "cloven tongues like as of fire." If no dip- ping of the Apostles can be accomplished in these " tongues," then we must bear the disappointment in the case of the emblem as we have already had to do in the case of the reality. We dis- miss, then, this " Curiosity of Literature " for something of more practical value. The instruction which is furnished by this divinely appointed emblem is of no small value: 1. It teaches us in the clearest manner that this baptism was one qualifj-ing for the Apos- tleship, because it emblemizes (" cloven tongues ") one of the principal requisites for that office (the power to speak in other languages) and one which was immediately brought into requisi- tion— "We do ever}^ man hear in his own tongue in which he was born." 2. It teaches us that the symbol or emblem used in bap- tism lias no part or lot in a dipping, or immersing, or covering, or bigness, or muchness, or with any part of the body except the touching of the head. In harmony with this teaching is that of the sweet emblem of a Saviour's baptism, " the appearance as of PROFESSOR RIPLEY — PROFESSOR HACKETT. 81 a dove " descending and remaining upon liira ; also, that of " tlie cup " full of penal woe held to his lips by a Father's hand ; also, the " water," simple and simpl}^ abstract " water," ordained of God as the emblem of cleansing b}^ a Saviour's blood, all unite to teach that the addition of wind to a cloven tongue, or of Si feather to the pinions of the Dove, or of enlargement to the Redeemer's Cup, or of one drop to ^'- water " in symbol baptism for dipping, or immersing, or covering, adds to the word of God. 3. It teaches that the emblem of a baptism is representative of one thing and not of many things. As " the cloven tongues " represent one characteristic gift — the power to speak in diverse languages — in this many-sided baptism, and as " the Dove " represents the sym- pathy of the living Spirit in the wholeness of his Deit}^ and the measurelessness of his power, with the work of Redemption on which the incarnate Son was entering, and as " the Cup " rep- resents the deadly suffering which enters into redemption, so " water " represents the purification effected in the soul by the Holy Ghost, and not a grave, a burial, a resurrection, a womb, a birth, a washing all over (of clothes in these latter days) for "total depravit}^ " and — I know not what. If the theory can carry all these things, well; but let the Bible, as a revelation from God, be saved from being overwhelmed by such a heap of things so evi- dently of the earth earthy. Corollary. If there is no dipping into the " cloven tongues," the divine symbol by which the Apostles were baptized; if there is no dipping into " the Dove," the divine symbol by which the cove- nanting Redeemer was baptized; if there is no dipping into "the Cup," the divine symbol b}^ which the atoning Lamb of God is baptized ; then there is no dipping in "water," the divine symbol by which sinners are baptized. Professor Ripley — Professor Hackett. Professor Ripley, of the Newton Baptist Theological Seminary, presents the following views bearing upon this subject in his Commentary on Acts 1 : 2. After that he (dtd Ihcu/mrut: ^Ayiou) through the Holy Ghost had given commandments. "Jesus is represented in the Bible as haying been abundantly furnished with spiritual influences, or as acting by the special aid of the Holy Spirit. Hence he is said in 10 : 38 to have been anointed with the Holy Spirit ; and in Luke 4 : 1 to have been full of the 82 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Holy Spirit ; and in John 3 : 34, it is said, the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure, that is, in any limited degree, to him. It was under this divine impulse that he instructed and commis- sioned his apostles ; v. 4, Wait for the promise of the Father. God the Father had promised the gift of the Holj^ Spirit, by which the apostles of Jesus should be fully and finally qualified for their oflEice ; v. 5, Fe shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. The word baptize primarily signifies to immerse. And as a person who has been immersed in water has received it most copiously, this word is well used to express the idea of great abundance or plentifulness. Compare Matt. 20 : 22, 23, where the words baptize and 6ap^?'sm evidently convey the ideaof ouerM^/ieZm and overwhelming. To be baptized with the Holy Spirit, then, means to receive the influences of the Holy Spirit in great abun- dance. The apostles were to be most plenteously endued with divine influence. The copious influences of the Spirit would qualify them for their office as apostles, by correcting all their eiToneous views, and leading them into all Christian truth, by greatly promoting their piety and zeal, and by endowing them with miraculous powers. . . . The promised eff'usion of the Holy Spirit took place about ten days from this declaration ; v. 8, Ye shall receive power. Ye shall receive all needed ability for the office to which ye are called. The apostles were to be endowed by the Holy Spirit, After that the Holy Ghost is come upon you. It was by the Holy Spirit's agency Uhat the apostles were to be fully prepared for their office ; 2:2,^ sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind. A noise like wind. That the sound was actually that of a violent wind, Luke does not say, but that it resembled such a noise. It was altogether of a supernatural character. It filled all the house. The noise was heard through- out the house. . . . The apostles held themselves ready for some immediate manifestation of his (the Holy Spirit's) presence and ao-enc^' ; v. 4, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. The tokens of the Spirit's descent were connected with the immediate enjoyment of his influence, and the outward manifestation of it. The Spirit was imparted so copiously, tliat the disciples are said to have been filled with it. New and unusual mental power was pos- sessed by them. T heir religious views became clearer, and their re- ligious fervor was greatly increased. As the Spirit (ro Ihiotm) gave them utterance. As the Spirit enabled them to express themselves. The gift of tongues was a miraculous endowment by the Holy PROFESSOR RIPLEY — PROFESSOR HACKETT. 83 Spirit. The Holy Spirit miraculously bestowed on the apostles the power to use foreign languages ; v. 14, Peter standing up with the eleven. What a change had taken place in Peter since the night in the high priest's palace ! He was evidently now endued with power from on high; v. 17, / will pour out of my Spirit. The idea is, I will impart a copious supply of my Spirit's influ- ences ; V. 33, Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost. That is, having received of the Father the promised Holy Spirit. The disciples had kept themselves in expectation of the Spirit's coming. He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. What you now see and hear, as resulting from the Spirit's power, has been shed forth by Jesus. . . . All this was to be traced to Jesus." In these comments Professor Ripley recognizes as true the following positions: 1. This baptism of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Ghost, were of the same generic character, with differences inseparable from the need and the nature.of the parties. In neither case was there a physical element into which a dipping, or immersing, or covering took place; nor was there any such thing to be supplied by the imagination: In both cases there was a physical symbol present by wliich the nature of the baptism effected was betokened. Both baptisms were effected by the Holy Ghost. In both cases there was a thorough change of condition, bringing the baptized under the influence of the baptizer, and investing with his power. This change in the case of Jesus is indicated by being "abun- dantly furnished with spiritual influences;" by "acting under the special aid of the Holy Spirit;" being "anointed by the Holy Spirit;" being "full of the Holy Spirit;" "the Father giving him the Spirit without measure;" "under this divine impulse instructing and commissioning the apostles." "What a change in Peter!" is language which may be applied to all the apostles. This change is indicated by "the correction of error," the be- stowal of "mental power," of "miraculous power," of "religious fervor," of "needed ability for the apostleship." This change of condition is represented by Prof Ripley as constituting the bap- tism received. He is right in doing so. All baptisms of this class consist in a thorough change of condition assimilating to the characteristic of the baptizing power. 2. There was no "wind;" there was no "fire;" there was a " noise " heard throughout the house. There was consequently 84 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. no "dry baptism " in wind, and no " catachrestic " dipping into wind. The apostles were not baptized in the cloven tongues, nor dipped into them by catachresis when they sat upon their heads. There is no connection whatever between the act of iSaTz-t^oj and the fire-like tongues. The office of this symbol is simply to point out the nature of this baptism by a visible indication of one of the gifts entering into it. 3. The baptism consisted simply and solely in the thorough change in the condition of the apostles effected by the Holy Ghost through varied gifts " enduing with power " for the apostleship. The modal action (not actual, but verbally expressed) in effecting this baptism was, as Prof. Riple}^ says, "effusion," ijouring. But we do not say, on this account, that ^ar.Ti%m expresses the modal act to pour. This we deny. Proof has been furnished all through this Inquiry that this word never had, and from its very nature cannot have, anything to do with modal action. But this trans- action does prove that a baptism may be by pouring, and that the end of the pouring is not a covering, but a thorough change of condition in which there is no dipping, and its introduction, by catachresis, begets a broad smile. 4. The personality of the Holy Ghost as a 'divine Agent, oper- ating through all this transaction, is fully recognized by Prof. Ripley. "The Holy Spirit descends," "bestows," "qualifies." It is "His presence," "His influence," "His agency," that does the work. At the same time there is a no less clear acknowledg- ment that Jesus is the author of this baptism. It is Jesus who announces "the promise of the Father;" it is Jesus who receives that " promise from the Father ;" it is Jesus who " sheds forth," "pours out," this "[)romised Spirit;" and all that relates to this baptism is " traceable to Jesus." This relation between Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and of both to baptism, is the development of tlie declaration of John — " He shall baptize you kv IhcO'iart 'Aytoj (being in and therefore) by the Holy Ghost," and " o //a-rt'Cwv iv nv€tj;mzi 'Ayioj this is the Baptizer who is in the Holy Ghost." And the fitness of the force of iv, as expounding the personal relation of Jesus to the Holy Ghost, is exhibited by that transaction in which "the Holy Ghost descended and remained upon him;" while its relation to others, through this new condition of Jesus, is exhibited by his baptizing the apostles {h Ihcn/xaTc 'Ayuo) by the Holy Gliost. 5. Prof. Ripley says, " The word baptize primarily signifies PROFESSOR RIPLEY — PROFESSOR HACKETT. 85 to immerse. And as a person who has been immersed in water has received it most copiously, this word is well used to express the idea of great abundance or plenti fulness.^'' This is the only point in these comments which needs amendment. The difficulty arises from the want of accurate discrimination. Prof. Ripley has in view a person who is dipped (momentarily immersed) in water and with the clothing on. In such case there must be a sufficient abundance of water to eifect a covering ; but, to receive water in an abundance adequate to cover momentarily, and to be immersed in water so as to secure the effect distinctive of such immersion, are things which are as diverse as any two things can well be. Clothing from its porous nature will be made quite wet by a dipping, and will be saturated by an immersion. A person divested of clothing does not receive the water, as does his cloth- ing, when dipped into it. A flint rock and india-rubber vest- ments may be covered in water, but they do not " receive it abundantly" as a means of influence ; it cannot penetrate beyond their surface. Wetness is not the distinctive character of an im- mersion any more than of a pouring or of rain-droppings. The result to a clothed living person of an immersion in water is, that liis clothes are saturated and he is suflTocated. Therefore the Greeks used ^ar,TiX,ui to express the condition of a man not dipped into water, but who had been brought under the dis- tinctive power of water by immersion and thus drowned. It is on the fact that immersion develops the power of the covering element over the baptized object that baptize is used to express such like 'power., not " abundance," where there is no immersion. There is no " abundance " in a cup of wine, yet the Greeks said it had a power to baptize. There is no " abundance " in a few opiate drops, yet the Greeks said they had a power to baptize. There is no abundance in a half dozen bewildering questions, yet the Greeks said they had the power to baptize. The refer- ence to Matt. 20 : 22, 23, sustains the view here presented, namely, that of power, not that of " abundance." The statement that in this passage " the words baptize and baptism evidently convej' the idea of overwhelm and overwhelming^^ is, in general, correct, with a correct meaning attached to those words. " Overwhelm " is rarely used in the simple sense of its elements whelm, over. In this it resembles overcome (come, over), overthrow (throw, over), overbear (bear, over), and countless other words which lay aside the form of conception in their elements and adopt some 86 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. involved result. Now in whelming over there is always present a resistless power, and the whelming over of waters is generally connected with a destructive issue, and the compound "over- whelm" adopts these ideas, namely, resistless power^ commonly,, hurtful in its nature, Tlie idea of " abundance " is not involved in this usage; a word, a look, a poisonous drop, ma}^ "over- whelm," when it could not whelm over. This is the usage (if these words be applied here) in Matt. 20 : 22, 23 ; the cup is full of penal woe, and in the drinking of it the Friend of sinners is "overwhelmed" by a resistless, deadly poiver; and hence the fitness of using jSarrc^uj and i3d7rTi(T;j.a in this case, as expi'essive of limitless power. The same usage precisel}' obtains in the baptism under consideration. However many in number, how- ever varied in character, however rich in measure, may have been the gifts received by the apostles, their baptism had no essential connection with " abundance," but consisted in their being " en- dued with power ^^ by the Holy Ghost for the upostleship. In this point (amid the most marvellous extravagances) Dr. Carson is more correct than Professor Ripley, when he says, " That which is immersed in a liquid is completely subjected to its injluence and imbued with its virtues; so to be immersed in the Spirit repre- sents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit to his injluence.'' The idea of " abundance " springs out of " pouring," not out of immersion. "Immersed in thought;" "immersed in study;" " immersed in the books ; " are phrases which have no connection with abundance. " I will pour you out a blessing so that there shall not be room enough to receive it;" "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh," are phrases which have no intelligent mean- ing except under the idea of abundance. Professor Hackett, of Rochester Baptist Theological Seminary, presents similar views in his Commentary' on this passage. 1. Christ is both personally baptized, and is baptizer by the Holy Ghost : Acts 1 : 2. Gave commandment Scd Ihsoimroz 'Ayinu, through the Holy Spirit., his influence, guidance. This noun as so used may omit the article or receive it, at the option of the writer, since it has the force of a proper name. This passage, in accord- ance with other passages, represents the Saviour as having been endued abundantly witli the influences of tlie Spirit, and as hav- ing acted always in conformity with its dictates: see Luke 4: 1, " Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost was led up (iv zw lhei>imrt) by the Spirit : " John 3 : 34, " For God giveth not (ru Ihsn/ia) the BOOTH — MORRELL. 87 Spirit by measure unto him." 2 : 33, " Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost," i. e., the Holy Spirit promised. " He hath shed forth this." The effusion of the Spirit which is ascribed to God in v. 17 is ascribed here to Christ. 2. The personal divine Spirit was the Agent. Acts 2: 6, "Now when this sound" — that of the descending Spirit; v. 18, "The effusion of the Spirit was to be universal as to classes. . . . The modes of divine revelation and of the Spirit's operation, which are specified in this passage ; ... It portrays the character of the entire dispensation. Those special manifestations of the Spirit marked the economy as one that was to be eminently dis- tinguished by the Spirit's agency." 3. The baptism of the apostles was not a dipping into or cover- ing over with anything, but qualification for their work. "1:8, Ye shall receive power after the Holy Ghost has come upon you ; bmaiuv efficiency, i. e., every needful qualification to render them efficient in their apostolic spheres ; come upon you, designates the time when they should receive this power, as well as the source of it." 4. There was no wind. "2:2, As if a mighty wind, filled, to wit, rjX'K, sound, which is the only natural subject furnished by the context." 5. The Cloven tongues were symbols of the baptism. "2:3, The fire-like appearance may have assumed the appearance of tongues as a symbol of the miraculous gift which accompanied the wonder." The eminent scholarship of Prof. Hackett is excelled only by his unassuming Christian character. Booth — Morrell. "The venerable Booth" says (I, 101): "The extraordinary gifts and influence received at Pentecost is called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. . . . Our brethren will, I think, allow that a person may be so surrounded by subtle effluvia ; that a liquid may be so poured, or it may so distil upon him, that he may be as if immersed in it. A writer speaking of electricity says, ' The first is the electrical hath; so called because it surrounds the patient with an atmosphere of the electrical fluid, in which he is plunged, and receives positive electricity.' This reminds me of the language, ' there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing 88 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were SITTING,' Was the Holy Spirit poured out, did the Holy Spirit fall upon, the Apostles and others, at that memorable time ? it was in such a manner, and to such a degree, that they were, like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it^ It is useless for "Rantists" to protest against such wild talk being called interpretation ; but as Professor Riplej^ and Pro- fessor Hackett are not " Ranters," their friends maybe willing to learn from them, through this Pentecost baptism, a broader and a truer usage of ^anri^co, even as they learned a broader and a truer usage of iidnrcu, from Dr. Carson, at the shore of the Homeric lake. Morell (Reply to Dr. Halley, Edinburgh, p. 170) says: "As it reo-ards the baptism of the Pentecost, the wind and the fire had no modal signification whatever. When we read of the Holy Ghost 'coming upon the disciples,' of its being 'poured out,' and 'poured down,' these phrases denote simply the bestowment or the abundance of the gifts and influences of the Spirit. The Pedo- baptist interpretation, which derives an argument for a particular mode of baptism, viz., affusion, as best resembling the supposed mode in which the soul is baptized by the Spirit, is to materialize a divine influence, and to construct a baseless argument upon a mere figurative expression. The occurrences at Pentecost are generally considered as fulfilling the language of John, 'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' When Jesus apprises his disciples of the Pentecost baptism, he says nothing about the fre. . . . The lambent flames, like cloven tongues, which came and sat upon the disciples' heads, while they were very ex- pressively emblematical of the most distinguished gift of the Spirit on that day, viz., the power of speaking in other tongues, had no allusion to baptism whatever. . . . While the Bantists say, 'The wind came upon them;' the Baptists may say, 'The wind com- pletely surrounded them, so that they were symbolically immersed in it.' But the Scripture does not say that there was not any wind. All we can learn is, that there was a loud mysterious noise which filled the house. A noise, surely, cannot symbolize sprink- ling or immersing. The baptism of Pentecost consisted in the minds of the disciples being entirely absorbed by the Spirit, and all their powers and faculties wholly subjected to its influence." Morell writes with the courtesy and candor which indicate the refined man, as well as the cultivated scholar. In the style which BOOTH — MORELL. 89 prevails among writers on his side, the use of the term " Rantists " would pass unnoticed amid harsher expletives; but on his page it is a snag which we encounter with a shock. We make no com- plaint of the use of such terms. If opponents can afford to use them they will neither harm nor annoy us. The objection of Morell against " the Rantists " grounding a claim to pour in ritual .baptism on the use of "pour out," "pour down," to express the manner in which the Spirit was given to effect the Pentecost bap- tism, is without value, because it is without any foundation laid by "the Rantists." Their reasoning is turned upside down and wrong end foi'emost. Their argument is not, " The Holy Ghost is 'poured out' to effect baptism, therefore water should, in like manner, be 'poured out ' to effect ritual baptism," but this : " The Holy Ghost is figuratively said to be poured out to effect a bap- tism, THEREFORE this figurative appropriation of pouring out must he grounded in a previous p)hysical use of 'pouring out' to effect baptism." We do not deduce authority to pour water in baptiz- ing from the use of "pouring" in the baptizing by the Spirit, but reversely we say, that authority to use pouring figurativeh^ in the baptism of the Spirit is deduced from the previous physical use of pouring in ritual baptism. If this be "a baseless argument materializing a divine influence," we will abandon it when the evidence shall have been adduced. But between us and such evidence stands the altar of Carmel, on which water is being poured in order to its baptism, without dipping, immersing, or covering, thoroughly changing its condition from ceremonial im- purity to ceremonial purity. On such antecedent physical prac- tice is based the subsequent figurative use. Morell is right in separating these " as of fire " tongues from the " baptism by fire " spoken of by John. They have nothing to do with each other. He is also right in saying, that "they had no allusion whatever to baptism," using '"baptism" in the sense of dipping, immersing, covering; but using it in the only sense in which it is used in the New Testament (thorough change of condition), and in which confessedly it is used here, then, these cloven tongues have not only some "allusion " to the baptism, but are a most vital element in its exposition. The apostles were really baptized hy the Holy Ghost "giving them power to speak in other tongues;" they were symbolly baptized by tongues as of fire, indicative of the nature of the real baptism which had been received. This is the precise value of the admission by Morell — "The cloven tongues were 90 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. very expressively emblematical of the most distinguished gift of the Spirit on that day, viz., the power of speaking in otlier tongues." And precisely the same relation which these "cloven tongues" have to this extraordinary baptism does the pure water have in the ordinary Christian baptism. As the " cloven tongues " do by their nature symbolize and expound the nature of this baptism by the Holy Ghost, so does the pure water by its nature, symbolize and expound the nature of that baptism by the Holy Ghost. And if it would be regarded as a singular perversity which should connect these "tongues" with iSanrc^w, and insist on the Apostles being dipjjed into them, so it is a like logical and gram- matical perversit}' which insists that men and women should be dipped into the symbol water betokening the nature of the bap- tism in the soul by the Holy Ghost. The verb fia-ri^iu has no more to do with the symbol water than it has to do with the symbol tongues, and it has no more to do with either than Chang Eng of the Celestial Empire has to do with the succession to the Presidency over tiiis "Flowery Kingdom" of America, Irenseus — Ci/ril of Jerusalem — Gregory Nazianzen. Irenseus (844) characterizes the baptism of the Apostles as "being endued with power from on high, by the Holy Spirit coming upon them, being filled with all official requisites, and having complete knowledge." That is, he believed that it was a complete change of condition qualifying them for their high office. The representation given of the baptism of Jesus is of the same character ; (900 ) " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and power;" (871) "Matthew says concerning his baptism: The heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' For Christ did not then descend into Jesus; nor is Christ one and Jesus another ; but the Word of God, who is the Saviour of all, and Lord of lieaven and earth, who is Jesus, who also assumed flesh, and was anointed by the Si)irit from the Father, was made Jesus Christ. And as Isaiah says: 'The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him.' And again Isaiah, foretelling his anointing and for what he was IREN^US. 91 anointed, says: 'The Spirit of God is upon me, wherefore he has anointed me ; he hath sent me to preach good tidings to the lowly, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim pardon to the captives, and sight to the blind, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance, to comfort all who mourn.' For the reason that the Word of God was man, out of the root of Jesse and Son of Abraham, therefore the Spirit of God rested upon him, and he was anointed to preach good tidings to the lowly." It is obvious that Irenseus regarded the baptism of the Word of God as to his manhood, by the Holy Ghost descending and remaining upon him, as identical, in general character, with that of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost coming down upon them; that is to say, the baptism in either case was a meet preparation for the fulfilment of official duty on which they were just entering. The personality and the distinctive character of the work in the two cases differed measurelessly ; and the baptism was "without measure" in the one case, and by measure in the other. And because the baptisms differ while they agree, the baptism could not be by dipping, nor by honest immersion in the Holy Ghost, as a receiving element, because then the baptisms must be the same. The baptism was by an intelligent Divine agent, "who divides to every one severally as He will." Cyril of Jerusalem (440) says, "The Baptizer (w /Sa;rrc'^«;v) with water is good, but what is he to the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and fire ? The Saviour baptized the Apostles (Uvsu/mrc "Aytu) xai ■Kup\) by the Holy Ghost and fire when cloven tongues as of fire appeared to them, and sat upon each one of them, and they were filled of the Holy Ghost." Here Cyril by dropping h in connection with lhs'JiJ.a-1 'Ayiuj shows that he understands that phrase to ex- press agency. The same conclusion is reached by the conjunction of 7:up\ with this phrase in this baptism where in the nature of things there could be no dipping in the " tongues," and therefore there could be none designed in its associate Iheoimn ^Ayio). 978. " But John, who was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, was sanctified for this purpose, that he might baptize the Lord ; but he did not confer the Spirit, only announc- ing him who did confer the Spirit, ' He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him.' It was necessary, as some interpret, that the first fruits and first gifts of the Holy Ghost to be baptized be furnished to the humanity of the Saviour 92 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. who gives like grace." The Saviour is represented both as being baptized and himself baptizing by the Holy Ghost. 986. " Pentecost being come the Paraclete descended from heaven. He descended that he might endue with power and bap- tize the Apostles. The grace was not divided, but the power complete. . . . For as one inclosed with waters and baptized is surrounded on all sides by the waters, so also thej' were com- pletely baptized (urtd) by the Spirit. But the water is poured around (nspt^slTai) externally, but (rd nveb/ia) the Spirit baptizes the soul within completely. And why do you wonder ? Take a physical illustration, slight and simple, but useful to the more uninstructed. If fire penetrating within the densit}' of iron makes the whole fire ; and the cold becomes hot and the black becomes bright ; if fire being a substance penetrating within the substance of iron worlds so without hindrance ; why dost tliou wonder if the Holy Spirit enters into the innermost parts of the soul?" Cyril had a very fair opportunity here to say that fiaTzzi^w means to dip, but he declines to adopt so un-Greekly a doctrine, and ranks himself with those who declare that it makes demand for condition. His exposition of baptisms based on. effect without covering as illustrated by the mass of iron penetrated by fire and communicating its own quality to it, changing its condition of coldness to hotness, and of darkness to brightness, is identical with the doctrine developed in tliis Inquiry, to wit: a thorough change of condition by penetrating, pervading, and assimilating to the characteristic of the baptizing power. If Cyril had set out to illustrate this definition he could not have done it in a more complete manner. Origen (III, 1864), "He shall baptize you by the Holy Ghost and fire." " When does Jesus baptize (Spiritu saneto) by the Holy Ghost, and again, when does he baptize (igne) by fire ? Does he baptize at one and the same time (Spiritu et igne) by the Spirit and fire, or separately and diversely ? The Apostles were bap- tized after his ascension to heaven (Spiritu saneto) ' by the Holy Ghost,' but that they were baptized (igne) ' by fire ' the Scripture does not relate." Throughout this passage the preposition is omitted, and "Spir- itu saneto " and " igne " appear as agencies. The interpretation wluch connects John's declaration, " He shall baptize by the Holy Ghost and fire," with the Pentecostal " tongues as of fire," is re- jected, and properly so. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS BAPTISM. 93 The Imj)ortance of this Baptism. The importance of the narrative of this baptism in its relations to Christian baptism and the usage of /SaTm'Cw can hardly be over- estimated. This importance is both intrinsic and incidental. The narrative has intrinsic value: 1. Because of its fulness ; no other baptism in the New Testament is related with equal detail. The time (Pentecost), the place (a house), the persons (a limited class, Apostles), to be baptized ; the baptizer, more remote its divine Author, more immediate its divine Agent ; the baptism, its nature spiritual, its mode "coming upon," in figure as to the Agent, in fact as to the symbol ; its emblem " cloven tongues;" its proof as an accomplished fact "speaking in other tongues;" nothing is lacking to completeness. 2. Because of its clearness ; hereby is established the personality of the Holy Ghost as an active Agent in eftecting baptism ; the union and the relation in union of Christ and the Holy Ghost in the work of baptism ; the " wind " is no symbol of baptism and is not present in this baptism ; the "cloven tongues " are a symbol of this baptism and are present to illus- trate its nature ; the quantity of a tongue does not enter into its power of symbolization ; the symbol of a baptism has no other relation to baptism than its poioer by its own nature to symbolize the nature of the baptism ; these truths are radical helps in the right interpretation of Christian baptism. 3. Because of agree- ment induced : (1.) It is agreed in view of this transaction, that there may be a baptism in which there is no dipping, or immers- ing, or covering, in fact, and into which it cannot allowabl}^ be introduced, by Catachresis or otherwise ; but the use of the word must be traced to the result of immersion on a penetrable body placed within an element having some definite characteristic which it thus imparts to the baptized object, the mode of effecting such result disappearing in the secondar}' usage and giving place, with- out limit, to any mode of operation or influence capable of effect- ing a like result. (2.) It is farther agreed, that the true expression for this baptism is " the subjection of an object to some definite influence and the consequent imbuing of it with its virtue," or the equivalent — the penetrating and pervading of any object by any power assimilating such object to its own characteristic, as iron penetrated and pervaded by fire becomes subject to its character- istic heat and is made fire-like. (3.) It is agreed, that this bap- 94 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. tism was spiritual, the work of the divine Spirit on the human spirit, subjecting it to his influence, imbuing it with his own char- acteristics, and enduing them with consequent " power," (4.) It is agreed, that with this spiritual baptism there was a physical symbol in which there was no baptism, but its sole office was, by its oivn nature^ to indicate the nature of the baptism. These agreements, consistently carried out, will establish unity of interpretation in every baptism of tlie New Testament,. The narrative of this baptism has incidental importance : 1. Because it is the first baptism under Christianit}'. For that reason it is made resplendent with the glory of the Father who gives, with the glor}' of the Son who pours out, and with the glory of the Holy Ghost who executes this baptism. That this baptism (as introductory to kindred baptisms running down through long ages) might be thoroughly understood, we have its full and clear record for our study. 2. Because it throws light on Christian baptism. This baptism is not technical Christian bap- tism. The baptism of Christ into the covenant fulfilment of all righteousness, with water fitly s\'mbolizing its nature, was not Christian baptism. The baptism of Christ bj' the Holy Grhost, fitly symbolized by the Dove, enduing his humanity with every requisite for the accomplishment of his covenant, was not Chris- tian baptism. The baptism of Christ into penal death by a broken Law (fitly symbolized by a cup filled with deadly woe) was not Christian baptism. But all these baptisms constituted a basis on which Christian baptism was to rest, and without which it could not exist. The baptism of the Apostles was not Christian baptism, but it was a basis divinely laid, on which as Christ's ministers that baptism might be proclaimed, and without which they could not have done so. As this was a spiritual l)ai)Usm, the work of the Holy Spirit, so it teaches us that Christian baptism, for which it was preparative, must be a spiritual baptism, and the work of the Holy Spirit. It farther teaches us, that Christian baptism as a spiritual baptism ma_v be accompanied with and illustrated as to its nature by a physical symbol. And this is true in fact; Christian baptism, the work of the II0I3' Ghost, has its divinely appointed symbol (water), which by its nature fitly illustrates the purifying nature of the work of the Divine S|)irit in the sinner's soul, as the " cloven tongues " with divine perfect- ness symbolized the work of that same Spirit in the souls of the Apostles. It teaches us that the symbol of Christian baptism is CHRIST THE BAPTIZER BY THE HOLY GHOST. 95 perverted from its divinely appointed office when there is an attempt to effect a baptism in it, and that such attempt is stamped with the guilty folly of placing a usurping fiction alongside of, or rather in the stead of, the baptism by the Holy Ghost. Acts 11: 15, 16. 'EiriTreae to TLvevfin rb "Ayiov ctt' avrovg (bairsp koI e(p' rjnaq kv apxv- ''Efivi]- oQrj 'luavvrjg fiev i^a-KTiaev iiSari, v/xstg de BaTTTtaOr/creade kv UvEv/iari 'Ayiu. "And as T began to speak, the Holy Ghost ftll on them, as on us in the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Christ the Baptizer by the Holy Ghost. This baptism belongs to the same class of baptisms as that of Pentecost. It has the same divine Author the Lord Jesus Christ, the same divine executive Agent the Holy Ghost, it had the same outward development speaking with tongues, and their oneness is declared by Peter — " the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." But while these baptisms belong to the same class there is between them essential diversity. The baptism at Pentecost was a baptism qualifying for the Apostleship ; this baptism was a baptism qualifying for Christian life, with such special endowment as should convince Peter and others, that Gentiles were to be received even as Jews into the Christian church. No one can imagine for a moment that there was same- ness of gifts conferred on Peter and his associates, and on Cor- nelius and his associates. Sameness in some respects there un- doubtedly was ; but even where there was sameness in kind, there was not necessarily or probably sameness of measure. The gift of tongues was common to both baptisms ; but it does not follow that they sjDake the same languages or the same number of lan- guages. The baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost belongs to the same class of baptisms with that of the Apostles ; while in its discriminating character as qualifying him for his wondrous mission, it is essentially diverse ; so, the baptism of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost belongs to the same class of baptisms with that of these Gentiles, while in its discriminating character as qualifying them for the Apostleship, it was essentially diverse. And by this diversity in sameness of baptism, the theory is again overturned. The life of the theory centres, legitimately, in modal 96 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. action ; hut this being found at every turn pierced through and through by the sharp spearing of facts, retreat is sought in " cov- ering," however induced ; but when the covering is not induced in any way " however," what then ? " Covering " must be cover- ing, as surely as " dipping" must be dipping, and when a bap- tism is developed in which there is no " covering," then, in that moment, the theory dies. But here there is confessedly a bap- tism without a " dipping," and without a " covering," the theory then perishes. The thec^'y is too short for the facts to stretch themselves in, and too narrow to wrap themselves in. Baptisms are diverse; and at the touch of diversity the theory is shattered into fragments. It is in vain to attempt to retrieve this ruin by referring to a covering in immersion, and saying that this bap- tism is founded on the covering in an immersion. This is not true, and to rest in it is only a self deception. It is the same as saying that to dye (jSa-KTU) second) is founded in the modal act to dip (iSoLTzroj first). This is clearly an error. The foundation of the secondary meaning is grounded not in the form of the act but in the effect resultant upon the dipping of certain objects into certain {dyeing) liquids. The modal act is an accident which makes no appearance in the secondary meaning. The modal act of dipping might be repeated forever and a day into an un- colored liquid, and it would never become the foundation for the meaning to dye. Precisely so is it with the secondaiy meaning of ;5a-r£"w, which is grounded in the effect produced upon certain objects (permeable) mersed in certain fluids (having definite qualities). AVith the covering as causative of the effect, the sec- ondary meaning {thorough change of condition with assimilation) has nothing to do, and it never enters into that meaning; but on the contrary is expresslj^ repudiated by it, and its very life depends upon such repudiation. Now, while the theory is dum- fouuded in the presence of diverse baptisms, all such baptisms join in declaring — " Our diversity is in unity under a thorough change of condition assimilated to the characteristic of the power effecting such change of condition." Professor Ripley — Professor Hackett — Baptist Version. The views of this baptism presented in the Commentaries of Professors Ripley and Hackett, and in the Baptist Bible Version of Acts, will now be presented. BAPTIST VERSION. 97 In 10 : 45 it is said : " On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." The relation of " pouring " to baptism is thus presented by Prof Ripley in his comment on v. 38 of this chapter — " 'God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.' As, in a literal anointing, the oil was poured on a person, so the Holy Spirit is said to be poured forth on Jesus ; that is, it was abundantly bestowed on him, that he might perform his holy work. . . . The term anoint was figuratively used, even when there was not a literal anointing, to signify set- ting apart and qualifying for a certain office. Jesus was iset apart as the Messiah, and abundantly qualified for his office by receiving the Holy Spirit and power from on high." On 11 : 15, "'TAe Holy Ghost fell on tJiem, as on us at the beginning.^ The Spirit shed forth the extraordinary gifts ... as at the beginning of the Lord's imparting these extraordinary gifts on the day of Pente- cost, when the promise of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit began to be fulfilled." Anointed is here the substitute for baptized. The transaction at Ctesarea is identified by Prof Ripley with that at Jerusalem, so far as sameness of baptizer, generic same- ness of baptism, and sameness in representation as to the mode of accomplishment, "pouring," are concerned. Professor Hackett says, 10 : 44, *•' ' TJie Holy Ghost (to Ilvsu'ia ro ^Aytnv) fell on all them that heard the wo?-d,^ rd Ilveup-a, i. e., the author of the gifts mentioned in v. 46. 11:46, 'I remembered the declaration of the Lord, Johii indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ;'' i.e., had it brought to mind with a new sense of its meaning and application. The Saviour had promised to bestow on his disciples a higher baptism than that of water, and the result proved that he designed to extend the benefit of that promise to the heathen who should believe on him, as well as to the Jews." Professor Hackett not only thinks that this was a baptism, but, with that of Pentecost, " a higher baptism " than with water. The translator (anonymous) of the Baptist Version of Acts says in a note on 10 : 44, " ' The Holy Ghost (rt) ll>eufj.a rd 'Aycov) fell upon alV The Holy Spirit represents not a spirit of God, nor an angel of God, but all Divinit}^, and Divinity, too, in all its grandeur. . . . We thank God that we can have the full assurance of understand- ing that Uvsufia 'A/cov, like Jesus Christ, is the divinely established designation of the Christian's Advocate and Sanctifier. ... In the Christian currency Ihsh/jLa ^Ayiov^ to nveu/j.a ro 'Ayiw^ and to 'Ayion 7 98 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. flvsofia^ are like (> ly^trow;^ Iri7jc Kal ■KlrjaOrig Uvev/j-aTog 'Aycov. . . . ave^^eipi re rrapaxpvi^^^i "Q^* •avaarag e^awriaOr). 'Avaarag ^aTTTiuai Kal cnrdAovcjai rag dfiapTcag aov, EiviKa?ie(jdfiEvog to bvojia Tol) Kvpiov. Elf ovg vi'v ce aTrooTEAAw. "The Lord hath sent me . . . that thou mightost receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . And he received sight forthwith, and rising wus baptized." " Brother Saul, look uj) ! And the same hour I looked up upon him. . . . Rising baptize thyself and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." " Delivering thee from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee." Saul's baptism. 99 What was SauVs baptism ? Who was his baptize?' ? This baptism presents some peculiarities wliicli render its right interpretation a matter of special interest while it is attended with more than ordinary difficulty. The conversion of the individual baptized separates his case from that of all othei's. The narra- tive of the baptism is given by different persons with difference in circumstance and in language ; and not only so, but in terms differing from those used in any other baptism. The immediate call of this individual b}' the Head of the church while a Perse- cutor of himself (through his people) to fill the Apostleship, takes him not only out of the ranks of ordinary Christians and ordinary gospel agencies, but makes him stand alone among the Apostles. These peculiarities extend, I think, to his baptism. Whenever God departs from his ordinary ways in providence or in grace, there is always a reason for it and instruction to be derived from its study. And whenever tliere is a departure from the accus- tomed language of Scripture there is a reason for it, and it should not be slurred over but should be made the sultject of special study, with the assurance tliat there is " hid treasure " in it. So far as I am able to understand this baptism it was a baptism for the Apostleship and was substantially the same as that re- ceived by the other Apostles at Pentecost, incidentals (growing out of the peculiarities of that case) not being introduced. It is usually supposed to be an ordinary ritual baptism. Were the purpose of this Inquiry no higher than to make points against the theory this baptism might be allowed to stand as it is, a thorn hedge against all rational progress toward a dipping, but wishing to know what is truth, as developed by usage on this subject, I will endeavor to examine this case as presented by divine inspi- ration and submit it to the judgment of others wiser than myself. Was this a case of dipping into Water f "I see nothing in Paul's case to prevent his immediate immer- sion " (Carson, p. 357). " For immersion he must go to the water " (Campbell, p. 170). To maintain the view that this baptism of Saul was a " dipping into water," there is no claim made for any such express statement, nor is it claimed that water is ex- pressly mentioned, nor is it claimed that the place (a house) nec- essarily implies the presence of water suitable for dipping ; but 100 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. it is said: 1. The word means to dip; 2. Water essentially be- longs to ritual Christian baptism ; 3. Therefore, although no statement is made of a dipping into water, and although no ap- pliances for such dipping are suggested by the circumstances, still, the water must be supplied bj' ellipsis and so supplied that there may be a dipping into it. To this it may be replied: 1. The word does not mean " to dip." The shore of the sea is not dipped into the rising tide, but it is " baptized " by it. 2. It does not mean to cover momentarily. The ships "baptized at the mouth of the Tiber" have been under cover two thousand years. 3. It does not always require a cover- ing. The altar on Carmel was " baptized " by water poured upon it, yet was not covered. 4. A fluid ma^^ be employed in a baptism and not be used for dipping into it. Men are " baptized " by wine without being dipped into it. 5. Therefore the use of the word in any case of baptism does not necessitate a dipping or a covering. In reference to the necessary presence of water for ritual bap- tism, it may be said ; 1. The necessary presence of water in ritual Christian baptism is admitted; 2. The presence of water in ritual baptism for dipping the person to be baptized into it, is denied ; 3. There are other baptisms in the New Testament than ritual baptisms and in them water is not present; 4. The Apostles were baptized without the presence of water ; 5. This, was the baptism of an Apostle; 6. It may have been a 1>aptism like that of the other Apostles by the Holy Ghost, without water; 7. A ritual baptism must be proved not assumed; and when this is proved, it must farther be proved (against philology, and grammar, and facts), not assumed, that the water is pi'esent in ritual baptism for a dipping and not as a symbol. On the supposition that this was not ritual baptism the M-ay is open for one of two conclusions : 1. Ritual baptism may have been received at some after time; 2. One called into the kingdom of God, and introduced into the Apostleship " not of man nor by man" but personally by the Lord Jesus Christ, did not need and could not suitably receive a s^'mbol rite from man, but needed onl^'^ (as John the Baptist) to be baptized " by the Holy Ghost." Was Saul now called to be an Apostle ? This is a radical question in determining the nature of this Saul's baptism. 101 baptism. If Saul was not now called to the Apostleship then he could not receive the baptism of an Apostle ; but if he» was so called then the question arises, Was this a baptism by the Holy Ghost to qualif}' him for his life mission, or was it a rite introduc- ing him as a private member into the visible church ? The evidence that Saul was already called to the Apostleship is of the most explicit and positive character. Luke testifies, Acts 9 : 15, " The Lord said, he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Ananias says. Acts 22:14, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." Paul testifies. Acts 20 : 16, 17, "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee {dKoareUujy^ = make thee an Apostle. This point is then settled beyond question — ^Saul was now called by the Lord Jesus Christ to the Apostleship. Was this baptism by the Holy Ghost to qualify for the Apostleship ? The way is now fairly open for the question. Did Saul now re- ceive the ordinary ritual baptism of Christianity or the extraor- dinary and real baptism by the Holy Ghost already received by his fellow Apostles ? Those who think that they can find the materials for a dipping into water in this narrative will bring forth their hidden treasures ; as I see none I wiU pass on to ad- duce the evidence for that " higher baptism" which Professor Hackett says had been promised to the Apostles. In the prosecution of this purpose let us inquire for what ob- ject Ananias was sent to Saul. This information is given us by- Ananias himself in 9 : H, " Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight.^ and be filled with the Holy Ghost.'''' The mission of Ananias, then, was definite and limited. It embraced two specific results, the one physical, the other spiritual; 1, the restoration of sight ; 2, the being filled with the Holy Ghost. 102 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. These questions now arise: Did Ananias go on his mission? Do we know tlie results of his mission ? Both these questions are expressly answered by the Scriptures in v. It, "Ananias went his way, and entered into the house, and putting his hands on him . . . immediately there fell from his e3'es as it had been scales : and he received sight forthwith and rising wan bajytized." Here are two results declared to be consequent on the mission of Ananias: 1. Saul received his sight ; 2. Saul was baptized. Are these two things those same two things for which Ananias was sent ? There can be no doubt as to the first, for it is stated in precisely the same terms ; but how is it as to the second, which is not stated in the same terms ? Wh}', clearly, if this baptism which Saul re- ceived was a dipping into water, then it was not being " filled with the Holy Ghost ;" and if it was not being " filled with the Holy Ghost," then a second thing which did not eater into the miasion of this messenger was done by him, and that second thing which did enter into his mission was left undone. But do the Scriptures say that this baptism was a ritual bap- tism ? Do they intimate that there was water adequate for a dip- ping ? Do they say that there was a particle of water touched by Saul or Ananias, or was present in the room or house ? They do not. But the theory says, " I do not care ; I will find a bath in the room, or I will take him out of the house to some Arbana or Pharpar, and dip him there." This compelled addition to the Scripture narrative reminds us of the fact (almost without excep- tion), that the theory is unable to interpret baptisms in the Scrip- tures or out of the Scriptures witliout addition, or omission, or self-contradiction, or appeal to most irrational figure. Dr. Carson sees no difficulty in the way to Saul's being dipped instanter in his chamber. Why not add, that the bath was provided by miracle as the sight was. miraculously restored ? Tlie President of Beth- any College sees as little diflficulty in " going to the water " in some river of Damascus, better than all tlie waters of Judea. W\\y not keep on to the Jordan ? Such absolute additions to the word of God are without justification from a solitary word of Scripture saying that " dipping " entered into baptism, or a solitanj fact showing that a man or woman was ever put under water in bap- tism. But if Saul was not "dipped into water" when he was "baptized," what was the baptism which he received, and why is it stated, that he "saw and was baptized,''^ and not that he "saw and was filled with the Holy Ghost " ? I answer : the baptism which Saul's baptism. 103 this newly called Apostle received was the same baptism which his fellow Apostles had already received according to the promise of that Lord who had now called Saul, when he said, " Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Ghost." Tlie accompaniments of the original baptism (sound as of wind, tongues as of fire) were inci- dentals attendant upon the baptism, and not essentials entering into its execution. Saul (= Paul) in after life is found " endued with power " for all entering into the Apostolic office, '•' speaking with tongues more than they all," which power he received now, or we are never told by Scripture when he did receive it. It is said that he " saw and was baptized,'''' and not that he " saw and was filled with the Holy Ghost,^' simply because the two phrases have the same identical value. To be '■'■filled with the H0I3' Ghost " and to be " baptized by the Holy Ghost " squarely cover the same idea, namely, to be thoroughly under the influence of the Holy Ghost. If any one should object to the addition " baptized " by the Holy Ghost, the justifying answer is this: "baptized" al- wa^'s requires some ellipsis in the New Testament ; that ellipsis (so far as agency is concerned) may be iv udarc (symbol) or ^i^ nvEOjiart 'Aycu) (efficient) ; because baptism by the Holy Ghost is just as surely established as baptism by water. This is a general justification for the right (under ellipsis) in any absolute use of j3anTc^u>, to present the claim of iv Iheu/ia-i ' Ayiw for recognition. The special justification in this case is : I. The Lord Jesus Christ promised that the Apostles should be baptized iv rivsu/xarc ^Ayiai and not Iv udarc, and this was the bajAism of an Apostle. 2. The Apostles when baptized by the Holy Ghost are said to be '■'• full of the Holy Ghost." The phrases are used interchangeably and as of equal value, as shown by Acts 1 : 5.; 2 : 4. 3. Saul was to be "filled with the Holy Ghost" by promise, and in the fulfilment he is said to be "baptized" — with the Holy Ghost, of necessity; (1) because the right to such ellipsis (as possible) has been estab- lished, (2) because the exigencies of the passage demand it, (3) because the introduction of a dipping into vmter sets at naught the promise, and introduces an element wholly foreign to the specialty of the case. The promise to the band of the Apostles was that they should be " baptized by the Holy Ghost ;" the fulfil- ment of this promise is not verballj'^ recorded as a baptism, but as being ^'■filled with the Holy Ghost ;" while reversely in the case of this last of the Apostles, the promise was that he should be ^^ filled with the Holy Ghost," and the fulfilment of the promise is 104 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. described as a " baptism." 4. Tlie Apostles were to " receive (3iva/j.c'^) power after the Holy Ghost came upon them." Saul after his baptism, like Peter, "straightway preached Christ" and "he was clothed with power (Iveduya/jMum).''^ How the double promise could be more clearly declared to have had its precise double ac- complishment I cannot well imagine. Everything entering into the specialty of the case makes imperative demand for a baptism by the Holy Ghost, and just as imperatively rejects a baptism by dipping into water. 'Avil3Xe(l>i T£ -napa^pr/fia xai avaara.': l^aizriaOri. The Cod. Sin., the Syriac, the Vulgate, and other versions omit Tzapaypyiim. The particles re . . . y.di show a unity of relation in the statements with which they are connected. While " he received sight " is accessory and adjunctive (rs) to " there fell from his eyes as it had been scales," the whole statement " there fell from his eyes as it had been scales and he received his sight " is dependent on the statement " putting his hands on him ;" and no less the conjunctive (za)) statement, "rising he was baptized," is dependent on the same fact, to wit, " the putting his hands on him." If we omit the intervening words explaining the design of the act, namely, that through it the Lord was to give sight and to fill with the Holy Ghost, and bring together the act and its results, it would read thus : "Putting his hands on him, immediatel}^ scales, as it were, fell from his e3'es and he saw, alao " (in addition to this and associated with the same fact) " rising he was baptized," being filled with the Holy Ghost. The relation between d'>a/7ra? and i^ar.zidOri is not that of an antecedent act after the doing of which some consequent act is done, but the thought in the parti- ciple is intimately and coincidently related to the thought in the verb. If avaaxac, expresses the physical act of " rising," it does not imply that subsequently to this act another act disconnected with it, to wit, a dipping into water, took place, but that the bap- tism was coincident with the rising; in other words Saul rose up a baptized man, thoroughly changed in condition by the Holy Ghost. If this participle denotes, as Professor J. Addison Alex- ander (in loc.) seems to suppose, a mental and moral romping "from his previous prostration and inaction " rather than a phj'si- cal rising, the coincidence is tlie same. If the participle be sup- posed to have an adverbial force, as stated by Winer (p. 608) of ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 105 Luke 15: 18, '•'' ^'mazd-c, -opeuaoiiai^ I will forthwith go," and we translate " he was forthwith baptized " by the Holy Grhost, the same intimacy of relation is preserved, and the sight and the bap- tism are alike dependent on "the putting on of hands," and ''im- mediately " consequent upon that act. In other words as Saul was commissioned (Acts 26 : 18) "to open the eyes of the Gen- tiles, and to turn them from darkness to light," so now his own eyes (both of the body and of the soul) were opened to the light of the sun and to the knowledge of God. Alexander Campbell, President of Bethany College. The view of this phrase as given by Alexander Campbell is as follows : " In Luke's writings alone we have this idiom eight times. Anastas, with an imperative immediately following, and without a conjunction or a comma, is found in Luke 1*7:19; 22 : 46 ; Acts 9:11; 10 : 13, 20 ; 11:7; 22 : 10, 16. In every in- stance it indicates a command from the Lord in person, or from a supernatural agent acting for him. Nothing expressed by the term rise different from the action to be performed. In no instance does the precept arise terminate the action. It never means two actions in any one case. It is not arise and be baptized. It is an idiom of expressing one immediate action. The idiom always changes when an action different from rising up is intended. Another imperative form, with a copulative of some kind, inti- mates two actions, as in Acts 8 : 26 ; 9 : 6, 34 ; 26 : 16. In all these it is anasteethi, foWowed by a copulative, rise and stand upon thy feet, rise and go into the cit}^ etc. . . . But in this case, rising is no more than an adjunct. It is not a distinct precept ; there- fore it is never rendered stand up. Almost every orator uses the term Rise when an erect position, or a mere change of position, is never thought of: Rise, citizens I rise, sinners ! and let us do our duty. In this common sense import of the term did Ananias ad- dress Saul." This view strongl}' sustains the interpretation suggested. ^Avaffzaq j3d.T:Ti aiuipTtwv in 2 : 38, i.e., submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages baptism is represented as having this importance or eHicacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation. Calling upon the name of the Lord. This supplies essentially the place of i.r:\ -w ovojiari 'Irjaob A'pcnToo in 2 : 38." Professor Hackett is probably as far removed as any one from NOT RITUAL BAPTISM. 109 attaching an unscriptural efficacy to ritual baptism ; but some of tliis language can only be explained by being explained away. If " tlie washing away of sin " is language which states the result of ritual baptism derived from its nature, what language will state the effect of baptism by the Holy Ghost derived from its nature ? If men are to be told " to submit to the rtte in order to he forgiven.,''^ in what terms shall they be told to submit to Christ in order to be forgiven ? The interpretation is just as applied to baptism by the Holy Ghost and remission of sins through Christ ; but when applied to ritual baptism it shows, tliat the wisest and tlie best are compelled to use language which proves that their feet " tread on slippery places." Alexander Campbell of Bethany (On Baptism, pp. 246-259), says: "The design of baptism is the transcendent question in this discussion. John proclaimed 'the baptism of repentance /or the remission of sins.'' Were it not for an imaginary incongruity between the means and the end, or the thing done and the alleged purpose or result, no one could, for a moment, doubt that the de- sign of baptism was ' for the remission of sins.' It is the only purpose for which it was ordained, whether in the hands of John or of the twelve Apostles. Tlie death of the Messiah was not more certainly for the remission of sins, so fiir as the expression goes, than was the baptism of John. It does not, however, follow that they are in the same sense ' for the remission of sins.' Baptism is ordained for the remission of sins, not as a procuring, or meritorious, or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in wliich faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in the ver^'- act. ^ He that belie veth and is baptized shall be sared.^ To asso- ciate faitli and baptism as antecedents, whose consequent is sal- vation, will always impart to the institution a preeminence above all other religious institutions in the world. ' Arise, brother Saul, and be baptized, and waah away thy sins, invoking the name of the Lord.' A most unguarded and unjustifiable form of address, under the sanction of a divine mission, if baptism had not for its design the formal and definite remission of sins." President Campbell and Professor Hackett do not differ mate- rially in the language which they employ in the first place to characterize ritual baptism ; but in the after-interpretation of 110 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. that language they do differ. When Professor Hackett says : " Wash away thy sins " is " a result of ritual baptism," and is "language grounded in the nature of that ordinance," and that men are called upon to " submit to the rite in order to be forgiven," he sa3's of the "result," and " nature," and the "in order to," of the ordinance just what Campbell (initially) saj's. In the in- terpretation of his language the Professor teaches that this re- markable language is not applied to ritual baptism on its essen- tial merits, but "because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation." This interpretation is not obvious in the language. And Campbell denies that it is there at all. He affirms that the rite is not a " sign " but a cause ; not illustrative of " repentance and faith as the conditions of sal- vation " but is itself a condition, side by side with them. We cor- dially accept the doctrine reached by the Professor but must as absolutely reject the terms used to characterize the rite ; and we accept the interpretation of the President as justified by the terms used to characterize the rite, while we reject those terms and the doctrine deduced from them. Alexander Campbell was originally a Presbyterian minister but through an error as to the position occupied by water in ritual baptism his feet slipped, and he became a Baptist. Accepting the language which he there found taken from the baptism by the Holy Ghost and by a sad error misapplied to baptism by ivater, and giving to it an obvious logical interpretation, his feet further slipped, and he became the head of a bod}' to whom he taught that ritual baptism was a " cause " of the forgiveness of sins, and a "condition " of salvation. The feet of his followers being thus placed in positions so slippery, it would have been not merely marvellous but miraculous if the many had not slipped farther down into the abandonment of limiting definitions (sometimes given by their leader), and taken them at their full, popular value. It is without Scripture justification to say, ^' the washing aivay of sin is a result of ritual bai)tism." Water neither washes away sin, nor symbolizes the washing. The blood of Christ washes away sin, and "the result" is purity. This accomplished result (soul purification) is symbolized by pure water. It is WITHOUT Scripture justification to say, ^Hhe washing away of sin is language derived from the nature of ritual bap- tism." This language is derived from the cleansing power of the blood of atonement. The use of water in ritual baptism is derived NOT RITUAL BAPTISM. Ill from the same source. The language is not grounded in the ritual shadow, but in the actual blood of the Cross. " These are they which have ivashed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD OF THE Lamb " (Rev. 7 : 14). It is WITHOUT Scripture justification to say, that men are called upon " to submit to the rite in order to be forgiven." There is no semblance of any such language in Scripture applied to ritual baptism. It is solely due to a confounding of ritual with real baptism. Doctor Pusey (Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, p. 174) sa3's : " It is commonl}' thought that St. Paul, having been mirac- ulously converted, was regenerated, justified by faith, pardoned, had received the Holy Ghost, before he was baptized. Not so, however. Holy Scripture, if we consider it attentive!}^ : before his baptism he appears neither to have been pardoned, regenerated, justified, nor enlightened. . . . What took place during those three days and nights we are not told beyond a general intima- tion. . . . But as yet neither were his sins forgiven, nor had he yet received the Holy Ghost ; much less then was he born again of the Spirit, befoi'e it was conveyed to him through his Saviour's Sacrament. Ananias says, 'Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.' This was done ; He arose and was baptized. By baptism he was filled with the Holy Ghost." There is no material difference among these three interpreters as to the first step in the interpretation of this Scripture. With each of them the baptism is a "ritual " baptism ; the " result " of the baptism is the washing away of sin ; the purpose of tlie bap- tism is " i?i order to be forgiven." From this common basis Pro- fessor Hackett deduces a " sign ;" President Campbell deduces an " instrumental cause ;" and Dr. Pusey deduces an efficient sacra??ien^ thi'ough which is obtained "the Holy Ghost, the forgive ness of sin, the regeneration of the soul, and justification." That the logic of this last interpreter is less sound than that of those others who stand with him on the same accepted premises, does not clearly appear. The value of the logic, however, is not a primary concern with us, but the value of the premises. These we reject with a peremptory denial, affirming that thej^ are grounded in a fiction ; no ritual baptism having an existence in the case. We may, however, learn from these variant interpretations this instructive lesson : Initial error is the radiant centre of many errors. 112 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Irenaeus — Chrysostom. It has been shown from the Scriptures that the phrases " to be baptized by the Holy Ghost" and "to he filled with the Holy Ghost " are used by them as equivalent expressions. The form of thought as expressed in primary use is not the same ; but the secondar_y or metaphorical use (indicative of effect and not of form) has an equal value. This is recognized by Irenaeus, who, in speaking of this transaction, substitutes fiaTzritrdY^ac for " filled with the Holy Ghost " in the announcement of his mission as made by Ananias. This is his language (902) : " Paul after the Lord sent Ananias to him (xa\ a'MJLfi?.i(,''ac /.a} fiar.rKrOi^-^a'.) both to receive his sight and to be baptized." The language of Ananias is — " that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled ivith the Holy Ghost,^^ for this last statement Irengeus substitutes the equiv- alent phrase — ^'■be baptized'''' (with the Holy Ghost), the single word representing the entire phrase. Chrysostom very pointedly indicates the distinction between baptism " into the name of Christ," and " baptism by calling upon the name of Christ: " " Horn. 47, ' Rising baptize thyself and wash away thy sins calling upon his name.' Here a great truth was uttered; for he did not say, 'Baptize thyself info his name ;^ but ' calling upon the name of Christ ;' this shows that he was God." '"Baptize thyself into the name of Christ" indicates the nature of the baptism by the ideal element {into the name of Christ) to which the soul is made subject, and by which it is imbued with its sin-remitting power ; while " baptize thyself CALLING UPON the name of Christ''^ indicates the means b}- which the baptism is attained, namely, by invoking divine power. This 1)aptism (by its general unity and discriminating differ- ences as compared with the Pentecost baptism) enforces the con- clusion, that it is effected by a wise and discriminating divine Person, and not "in divine essence," or "in abstract spirit," or "w'the Holy Ghost" (as a receptive medium), which would necessitate one uniform result under all circumstances. BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST. 113 BAPTISM AT SAMARIA. Acts 8 : 15, 16. OlTEveg KaraQavTE^ irpoGrjv^avTo nepl avTuv, oTzug ?id0io(ji Uvev/xa 'Ayiov, Oi/nu yap fjv en' ovdevl avruv hirnTEirTUKOQ, fj.6vov 6e &e^a7rTiafievoi "Who (Peter and John) when they were come down prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized into the name o-f the Lord Jesus." Baptism by the Holy Ghost. 1. This is properly designated a baptism: (1.) Because it is inferable from the statement " they were only baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," and had not been yet baptized by the Holy Ghost enduing them with miraculous gifts. The one bap- tism "only" having been received the other was sought for them. (2.) Because the same term {intnsTrrcDxo^') is here used as is used, Acts 8:44, inineae^ in describing the like baptism at Caisarea. (3.) Because "the receiving (v. 17) the Holy Ghost" of necessity effects a baptism=" subjecting to his influence and imbuing with his virtue." 2. This Tlvvjixa 'Ayiov (v. 15) for which prayer was made was the personal Divine Spirit. This is certain because (v. 18) in answer to their prayer to Uvsuiia rd 'Ayiov was given. 3. The means to secure this baptism was the same (v. 15) as that used by Saul — prayer. 4. Prayer was accompanied by the symbol laying on of hands, V. 17. 5. The gift and consequent baptism by the Holy Ghost was accompanied by sensible evidence — "When Simon saw that through the laying on of hands the Holy Ghost was given." If the baptism had been simply spiritual, without sensible evidence, Simon must have been ignorant of its bestowal. If objection should be made to this as a baptism because it is not verbally so designated, the insufficiency of the objection is shown: 1. By the fact, that the word has been already used on other like occasions. 2. By the fact, that neither the word nor any correspondent word is used in the narrative of the Red Sea passage, and yet Paul declares there was " a baptism of Israel into Moses " through the influence exerted by the double miracle wrought on that occasion, namely, " the division of the sea," and the illumination " by the cloud." 8 114 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM AT EPHESUS. Acts 19 : 6. Kal enMvToc avTolg tov UaiTiOv rag X''^P(^C, V^(^s t^ Uvevfia to 'Ayiot in' u'vTohr, iTialovv re yXuaaai.^ iial 'Kpoe(pijTevov. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they both spake with tongues and prophesied." Speaking with, Tongues and Prophesying. 1. When Paul had laid his hands on them. It is not slated that he prayed, but doubtless he did as is stated in Aets 8: 15, and Acts 22: IG, in the case of his own baptism. 2. The Holy Ghost came upon them. This to nvEopM to "^ Ayiov was undoubtedly the personal Divine Spirit. It is the fullest and most precise form by which such announcement could be made. 3. They spake both with tongues and p7'ophesied. (1.) Tlie thorougli change in their si)iritual condition hereby announced is absolute proof of the propriety of designating such change as a baptism ; (2.) The power to speak with tongues is neither an exclusive evidence nor necessary in order to evidence a baptism by the Holy Ghost. The twelve baptized at Pentecost spake with tongues; these twelve baptized at Ephesus, also, spake with tongues, and in addition " [)rophesied." Saul, baptized at Da- mascus, neither spake with tongues nor proi)hesied (at the time, though " endued with power " so to do when necessary) ; the scales falling from his eyes was a sensible token of the Si)irit of God resting upon him. (3.) The double result of the Holy Ghost coming upon tliese twelve is stated in a manner (iXdXouv xs. ylwaaai'z xdx Ttpoecp-^rsuov) SO similar in form with the result of the H0I3' Ghost coming upon Saul (avifihij'e re m\ ifiazriafhi), as to give renewed proof that this restored sight and spiritual baptism was also a double result of the work of the Holy Ghost. 4. The introduction of this new element of " prophesying " is fresh evidence that bai)tism is l)y a Divine Person who wisely, as sovereignly, discriminates in his gifts. And if this be so, then the rei)resentation that t'v Hvennart 'Ayuo is a quiescent, receptive element is not true. That the laying on of the hand upon the head was believed to SPEAKING WITH TONGUES AND PROPHESYING. 115 be adequate to effect a baptism is a matter susceptible of unques- tionable proof. It was the common faitli of the Patrists that they could baptize with the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. In Cyprian (1061) Successus ab Abbir says: "If heretics cannot baptize, they cannot give the Holy Ghost; but if they cannot give the Holy Ghost, because they have not the Holy Gliost, neither can they spiritually baptize." This spiritual baptism was effected by laying the hand upon the head and prayer. In con- nection with a discussion, respecting the baptism of heretics, by the Council of Carthage, the following judgments are expressed: Cyprian, 1122. Januarius a Lambese, " I judge that all heretics must be baptized (paenitentiae manu) by the hand of repentance;" Secundinus a Cedias, " They who fly to the Church must be bap- tized b}' repentance " (through the laying on of hands); Janua- rius a Vico Csesaris, " Those whom the Church has not baptized (per paenitentiam baptizemus) we must baptize by repentance ;" Felix, "Purged by the sanctification (lavacri paenitentiae) of the washing of repentance ;" Adelphius, " Since the Church may not rebaptize heretics, but (per manum baptizet) may baptize b}^ the hand ;" Marcus a Mactari, " Since we have decreed that heretics (per manus impositionem) must be baptized by imposition of the hand;" Aurelius ab Utica, "I think that they should be baptized (in manu) by the hand of repentance, that they ma}' receive the remission of sins ;" Lucianus, " I think that heretics should be baptized by imposition, of the hand ;" Felix, " That they may receive, where it is lawful, the grace of baptism by imposition of the hand." So John of Damascus (T. 261) says: "John was baptized (^lianrcffOyj) by putting his hand upon the divine head of his Master." And in the Acti SancH Thomse it is said: "And put- ting his hand upon her head he sealed her into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And many others were sea,led with her. But the Apostle ordered his deacon to spread a table" for the administration of the Lord's Supper, as was common after baptism. The editor remarks, " Sealing" was "a most ancient and most frequent designation of baptism." Firmilian says, " Paul baptized again wiih spiritual baptism (baptizavit denuo spiritali Baptismo) those who had been bap- tized by John, and put his hand upon them that they might re- ceive the Holy Ghost." In the third volume of TertuUian (1195), Anonymi Liber ^ it 116 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. is said : "All the disciples having been baptized by water, were baptized again, after the resun-ection, by the Holy Spirit; and others also may be baptized again ' with Spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of hands and conferring the Holy Ghost ' — (Baptisraate spiritale,id est manus irapositione episcopi.et Spiritus Sancti subrainistratione"). Also, 1 lfi2,'" The blessed apostle Paul baptized again with spiritual baptism those who had been baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord (bap- tizavit denuo spiritali Baptismo), and so laid his hand upon them that they might receive the H0I3' Spirit." These quotations place beyond question the belief in " a bap- tism (per manum,, in manu^ manu) by the hand." They did un- questionably believe that baptisms of the Holy Ghost, giving "repentance" and "remission of sin," were effected by the lay- ing of the hand upon the head. They did, undonbterlly, believe that baptisms were effected by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, of Peter, of John, and of Paul. They saw nothing in the nature of a baptism inconsistent with its being effected by the touch of the hand. Their practice was grounded in this Scripture practice. Whether their interpretation of these Scrip- ture facts as to their purport was right, or whether their perpetu- ation of such practice was just, are not questions now to be examined; what concerns us now is this, — men who had every opportunity to know the essential character of a bai)tism did claim to baptize (manu, in manu, per manum) by the hand laid upon the head ; and farther claimed tliat the baptism so effected was (baptizare spirilaliter) a spiritual baptism. We ma}', then, stand unhesitatingly on this foundation and affirm, that there is no olijection whicli can lie against the interpretation of the laying on of liands with prayer, by the Apostles, as eflFecting baptisms by tlie gift of the Holy Ghost. And these baptisms were real baptisms, and not a meaningless use of words. They effected a thorough change in the condition of the recipient. In these bap- tisms by the hand, the hand occupies the same grammatical posi- tion and logical relation to the baptism effected as does the water in the ritual baptism of Christianity, namely, of agency ; in the case of water a symbol agency; in the case of "the hand " just what character of agency (symbol or efficient, it makes no matter to tlie argument) it may please the Patrists to attribute to it. Hence it follows, that if it be a grammatical or logical absurdity to regard " the liand " as the receptive element within which the SPECIAL GIFTS BAPTISM. 117 baptism takes place, it is just as absurd grammatically and logic- ally (the nature of the hand or the water is not concerned in the argument) to make water the receptive element within which the baptism takes place. These baptisms by touching with the hand are entirely parallel, in principle, with the Classic baptisms effected by drinking a cup of wine, eating indigestible food, hearing be- wildering questions. How much of dipping, immersing, covering, there is in them, "a child can understand." In view of such usage and such facts, may it not be well to reconsider the order which sends " the angel Gabriel to school," because he demurs at the dictum — '■'' ^anri'^cu means dip, and noth- ing but dip, through all Greek literature." BAPTISM iv Uveufiart 'AyiM AT CORINTH. SPECIAL GIFTS. 1 Cor. 12:13. Kal yap hv tvl HvevfjiaTi. y/ielg Travre^ etf ev au/xa hjianTiadriiiev, *' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Other Beadings. No other readings of this passage are met with except such as are found among some of the Patristic writers. Basil (IV, 117) quotes the text thus : Tlavrsq yap kv ivt aia/xazt ei'c Sv Ilveufia i^anvca- dyjfiev. Whether the change in the phraseology was designed or not we cannot tell; but this is certain, the course of Basil's argu- ment required a baptism into the Holy Ghost, and he got it in the form as quoted when he could not have got it as it stands in the text. No one would think of making iv iv\ awfian^ as pre- sented by Basil, the receiving element in this baptism. No one would hesitate to assign this duty to dq iv Llveufia. By parity of reasoning i.v iv\ Uvsuimrt^ in the received text, cannot be the re- ceiving element, but ek h aibixa must be. Didj'mus Alexandrinus (TH), carrying out a special line of argument, quotes the passage as does Basil, reversing, by an intei'change of cases, the respective relations ascribed by the inspired text to tv Ilvedixa and eV awiia in this baptism. The entire revolutio of sentiment by this exchange of preposition and case 118 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. is instructive. The double presence of the Dative and Accusa- tive cases in New Testament baptisms (expressed or implied) is the rule ; extraordinary baptisms are the exception. The law, that the Accusative with ei^ denotes the receiving element, has no exceptions. By such designation the nature of the baptism is made as definite as language can express it. In the New Tes- tament, WATER never has such designation — eU udiop. Clemens Alex. (I, 288) quotes the passage as we have it except by the omission of the preposition before i'A lIvsu/mTc ; thus strengthening the idea of agency which so clearly belongs to the Holy Spirit. Translation. The translation of this passage by the Baptist version is as follows: "For by one Spirit we were all immersed into one body." And in the version circulating among the Disciples (" Campbellites "), by H. T. Anderson, the translation is the same, " For by one Spirit we all were immersed into one body." Both of these versions translate the same grammatical forms diversely in other passages, e. g., Matt. 3: 11, "I immerse you (h v8ari kq iJSTWMiiav) in water unto repentance. . . . He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit" (Baptist version); "I immerse you in water in order to repentance. . . . He will immerse you (iv llveu/ian 'Ayiu)) in the Holy Spirit" (Disciples' version); John 1 : 33, " The same is he who immerses in the Holy Spirit (o' iSanrtZwv iv fhsufiarc 'Ayiaj^^) (Baptist version); "This is he that immerses in the Holy Spirit" (Disciples' version) ; Acts 1:5," For John, indeed, immersed (udaTc) in water ; but ye shall be immersed {h Uvs6i±ari 'Ayiu)) in the Holy Ghost" (Baptist version) ; " For John, indeed, immersed in water, but j'ou shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit " (Disciples' version). The grammatical form (fiaizTt^co with the Dative and the Accusative, expressed or implied) in all these cases is the same ; but the translation, as compared with the translation of 1 Cor. 12: 13, works a complete revolution in the grammatical and logical relations of the elements entering into the baptisms. In Matt. 3:11, the preposition with its regimen, water (iv vdan) is made the receiving element of the baptized object, while the preposition and its regimen in the Accusative (if? fj-s-dvocav), is wholly dissevered from the baptism strictly speaking, and is appended to it as an end " unto " which it tends but never reaches, SPECIAL GIFTS BAPTISM. 119 according to the Baptists; and "in order to" which it is ex- ecuted, but which it never effects, according to the Disciples. But when this last preposition and its regimen take the form of e/c afeffiv d/xaprtcuv, the Baptist version still, consistently, says, this phrase does not enter into the baptism, but is something apart from it, pointed to by it yet never reached through it; while the Disciples' version^ adhering- to the same verbal form (" in order to ") declares, that while " immersion in water in order to repentance" is a worthless fiction, yet, "immersion in water in order to remission of sins" is the very power of God, and as truly a cause (instrumental) of the remission of sins as the blood of the incarnate Redeemer. That is to say, the same grammatical form, in the same grammatical and logical relation to " immersion in water," finds that relation worthless " in order to repentance^^^ but priceless " in order to the remission of sins.'' ^ To declare that inspiration says, "immersion in water" is "mw-to rei)entance," when it is not so; and "mw-to the remis- sion of sins," when it is not so ; and " in order to repentance," and " in order to the remission of sins," when it is not in order to the former, but is in order to the latter, is assertion the burden of which must be taken from' inspiration and laid, where it be- longs, on human infirmity. But all this is changed when we come to the baptism in 1 Cor. 12:13. The same grammatical forms, in the same grammatical relations, undergo a complete revolution as to the ofl3ces they are to sustain. Now, ^w iv). Iheoiiart. instead of being as h udazi^ kv lhebij.art. 'Aycw, the receiving element in which the baptized object is to be received, is transformed into the baptizing agency by which the baptism is to be effected ; and ej'c iv (jd>,aa, instead of being as £l<; /isrdwtav an end "unto" which, or "in order to" which, immersion is powerless, or as el- acpzaiv diiapricbv an end which (whether attained or not attained, according to the one or the other phase of the theory) is outside of the baptism, is in- troduced within the baptism, and becomes so vital to it that there can be no baptism without it; in a word it is transformed into the receiving element within which "all are immersed." In the previous volumes will be found the evidence in proof that the translations " in water wnto, in order to, repentance," " in water unto, in order to, the remission of sins " are fatally erroneous ; as also, " immersion in the Holy Ghost unto, in order to, repentance and the remission of sins." The true translation 120 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. in every case is that which the translator (Baptist and Disciple alike) has given in the passage under consideration, " b}' " with with the Dative, and "into" with the Accusative. The translation of iv by, with llvtviiari and its variations, which has been persistently refused up to the present, is at last accepted, and now comes by the handful, as we have it so translated, in a little more than half a page, no less than five times — Iv Tlvebiiari 6eoi>, by the Spirit of God, iv Uvsn/iarc " Ayita by the Holy Spirit, twice iv TM aoTuj lIveu/jLart by the same Spirit, ^i^ in nfieu/iart by one Spirit. This translation, reached in the responsible task of translating the Scriptures by two branches of the Baptist body, five times on one page, should arrest hard speeches against others when they venture to translate iv " 6^," especiall}^ when they translate iv [Iveunart, iv Uveu/xaTc " Ayiw by the Spirit, by the Holy Spirit, and yet more especially in connection with baptism, as so fully indi- cated in the passage before us. Also, while we have before us so encouraging an example in sk iv aSiim into one body, we might be held scathless for translating d'z iJ-erdvoiav into repentance, and tl<; afsaw d;xapTca)v into the remission of sins. And with the conjoined translation '■'■by one Spirit into one body," we may enter a plea for gentle dealing with our " by water (symbolly) into repentance," "ftythe Holy Ghost (really) into repentance," "6y water (sym- bolly) tnto the remission of sins," " 6y the Holy Ghost (really) into the remission of sins." While we accept with great pleasure the change of "in" for by; and of "unto," "in order to," for into; we must decline accepting the old "immerse." We do so for these reasons: 1. It violates the theory which says, " /SaTrrt'Cw means dip and nothing but dip." Immerse does not mean to dip. No word can by any possibility mean distinctively to immerse and also mean distinctivelj^ to dip, because these words do not belong to the same class ; the one makes demand for condition to be effected in any wa}' and with- out limitation as to the time of its continuance, the other makes demand for an act definite in character and limited in duration. 2. A burden is laid upon the word too heavy for it to bear. The theory cannot get along without a dipping. It must have a dip- ping into water (a putting in and taking out) necessarily limited as to duration ; but none of these elements are found in iSajzriXu}, and to force it to such duty is not to extract from it such mean- ing, but to commit word-murder. But a dipping is not all that SPECIAL GIFTS BAPTISM. 121 the theory needs. It needs just as much the right opposite. There is a " baptism into repentance." But to say that Christianity in- culcates a dipping " into repentance " is to utter lukewarm non- sense which the Author of Christianity will " spew out of his , mouth." The same is true of a dipping " into the remission of sins," a dipping "into Christ," a dipping " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and (as in the passage before us) a dipping " by the Holy Spirit into one body." The theory will find that " a dipping " is one of those sorry aux- iliaries which to keep or to dismiss is alike ruinous. 3. This word, immerse, has no usage correspondent with and therefore no power to express the characteristic usage of the Greek word in the New Testament. It is admitted, that in the baptism of the Apostles at Pentecost by the Holy Ghost there was no dipping, or immersing, or covering, or anything like the one or the other; but the baptism consisted in " being subjected to a controlling influence and imbued with its virtue." Now, where is the single instance in all English literature in which " immerse " means "to be subject to an influence so as to be imbued with its vir- tue "? To say that I know of no such case is to say but little; but who will supplement m}^ lack of knowledge ? If the Pentecost usage stood alone the defect would be of comparatively small con- sequence ; but this is only a representative case of that which prevails through all the New Testament. A baptism into repent- ance is " a subjection to influence and imbuing with virtue ; " a baptism into the remission of sins is "a subjection to influence and imbuing with virtue;" a baptism into Christ'is "a subjection to influence and imbuing with virtue;" a baptism into one body is " a subjcQtion to influence and imbuing with virtue ; " a baptism into water (if such a thing could be found in the New Testament, which happily or unhappily cannot be) would be "a subjection to its influence and imbuing (the lungs at least) with its virtue ;" but the theory escapes such a baptism, while insisting upon it, by the substitution of a dipping. 4. Any such use of the foreign immerse is precluded by the older indigenous words, drench, soak, steep, etc., which enter into that usage. 5. Another remark, not so important 3'et pertinent as showing that " immerse " does not measure the Greek word, is this : In English immerse is rarely, if ever, used with the preposition into, while this is emphatically the New Testament usage of ^aTtriZu). Immersed in does not differ from " baptized into " merely in failing to extract 122 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. and to communicate quality to its object, as does the latter, but it farther differs, in failing to express complete as well as thorough change of condition. To be immersed in business, in pleasure, in study, does not imply, that one has not been before a man of business, or pleasure, or stud}', but gives emphasis to . their prosecution. But it is not so with " baptized into repent- ance," " into the remission of sins," " into Christ ; " these phrases imply, that one has not been before in a state of repentance, or of remission, or relation to Christ, but passes out of a contrary state into these wholl}' new conditions. For these, among other reasons, we reject immerse as the rep- resentative of /Jr/TTTtCw, and, also, immerse in as the representative of baptized i7ito. We will adhere to the conceded Pentecost meaning for the Greek word, and will add to it the concession, that in baptism iv is indicative of the agency by which it is efl'ected, and that eiq points out the receiving element into which the baptized object (suggestively) passes. This, I believe, is about all that we need by way of concession on the part of the friends of the theory to secure (in good time) their utter aban- donment of it. Interjjretation. Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton (Comm. in loc), says : " To be baptized iv Ihsuimzi cannot mean to be immersed in the Spirit any more than to be immersed uoa-t^ Luke 3:16, Acts 1 : 5, can by possibility mean to be immersed in water." This judgment of Dr. Hodge as to^the force of the nude Dative is sustained by the general judgment of scholars. Dr. Pusey (On Baptism, p. IGG) says: "To the Galatians St. Paul inculcated their actual unity as derived from having been baptized into one Christ; so here again, to the Corinthians from their having been baptized in One Spirit; thereby showing that to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized in the One Spirit; and neither is the baptism of Christ without the Spirit, nor is there a baptism of the Spirit without the baptism instituted by Christ." Dr. Pusey has as good ground for saying that the passage under consideration teaches a baptism " in One Spirit " as the friends of the tlieory have for saying that Matt. 3 : 11 or Acts 1 : 5 teaches a baptism " in the Spirit." There is no foundation for either statement. There is no " baptism in the Spirit " known to the New Testament. A baptism in the Spirit can by no rational pos- PROFESSOR RIPLEY. 123 sibility be the same or the equivalent of a " baptism into Christ." John the Forerunner (John 1 : 29-31 ) says, that baptism by water was divinely appointed in order that "Jesus, as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, should be made manifest." Now a baptism into Christ, as an atoning redeemer (= " making subject to his influence and imbuing with his virtue ") can have no other issue than "the remission of sins ;" but a " baptism in the Spirit," who is not an atoning Redeemer, can by no possibility issue in "the remission of sins." Baptism into Christ and bap- tism in the Spirit must then, of necessity, be two essentially diverse baptisms. But there is only "one baptism" which is dis- tinctive of Christianity, and that is baptism into Christ, the Lamb of God, the Crucified of Calvarj^ ; therefore, baptism in the Spirit (if there were any such thing) could not be Christian baptism. But there is no such thing known to the word of God as " bap- tism in the Spirit ;" it is purely a human invention, as also is the idea of a " baptism in water." The true and sole relation of the Hoh' Spirit to Christian bap- tism is that of executive Agent. Thus Dr. Pusey subsequently, though not consistently, says : " For in baptism the Spirit is the Agent. It is not any outward or visible incorporation into any mere visible body (since for a mere visible union there needed not an Invisible Agent), but an invisible ingrafting into Christ, by the invisible working of the Spirit. What St. Chrysostom says is this : ' That which caused us to be one body, and regen- erated us, is One Spirit : for the one was not baptized by the One Spirit, the other by another ; and not only was that which baptized us One, but that also into which He baptized was One,' " Now, all this as said and quoted by Dr. Pusey is true to the letter. If there was any ritual water in his mind (there is none in his words, there is none in the Scriptures) when he speaks of "baptism," it is a foreign element of which he must dispose himself, we have no concern with it, and he should have none ac- cording to his own reasoning, for as " an Invisible Agent is not needed to incorporate in the visible church," so a visible element is not needed to incorporate in the invisible church. Professor Ripley. Professor Ripley (Christian Baptism, p. 52) says on this pas- sage : " The same Spirit has baptized us all, so that we have all been made members of the same body ; that is, we have all most 124 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. copiously participated in the same Spirit's influences; an idea very naturally flowing from the radical meaning of lianrtXo).^^ In a note he adds : " In such passages, reference is made to the abun- dant communications of the Spirit; an idea very happily conveyed by the use of the word baptize. The manner of the communica- tion is not regarded ; only the cojnousness. Hence, so far as the administration is concerned, no argument can be drawn against immersion as being the only baptism, from the fact that the Spirit is elsewhere said to be poured out^ These statements recognize: 1. The Spirit as the Agent in baptism. Then, the baptism is spiritual. Then, the Spirit is not a receiving element in which men are baptized ; 2. " All are bap- tized by the Spirit." Then, if all at Corinth, so, all everywhere, in all ages (who are of the body of Christ) are baptized " by the Spirit." Then, the notion of such friends of the theory as limit baptism by the Spirit to such extraordinary occasions as Pente- cost, is foundationless ; 3. The result of baptism b}' the Spirit is membership in the invisible church — "so, all are made members of the same body." Then, in the real church of Christ " all " are received into membership by baptism^ without one being " im- mersed." These statements claim, 1. That baptism by the Spirit imports " a copious participation in the Spirit's influences." This is a mistake. Baptism has no necessary relation to copiousness. Its relation is, as already stated, to power, competency to pro- duce an effect. Copiousness may be associated with baptism, yet never proceeding from the fact of a baptism, but from outside causes, as the " pouring out " of the Spirit. 2. " Copious par- ticipation is happily conveyed by baptize.^'' Baptize does not in- volve, by its own foi'ce, " participation " in influence in any measure. A flint rock cast into the sea is baptized ; but, as a mass, it par- ticipates neither in the wetness, nor in the saltness of sea-water. If the whole Mediterranean had been poured through the pitchers of Elijah upon the altar on Mount Carmel there would have been a wonderful copiousness but no baptism according to the theory. A certain class of bodies when enveloped by a fluid are penetrated and pervaded and so assimilated to the quality which may be characteristic of the encompassing fluid. This is a result which is due, not to copiousness, but to the power of the liquid to bring the object subjected to its influence under the control of its char- acteristic. This eflect produced on a certain class of bodies be- comes the basis of a secondary use of baptize in which suchlike THE BAPTIZER. 125 effect, however induced, is called a baptism. It is this usage which is illustrated at Pentecost and throughout the New Testa- ment in which, without exception, baptism contemplates effect without covering. The four water pitchers emptied bj' Elijah on Carmel's altar had no relation by copiousness to the baptism, one would have sufficed for that ; but the thrice four pourings were necessary to extinguish all suspicion that " fire had been put under " the sacrifice. The copious outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost had no special relation to the baptism that day effected, but to the promise — '' It shall come to pass in the last days that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh," which promise is declara- tive of profusion not in one case, but relatively, throughout the entire Christian dispensation as compared with those which had preceded it. Power not quantity is the essential element in Chris- tian baptism and in ever}^ kindred baptism. 3. " The manner (pouring out) of the communication is to be disregarded." If Professor Ripley means, that we ai'e to disre- gard this language as proof that there was, in fact, a pouring out, we assent. If he means, that we are to disregard this language as proof that to pour is the meaning of Ba.nri'^u)^ we assent. If he means, that we are to disregard this language as proof that pouring upon is a just means and of divine authority for effecting a true baptism without covering, then we say, this is " kicking against the pricks." And, as words cannot make the case plainer, we must patiently wait until the deep shadow of the theory shall have passed away and the mental eclipse which it has occasioned shall have terminated. Then it will be found that pouring upon does baptize. 4. " iVo argument against immersion as the only mode." That is to say : a baptism declared to be effected by " pouring out," is of no consequence! And a baptism in which there is, confes- sedly, '"no immersion nor anything like it," does not disprove " immersion is the only mode " (!) These are just the persons to " send the Angel Gabriel to school." The Baptizer. It is admitted on all hands, that the executive Agent in this baptism is the Holy Spirit. How does this settled point bear on the unsettled relation of the Holy Spirit to other baptisms ? We say, that there is essentially but "one baptism" pertaining to Christianity (which is stated with verbal differences but exhibits 126 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. one truth), and that the uniform relation of the Holy Spirit to this baptism is that of executive Agent. In support of this posi- tion it may be said: 1. That it is unreasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit would occupy two relations to baptism so alien from each other as that of executive Agent and a receiving me- dium. 2. The quiescence of a receiving medium is inconsistent with the ceaseless activity ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the office of redemption. 3. It is inconsistent with the " one baptism " of Christianity that there should be a baptism in the Holy Spirit and a baptism "into Christ." 4. It is inconsistent with a two- fold relation to baptism that the same phraseology which is ad- mitted to teach executive Agency, should be used to describe the relation in those cases where agency is denied and receptive medium is affirmed. 5. The interpretation of iv Iheotxari^ h Ilveu- fj.aTt 'Ayiw^ as expressive of agency, harmonizes with other facts and teaching of Scripture. It is in harmony with the declaration of John that Christ should be the Baptizer. He and the Holy Spirit are not announced as two independent Baptizers, but as most intimately united. John proclaims the coming One as "o iSaTzriZojv Iv fheu,aart ' Ayioj the Baptizer (who is) in the Holy Spirit," and, therefore, baptizes under the influence of =^= % the Holy Spirit. The facts at Pentecost are harmonious with this view. That baptism is ascribed both to Christ and to the Holy Spirit. It is a divine interpretation of 6 fianrc^ujv iv Trvsh/mrt 'Ayiw. The Holy Spirit is the Agent in that baptism, proceeding from Christ, and is the farthest possible removed from a quiescent receptive medium. This relation of Christ and the Holy Ghost, developed in baptism, is in harmony with all other Scripture repx'csentations of this relation. The Baptist Version (Luke 4:1) says: "Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit . . . was led Qv raj llvsuixart) in tlie Spirit;" v. 14, "Jesus returned (hv rrj duvd;i£c too TIvEviiaroq) in the power of the Spirit ;" 10:21," He rejoiced (iv ziij rivenrmri rw 'Aytw, Cod. Sin., Tisch.) ill the Holy Spirit." " Jesus exulted in the Holy Spirit" (Sijriac, Murdock). If in tlie phrase rjYaXXidfTaro iv no Ihen/mzc rw ' Ayio) the dale and influence under which he tliat rejoices is indicated by Iv rw llvzuimzt -w ' Ayioj^ why in the plirase [iaTzriazi iv llvzonari. ^Ayiio docs not the state and in- fluence under which he who baptizes, find indication in iv llvsO/xart 'Ayiu) ? David (Bapt. Version, Mark 1 2 : 3(5) speaks, being " in the Holy Spirit." Wliy does not David's Lord liaptize, being " in the Holy Spirit?" Simeon (Bapt. Version, Luke 2:27), "came iv THE SUBJECTS OF THIS BAPTISM. 127 Uveo/mTt, by the Spirit into the temple;" Jesus (Luke 4 : 1), ^k IJveufjLaTi, in the Spirit " was led into the wilderness." The state of both was the same. 6. This interpretation is in harmony with the classical use of the Dative to designate the agenc^y in baptism. It also shuns the discordant application of iv in baptism, now to indicate the agency and now to indicate the receptive element. Being limited to express the agency, it leaves ££■?, as exclusively, to fulfil its admitted function to point out the medium, real or ideal, which gives specific character to the baptism. The Subjects of this Baptism. The " all" who receive this baptism are not limited to member- ship in the church of Corinth. Paul was not a member of the church of Corinth, j'et he claims a place ("toe all ") among those " baptized into one body." The " Jew and the Gentile, the bond and the free," partake of this baptism not because they are mem- bers of the church at Corinth, but because they " drink of the same spirit " with them. The Galatians were partakers of this same baptism (3 : 27, 28) not surely because they were members of the church of Corinth, nor yet because they were members of the church of Galatia, but because they were members of the "one body" by baptism into Christ, "in whom (v. 28) there is neither Jew nor Greek ; in whom there is neither bond nor free; in whom there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." That this " all " embraces every believer in Christ, of every place and in every age, is farther proved by the prayer of "the Head of the Church, which is his body" (John 17 : 21). " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall be- lieve on me through their word ; that they all may be one ; as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that THE WORLD may believe that thou hast sent me." They who believe that the unity prayed for by Christ is the unity eff"ected by the Holy Spirit, will also believe that the "all" includes every believer in Christ among all the generations of men throughout all the ages of time. And if this be true, then the prophecy of Joel (2 : 28) of the "pouring out of the Spirit, in the last days, upon all flesh" did not contemplate an occasional, rare, and tran- sitory transaction, nor did the prophecy of John (Matt. 3:11), "He shall baptize by the Holy Ghost " (a great truth taught by inspiration and (John 1 : 33) confirmed by miraculous sign), ex- haust itself at Pentecost or at Caesarea, nor did the gifts which 128 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. the Redeemer (Ephes. 4 : 8) ascended on high to give unto men, fail because of profusion bestowed upon the Corinthians, but until "the last days " shall come to an end, and " all flesh " shall cease to need to be baptized by the Holy Spirit, and the Church shall no longer require gifts from on high, Jesus Christ will continue to bear the title 6 Baixri'^wv iv Uveu/iarc 'Ayiu)^ and its illustration will be found in the never-ceasing office work of the Holy Spirit, executive of this baptism. The Nature of this Baptism. 1, The nature of this baptism, in general, is spiritual: (1.) Be- cause the Agent in the baptism is the Holy Spirit, who neither effects physical baptisms, nor uses symbol baptisms, which are but the shadow of real, spiritual baptisms. (2.) Because the verbal receptive medium (et? ^v awiia) is a spiritual body, the body of Christ, the invisible church, the members of which are "in Christ " by faith, which is the gift of God. (3 ) Because there is no such thing as a physical baptism in the New Testament. There is such a baptism (in word) accordiug to the theory ; but in practice {desmat in ^nscem) it ends in a dipping. 2. More particularly, this baptism of " all " is a baptism ulterior to that of the individual. It is a unifying of the diverse members of the body by "diversities of gifts" so tliat "all," members one of another, shall make " one body." In some respects the baptism etc ^v ffw//«, and the baptism (Galat. 3: 27, 8) ei? XpiaTov, are the same or equivalent baptisms ; but not in every respect. The baptism "into Christ" confronts the sinner as he "arises to go to his Fathei'." He can only go through that baptism which "cleanses from all sin," as received by the Holy Spirit. The baptism " into one body " does not so immediately express the baptism of the sinner, as a baptism by " diversity of gifts " for "the perfecting of the saints;" as in Eph. 4:8.... "When he ascended on high and gave gifts unto men. ... He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry; for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith . . . unto a perfect man . . . ma}' grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole h(\dy fitly joined together and com- pacted by that which every joint supplieth, i»aketh increase of THE NATURE OF THIS BAPTISM. 129 the body unto the edifying of itself in love." This is a develop- ment of the baptism " into one body." The office of the Holy Spirit has a diverse bearing on the impenitent sinner and upon the regenerate Christian. With the one he " strives " and " con- vinces of sin," and when the sinner is made " subject to his power " (truly penitent) and " imbued with his virtue " (sincerely believing) he is, yes, he is hereby (through repentance and faith, the work of the Holy Spirit) baptized " into Christ " == " into the remission of sins." With the Christian the office of the Holy Spirit is " to sanctify," " leading into all truth," begetting " growth in grace and increase in knowledge," and thus, baptizing (as a perfected member) " into the one body." This twofold work and baptism of the Jloly Ghost is indicated in Titus 3:5,6, " He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which (^l^/sev 7:?.ouffi(07) he poured out abundantly upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Here is the baptism in which we find Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost indissolubly united and co-operating ; the sinner by " the washing of regeneration " baptized into Christ, and the Christian " renewed " day by day (2 Cor. 4 : 16) and perfected by baptism "into one body." The nature of this baptism, then, is the unification of the in- dividual members of the body of Christ, by diversity of gifts and graces, supplementary of each other, so that the whole shall form one complete body governed by one Head, moved by one Spirit, each member satisfied with his own gifts (received under the dis- tribution made " to every man severall}^ as He will "), and re- joicing in the complementary fulness found in the gifts conferred upon others. In a word this baptism " of all by one Spirit into one body " is the answer, through the ages, to the prayer offered up by the Head of his people on his way to Calvary — " Father 1 I pray that they all may be one." CHRISTIC BAPTISM: BAPTISM COMMANDED TO BE PREACHED. BAPTISM INTO THE REMISSION OF SINS THROUGH REPENTANCE AND FAITH. CHKISTIAN BAPTISM PREACHED. Acts 2 : 38. M.ETavoT]caTe koX fiaTTccdf/Tu eKaarog vfiuv, etvI tu bvofxari 'Irjaov XptaToii eJf aeen, ' Repent and be baptized, every one of 3'ou, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.' I cannot but think that ver}' many of us would liave omitted all mention of Baptism, and insisted prominently on some other portion of the Gospel message. Such was tlie first conversion. ... It was by Baptism that the disciples enlarged their Lord's church. It was by Baptism that men were saved." The views of Dr. Pusey and Alexander Campbell differ very ma- THE TRUE TRANSLATION. 137 terially in their specialties ; but they agree, in being rooted in a common error in supposing that a ritual baptism is here spoken of. They differ, also, very materially as to what enters into a ritual baptism and the details which follow its administration. Both, however, believe that it lies imbedded in the fundamentals of our religion and that its physical administration is accompa- nied with singular spiritual effects. And now, of how much practical value is it to determine whether the specialty of Alexander Campbell or that of Dr. Pusey be the more true, so long as both systems have a common root ? The worth or worthlessness of a tree does not depend on its trunk or its branch, but on its root. As is the root so will be the fruit. If the nature of the fruit be deadly, what matters its' color or its form ? If Peter, on this momentous occasion, an- nounces repentance ai>d faith as the web, and ritual baptism as the woof of Christianity, then, both these systems are legitimate issues, and they or otliers like them will be, must be, and ought to be, the result. Then, the question for us to determine is not, the comparative merits or demerits of these or related systems, but this — Has Peter here announced a ritual baptism which stands intermediate between Repentance toward God on the one hand and Faith in 'Jesus Christ on the other hand as a coequal ground cause with them, or beyond them, /or the remission of sin and the salvation of the soul ? If a rite be there at all, the time, the circumstances, and the language, unite to say: It can- not be there in anj' other position than as a fundamental element in the redemption of Christianity. To this point, then, let us give attention. ' The True Translation. The only translation which can be vindicated by general usage or by the particular usage of the New Testament is this : " Repent and be baptized — every one of you — (believing) upon the name of Jesus Christ — into the remission of sins." This translation is sustained by the fact that every word has its normal, primary value ; and by the further fact that the rela- tion in which any questionable word stands makes special demand for such meaning.* The translation of baptized by "immersed" is declined: 1. Because it is, by its friends, confessed to be in- adequate to follow the usage of the Greek word ; 2. Because in 138 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. physics, where its introduction would find the best apology, the mersion of the baptized object is without limitation of time, and as the same word cannot be used to express a sharp limitation of time and time without limit, it is impossible for this Greek word or any just representative to express the dipping of men and women into water, if there were any such thing belonging to Christianity ; 3. The distinctive usage of baptize in the New Tes- tament is to give thorough development to an ideal element over its object, for which use '' immerse " has no counterpart. In par- ticular, such is the usage of "baptized" in the passage under con- sideration, and therefore immersed must be rejected. The translation of i-l ujjon has, in general, a universal sanction. Professor Harrison (Greek Prepositions, p. 266) gives "on, upon" as the primary meaning, with six " figurative " meanings growing out of it, among which (with the Dative, as here) is '''-upon (ground, reason)." There is a special "reason" in New Testament use with "Jesus Christ," because he is represented as a "rock" upon which the Church is built; also "upon" whom the troubled soul may rest, as in Acts 16 : 80, "What must I do to be saved? Be- lieve {kTz\) upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Could anguished feeling and the cry bursting out from it, be more identical than that of the Jailor at Philippi and that of the three thousand at Jerusalem ? Unless Peter preached another gospel from that preached by Paul, i-\ in his mouth has the same value as in the mouth of his fellow-Apostle. But both preached as their Lord commanded, Luke 24 : 47, " Repentance and remis- sion of sins should be preached {Itzi) upon his name among all nations." There is j-et another reason why " upon " should be carved deep, just then, in Jesus Christ. He is at Pentecost for the first time revealed as a crucified Redeemer, and proclaimed as the Corner-stone, elect, precious, the sure Foundation-stone, " upon " which the guilty and the perishing of Jerusalem and of all lands and of all ages must build their hopes for the forgiveness of sins and everlasting redemption. No chisel has yet been tem- pered in the fire adequate to erase from the rock of God's truth that divine lettering — " upon the name of Jesus Curist." This and this only is the new element that enters into Peter's preach- ing. It had no place in the preaching of John. lie did preach repentance. He did preach remission of sins through repentance. He did announce Jesus as " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." But that John, himself, had any clear THE TRUE TRANSLATION. 139 knowledge of Calvary and its Cross there is no evidence. That he did not preach a crucified Redeemer is absolntel^^ certain. Yet it is just as certain that the Repentance and the Remission of sins preached b}' John rests, both for their existence and their worth, on the 3'et unrevealed Cross. It was for Peter to announce that uncovered Cross, and bid the guilty lay their sins upon the Guilt- less One. This he does, not by preaching repentance merely, nor b}'' announcing the remission of sins merely, but by declaring that in their exercise of repentance and in their reception of remission they must rest only and wholly upoyi Jesus Christ. Thus is laid across the threshold of the opening door of the Christian dispen- sation that " foundation other than which no man can la}'^, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11.) To build " upon " this founda- tion faith in the foundation is essential. Therefore believing is nec- essarily involved in i/ii, and is supplied in the translation given. The translation of tk by into needs, in itself, no vindication ; but as against other meanings admitted to belong to this word, it does. Professor Harrison (p. 210) says: "The proper significa- tion of et^ is within^ in^ with the idea of the being within a space having boundaries. The other seemingly derivative meanings, as for^ etc., are really due to the Accusative case with which the preposition is conjoined, or to the character of the action which it qualifies." The only meaning which is offered in opposition to "into" is for^ unto, in order to, derived from the telic use of the preposi- tion. To what is this telic use due ? It must be to "Repent " or " Baptized " considered independently or jointly. " Repent " might (theologicall}') have "/or (sk) the remission of sins," as its ex- pressed subordinate end; "but I know of no such grammatical con- struction as /isravdijiTaTS eig SifetTCv dfj.aprcwv, nor of any such bald appeal as " Repent yb?' the remission of sins." The Scripture does not place repentance in immediate relation with remission, but with difficulties to be taken up out of the way, upon which being done, remission of sins, from Christ, fiows in upon the soul. John preached " Repent ! " to prepare the way of the Lord, the Lamb of God that taketh away sin. But it is impossible for e'c: to reach over " baptized " and receiv^e a telic character from " Repent " exclusively. It is'as impossible to ground such idea in " baptized " exclusively. There is no basis for it either in the language or the doctrine of Scripture. No such statement as " immersed in water for the remission of sins " can be found ; and no such appendage 140 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. can be attached to the word " baptized " without assuming the right to "add to the words " which the Holy Ghost teacheth. John says, " I baptize h udan ei'c iisroyocav^^^ but no one ventures to say that this is for securing " repentance ; " the hesitancy to do so is not, however, for any grammatical or theological reasons, but because the exposure of the error by continued impenitence after "dipping in water" is too patent. If the issue of remitted sin by ritual water were as open to inspection as penitence or impenitence is, we would hear as little of ef? a^sffiv aimpnibv being ''^ for the remis- sion of sins " as of Itq iizToymav being " /or repentance." When- ever facts can be adduced in proof that dipping in water issues in effecting "godly sorrow for sin," then we will cease to object to "the i-emission of sins " being made telic of baptized in water. This prej^osition cannot receive a telic character from the two verbs conjointly. The conjunction of " Repent " and " dipped in water " to a common end, viz., elq aipzaiv aimp-my^^ puts both on the same level and precludes a discrimination as to essential efficiency " for " that end. But it has been shown that " dipping in water " has no Scriptural recognition as having oxiy causative power " for" the remission of sin ; it cannot, then, be lawfully conjoined with Repentance " for " such a result, nor if unlawfully conjoined can it receive any power to aid in such result. Finally, this preposi- tion cannot have the character attributed to it, because it has grammatical relations which require its service in its primar}- meaning and thus excludes every other. The indication of this position will require us to enter upon the general interpretation of the passage. The Interpretation. Repent. Repentance occupies a well-defined position, and has a determined value in the Christian system. 1. Repentance is the gift of God: 2. Tim. 2 : 25, " If God per- ad venture will give them repentance ; ^^ Acts 5:31, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins." 2. Repentance is essential to salvation: Luke 13:5, " Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish;" 2 Cor. Y : 10, " Godl^^ sorrow worketh 7-epentance to salvation." 3. Repentance is the proximate cause of the remission of sins : Luke 24:47, "It was necessary that Christ suffer, and that re- THE INTERPRETATION. 14X pentance and remission of sins be preached upon (i-}) his name;" Acts 5:31, " Jesus, whom 3'e slew and hanged on a tree, him hath God exalted . . . to give rej^entance and Ihe remission of sins ;^^ Acts 3: 19, ^^ Repent therefore and turn, that your sins may be blotted out.^^ 4. Repentance is itself a baptism : Matt. 3:11, "I baptize j^ou " (syraboUy) "with water" {el<; fj-erdvotav) "into repentance." This implies that John had preached a baptism into repentance to be received in reality by the soul. It is also involved in what he says immediately after, " But he shall baptize you by the Hol}^ Ghost" (into repentance). Inasmuch as Repentance is a thorough change in the condition of the soul exercising a controlling in- fluence over the life, it cannot but be a baptism of the soul. And a ISdT:Ti(T/j.a £i<; /leTdvotav is the obvious expression for the preaching of John. 5. Repentance also effects a baptism: John (Luke 1:77) was commissioned " to give knowledge of salvation to the people of the Lord by the remission of their sins." This knowledge he gave by preaching a baptism "into repentance" (e;'? //srawjav), a "baptism of repentance" {[idnr^aiia /isravocaq), and a "baptism of repentance into the remission of sins" (i3d:zn(Tfj.a ij.zTavuiaq elq atpsffiv dfj-aprtcuv). These statements form as plain a statement as can be put into words, that repentance (which is the work of the Holy Ghost) is causative of a " baptism into the remission of sins," And this is only another form of stating the relation between repentance and the remission of sins to be found every- where in the Scriptures, as in passages above quoted: ^'■Repent and turn, that your sins may be blotted out" — " That repentance and remission of sins " (as its consequence) " be preached " — "Exalted to give repentance and the ^'emission of sins," in the relation (subordinate) of cause and effect. Baptized. " Repent and be baptized : " In the last statement we see the reason for the conjunction of these two terms as well as the nature and purport of their relation. Repentance and the remission of sins are, in the gracious system of the Gospel, in- dissolubly connected. Repentance cannot exist for a moment without the remission of sins any more than the lightning flash without the thunder peal. To be repentant is " to be baptized into the remission of sins." The Holy Ghost who gives repent- ance does, therewith, confer baptism, sig a^smv d/xap-cw'^. There- fore Peter preaches, " Repent and (as its inseparable accompani- 142 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. ment) be baptized into the remission of sins.^^ There is no ellipsis to be supplied to make out the import of " baptized." The occasion is too momentous for enigmatic speech. The way of salvation for souls " cut to the heart" cannot be left for human supplement. Therefore the sine qua non condition, "Repent!" is made to ring upon the ear; therefore, its inseparable and cheer- ing accompaniment, "and" (thereby) "be baptized into the re- mission of sins" is fully stated. There is no place for the telic use of e^?. Its service is demanded in its primary signification. And its power is exhausted in bearing the penitent sinner out of a state of guilt i7ito a new state of remission. The phraseology, "Repent and be baptized into the remission of sins" is, in sentiment, nothing else than. Repent and he forgiven ; but the sentiment is intensified by the form of expression, which teaches us, that as an object put into a fluid having some marked charac- teristic and remaining there is penetrated, pervaded, and imbued through ever}' pore with such characteristic, thoroughly changing its former condition, so, a guilty soul is by repentance brought into a new state or condition, the characteristic of which ("the remission of sins ") penetrates and pervades the soul in every part, subjecting it to its sweet influence. That the construction "Repent and be baptized" does not in- dicate two things independent of each other (as repent and he immersed in water), but have the gracious relation of cause and eflect, is shown by the parallel construction in Acts 3: 19, "Re- pent and be converted (turn), that 3'our sins may be blotted out (to the blotting out of your sins)." No one will say, that " Re- pent" and "be converted" (turn) represent two independent acts, or will deny, that- the latter is embraced in and proceeds from the former, as an effect is embraced in and proceeds from its cause. No man ever repented of sin with godlj' sorrow with- out turning from it; and no man ever turned from sin as required by Scripture, without being penitent, and being moved thereunto b}' repentance. These two passages serve not merely to illustrate this construction, but, no less, the baptism. The statement, " Repent and be baptized into the remission of sins," is reflected both in sentiment and in power (with dilference of form) by that other statement (both made by the same speaker), " Repent to the blotting out of 3'our sins" {elq ru i^aXsi^Ov^vut) "obliterated from the book or tablet where they are recorded" (Hackett). This figure of "blotting out" has a power of expression not less THE INTERPRETATION. 143 (of its kind) than "baptizing into," and both are used for the same purpose, namely, to express in the strongest manner that language will allow, absolute forgiveness to the repenting sinner. If one seeking admission into the church should be required to make out a list of his sins, and then the admission should be consummated by "blotting them out" b3' turning the ink-bottle over them, and no one be allowed to come to the communion table without this, the error would not be so great, nor the per- version of the figure so absolute, as in receiving a man into the church by dipping him into water, and excluding others because such blotting out would be conformable to the letter of the figure, while the conversion of a "baptism" into a dipping is an utter abandonment of the letter and of the spirit. The telic use of dq in the phrases ^(xnzi^etv dq ttjv 0dXa(7 tism with symbol water " into the Name of the Lord Jesus," as against the real baptism by the Holy Ghost. Nor is such determination established by the statement, that the Apostles " prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as j^et he was fallen upon none of them," only the}' were baptized " into the Name of the Lord Jesus." This state- ment is conclusive against the doctrine of a baptism in the Holy Ghost, and establishes the doctrine that baptism is by the Holy Ghost ; but it is not conclusive against but rather implies, that they had alread}' been baptized by the Hol}^ Ghost " into the Name of the Lord Jesus." There is nothing more certain than that the baptism by the Holy Ghost is not limited to a single species, namely, to that which regenerates, uniting to Christ by repentance and faith, with the remission of sins. The baptism of the Apostles at Pentecost did not belong to this species of bap- tism. That, surely, was not a regenerative baptism. That bap- tism of the Holy Ghost received by Cornelius and his friends at Caesarea was not, or not merely, a regenerative baptism. And this baptism at Samaria, by the laj'ing on of the Apostles' hands and prayer, was not a regenerative baptism. The baptisms at Jerusalem, and Caesarea, and Samaria, belong to the same species, namely, of miraculous endowment for special ends, and are wholly diverse from that species of baptism which regenerates the soul, remits sin, and unites to Christ. This distinction is clearly taught in the passage before us, where baptism "into the Name of the Lord Jesus" is broadly separated from that baptism of miraculous gifts which was obvious to the senses, and which (v. 18) " Simon saw," and the multitude of Pentecost, and "the circumcision" at Caesarea, " heard." This baptism of the Holy Ghost, therefore (received subsequent to the arrival of Peter and John), does not show that they had not received that baptism of the Hol,y Ghost, which is " into Christ," before their arrival. While, therefore, we may believe that the statement of a baptism " into the Name of the Lord Jesus" refers especiall}' to a symbol baptism, yet the 170 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. proof is not hereby made absolute, much less that the real baptism is exclnded. 4. There is, however, one other source of evidence, which must end all doubt. It is found in the baptism of Simon. We are told in V. 13, that "Simon was baptized;" and in vv. 21-23 we are farther told, that " he had neither part nor lot in Christ," that " his heart was not right in the sight of God," and that " he was in the gall of bitterness." Now, no man was ever baptized by the Holy Ghost " into the Name of the Lord Jesus," and remained "without part or lot" in him, having "a heart not right in the sight of God," and "in the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity." It follows, therefore, of necessity, that Simon had not received that real baptism of the Holy Ghost which regenerates the soul and unites to Christ. But baptism, with symbol water, "into the Name of the Lord Jesus " has no power to regenerate the soul, or to change its relations to God, or iniquity ; and as Simon, after baptism, remained unregenerate, out of Christ, and in iniquity, it follows of necessity, that his baptism must have been by symbol, and by symbol only. WATER NOT MENTIONED. It being made certain that there was a ritual baptism at Samaria, it is no less certain that S3'rabol water was used in the administra- tion, for this is the element and the onl}^ element of divine ap- pointment. As there is no express statement of the presence of water, so, of course, there is no express statement of the manner of its use. We must, therefore, supply the ellipsis from other passages where water is mentioned, and as it is mentioned. There is, happily, no embarrassment in so doing, for this element never appears in the administration of baptism except in one form, that of the Dative. In Matthew and John, the form h uSart appears ; in Mark (Cod. Sin.) and Luke, udart, without a preposition. As Luke is the writer of Acts, the ellipsis can only be suppUed in that form invariably used by him, both in his Gospel and in the Acts. The passage would then read thus : mJart ,3s,3a-Tc>T,'j.i'^()c eiq rJ ovo/za, or /3£/Sa7rr£rT/jr.c^w<: udart ei^ to ow>,ua, the first order appearing in the Gospel by Luke (3 : 16), tlie second in the Acts (I : 5). As to the translation of these words, I doubt whether there is a scholar living who, meeting in Classic Greek with i3a-zi%w tluis associated with the Dative and the Accusative, would think of any other CONFIRMATORY PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. 171 translation than one which would make the Dative to express agency, and the Accusative to express the receiving element. As a matter of fact, there is no Baptist scholar who has ever trans- lated £('? with its case thus associated with ^anri'loj outside of the Scriptures, by any other word than into^ and under like circum- stances they have (with wellnigh the same undeviating uniformity) translated the Dative as indicating the instrument. There is no just reason for abandoning tliis uniformity when we come to the Scriptures. The only allowable translation, then, must be '^ xoith water, baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus," or, " were bap- tized, with water, into the Name of the Loi'd Jesus." The only matter left to choice is the order of words ; for the translation itself, in view of the whole range of usage, there is no choice. The syntax thus developed is identically the same with that in John's baptism — fiaTzri^u} h u^an, uSuTi, ei^ [isToyotav — here the water occupies the position of sj^mbol agency, and repentance (verbally) that of receiving element. The fact that the symbol agency re- mains the same, both under John's ministry and under the Chris- tian ministr^^, while the verbally receiving element which denotes the nature of the baptism is changed (in conformity with the dis- tinctive characteristics of the one and the other ministry) is a demonstrative confirmation of the interpretation demanded by the S3nitax. John's ministry demands a baptism "into repent- ance;" and we have it. The Christian ministry demands a bap- tism "into Christ;" and we have it. No other defensible and rational translation can be given. This is the view of all Patristic writers. They universally re- gai'd the water as occupying the position of agency, and " Re- pentance," " Remission of sins," " Christ," etc., as the verbal ele- ment giving character to the baptism. This is true in whatever form the water is used by them, whether by covering, or pouring, or sprinkling. The water ever had, in their estimation, a divine energy as an agency in baptism, and never occupied in their view the position of a mere receptacle. CONFIRMATORY PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS. The evidence that early Christian writers I'egarded water in baptism as agency, and the receptive element as verbal and ideal only, is complete, as the following quotations (a few out of a num- ber without number) will show : 172 CHRISTTC BAPTISM. Clemens Romanus, 885 : RanTitrOivreq ydp ei^ rov too Kopioo Odvarov, xai ei't TT^v dvatrzafTtv aurou, "Having been baptized into the death of the Lord and into his RESURRECTION." " Into" brings under the full influence of " the death and resur- rection of the Lord." Unto, for, in order to, subvert the divinely taught baptism of the Scriptures. Apostolical Canons. 42 (Gale, 191) ; rpia [ia-Kxiaimra . , h iid-Tira (v. 31) used to express the stepping up by Philip into the chariot of the Eunuch, as Joseph stepped up into the chariot of Ptolemy. Thus, as it is in express evidence that ava^aivu) takes Philip up into the chariot, so the evidence is clear for xara/5ajVa» to bring him down from the chariot. But Professor Hackett objects, sajnng "the Eunuch only, returned to the chariot." This, however, is a mis- take. The Scripture says, the Eunuch, only, pursued his journey in the chariot; but it does not say, "the Eunuch, only, returned 188 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. to the chariot." If the Eunuch dismounted from the chariot and afterward pursued his journey in the chariot, he must have re- mounted irto the chariot. Now, this dismounting is either not expressed at all or it is expressed by xari[iri<7av ; and if by this word, then it includes Philip, for it is plural ; so, the remounting of the Eunuch is either not expressed at all, or it is expressed b}'^ avi^T}(Tav'^ and in that case it, again, includes Philip, for the verb is plural. If it be asked. Why did the Spirit of the Lord wait until Philip had gone up into the chariot before He carried him away ? I answer by asking. Why did the Spirit of the Lord wait until he " came up out of the water " ? Why not carry Philip away out of a chariot, as well as carry away Elijah in a chariot? The case stands thus : Philip and the Eunuch came in a chariot upon some water ; they dismounted from the chariot, stepping down at or into the water ; a word is used which is employed both by Greeks and Jews to express stepping down from a chariot, and we say it is so used here ; but the friends of a dipping say: " It is not so used, it is used to express ' walking down from shal- lower into deeper water ' " (not a word of which appears in Scrip- ture) " and the dismounting is not expressed at all." Again : it is admitted that the Eunuch did remount into his chariot, and a word is used which is employed by Greeks and Jews to express mounting up into a chariot, and which is employed in this same narrative to express Philip's mounting up into the chariot with the Eunuch, and which we sa}^ is here, again, employed to ex- press the remounting of the Eunuch (including Philip, the verb being plural) into the chariot from which he had dismounted; but the friends of dipping interpose and say, " No ; the word means to walk back again from deeper water into shallower " (making an absolute addition to Scripture), " and there is nothing to ex- press the remounting of the Eunuch." Which interpretation has the greatest appearance of verisimilitude, that of those who, like Dr. Carson, "thirst to know the will of God," or that of those who " have no more conscience than Satan himself," the thought- ful will determine. Baptized Him. Professor Ripley complains that Professor Stuart argues against immersion based on " going down into the water," and sa3's, " going down into the water is no jDart of the baptism." This position is at the expense of the postulation which requires. GOING DOWN INTO THE WATER. 189 1. That the whole and not the part of an object must be baptized ; 2. Self-baptism is not Christian baptism ; a duly qualified minister must be the baptizer ; 3. " To modif}^ a command of God for the sake of convenience is rebellion." If the Eunuch "baptized" one half of his body he had no authority to do it. If Philip "bap- tized" only so much of the body of the Eunuch as he left un- covered by "walking into the water," then he did not baptize "the whole," but a part only. The walking into the water is not claimed to be a divine command, but a human addition to avoid a very great inconvenience. The walking into the water by the Eunuch is, also, a purely human addition. The language of Scripture, unquestionably, may express step- ping down into the water, and just as unquestionably this may have been due to the position of the chariot when suddenly arrested, and because the limited quantity of water made such action a matter of indifference. The assumption that the baptism of a person standing in water necessitates a dipping into water is an assumption " as unstable as water." It is certain, that [ia-zi'lu) does not mean to dip. It is certain, that Greek baptisms without number were effected by a fluid without a fluid covering. It is certain, that early Christian writers represent baptism as effected in a variety of ways, and, among others, by stepping into water without being dipped into it. Thus Dionysius Alexandrinus (708), declares, that the pool of Bethesda was {ehwv [ia^r if! p.aroq) the image of baptism,- not be- cause one was dipped into the water, but because he stej^ped into it and was healed. So Ambrose (III, 426) says : " Habes quar- tum genus baptismatis in piscina — Thou hast a fourth kind of baptism in the pool (Bethesda)." These writers neither believed that a dipping into water was necessary to a baptism, nor effected a baptism at all. They believed that he who stepped into the troubled water of Bethesda was ba[)tized, not because " the hody was immersed after the Jewish manner; namely, by walking into the water to the proper depth, and then sinking down till the whole body was immersed" (Conant, 58), but because the water had the power of healing by stepping into it, just as they believed that the water of Christian baptism, impregnated by the Spirit, had power to heal the soul, when applied to the body b}^ them. It is so certain that baptism may be without covering the body in water, that Morell frankly admits that profuse superfusiou is baptism. Fuller admits it in the case of the altar on Carmel. 190 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. And Professor Arnold (admitting that it is the practice, more or less frequently, in the Eastern Churches, to baptize one when in the water by pouring water from the hand upon the head) says, the lack of a covering in such case is but " a punctilio "(!). As we are ready to admit, that the Eunuch may have stepped down from the chariot into the water, will not Prof. Arnold and friends admit, that water may have been poured from the hand of Philip upon his head, and being so " baptized " any one who should complain of a lack of covering in water, must be condemned as standing on "a punctilio"? It is as certain as anything within the range of human knowledge, that baptisms are freely spoken of by early Christian writers without the slightest regard to the dipping or covering of the baptized object (see Judaic Baptism). We conclude, therefore, with Prof. Ripley, that the stepping down into the water was no part of the baptism, and taking the pouring or the sprinkling of Professor Arnold (without the "punctilio "), we say with Luke, that the Eunuch was baptized ^'"with water" (S^arj), and not into water (sk udcop), but "into the Name of the Lord Jesus." The baptizer was the same Philip who had just baptized the Samaritans " into the Name of the Lord Jesus ; " and the historian is the same who expresses the water used in baptism (whether in Gospel or in Acts) by udarc^ which precludes a dipping into water; and to say that the Eunuch was baptized in any other way than " uduTc £i? rd ovoim zoo Kupioo Utjgou^ with water into the name of the lord jesus," is to con- tradict the word of God. 'EK. Dr. Carson insists, " that u has no indefiniteness in its mean- ing. It always signifies out of. It always begins at a point witliin, and not without, the place of departure. To this there is no exception and no color of exception." For this reason he insists that Philip and the Eunuch must have been witliin tlie water, and, therefore., the Eunuch was dipped into water. This has already been shown to be a non sequitur ; but as another exhibition of that error of "one mcaniug and but one meaning" so characteristic of the theory, it may be well to inquire of usage as to this unvarying meaning. A quotation from Sir William Hamilton (Classic Baptism, pp. 23, 24) was given to show, that the doctrine of a cast-iron definit- ism in i3anTi!^uj was in conflict with the laws of language. The 'EK. 191 same doctrine now urged for h is also shown to be at war with language development as stated by Marsh (Origin and History of the English Language) : " So, too, he refutes a current notion, that words individually and independently of syntactical rela- tions, and of phraseological combinations, have one or more in- herent, fixed and limited meanings, which are capable of logical definition. Words live and breathe only in mutual combination and interdependence with other words." The correctness of this statement will be manifest by a limited exhibition of the usage of this preposition. Harrison (Professor in the University of Virginia) has written a standard work on the Greek prepositions. His view of the meaning of this preposition {b.) is thus stated : " 1. Out, without; that is on the outside. " 2. Out of, from out; =ont -f motion from. a. Of space; out of; from out. h. Of a number of objects; out of, from (out). c. Of origin, parentage, source, cause, agent, material; of, from. d. Of that from which an action, motion, event, etc., begins ; from,: (1.) Of space, and generally ; from. (2.) Of time; from,. (3.) Of the point of attachment ; from. (4.) Of the space to which an object is referred for its position ; on, in.'''' Jelf (§ 621). Primary meaning, out, opposed to iv, in. Ktihner (Gram., § 288) gives substantially the same view : " 1. In a local relation : a. removal either from within a place or object, or from immediate participation or connection with a place or object, with verbs of motion ; b. distance with A'^erbs of rest: without, beyond; 2. Of time, immediate outgoing, develop- ment, or succession ; 3. In a causal and figurative sense : a. Of origin; b. Of the whole in relation to its parts; c. Of the author; d. the occasion or cause; e. the material; f. the means and in- strument; g. conformity.''^ Winer (366) makes the original meaning of ix issuing from within. He says, it is antithetic to e^c. Harrison says, " it is just the opposite of iv." Jelf and Kiihner make the same state- ment. Harrison farther says : " The common signification of t<, not in composition, is out of, from out, with the idea of proceed- ing from out of a circumscribed space. This meaning, being due partly to the action or motion of which it is the qualification, is not to be considered as simple and proper to tx; the sense con- tained in the preposition itself is no more than that of out, with- out.]^ While all of these grammarians recognize ix as related to 192 CHRIvSTIC BAPTISM. movement beginning within circumscribed space, none of them consider depth as entering into the idea of this preposition. The}' all recognize action proceeding from, the surface of any object, or frorrl within any circumscribed space (without penetra- tion) as fully meeting the demand of this preposition. That t/. is used where there is neither depth nor superficial withinness, Harrison gives the following among other evidences : " 1. The derivative i^u)^without,i\\Q opposite of within; 2. t/.xaOsudetv^ to sleep out of doors ; 3. :ra?c iy.y.elij.evix;^ a child lying out, exposed; 4. h.ylti(Tai ri^c ttwAew?, to shut out from the city ; 5. ixXsinetv, to leave out; 6. h fteXiwv ehm, to be out of the reach of darts. . . . h with the genitive case occurs in some instances with the pri- mary and simple meaning vnthout, out: e.g.., ix xarcvod xariOr/x', I deposited the weapons out of, without the smoke ; that is, on the outside with respect to the smoke. Odys. XIX, 7 ; tx rd^oo ponaroq, a foot soldier out of bowshot. Xen. Anab. Ill, 3, 15 ; that is, without, on the outside, with respect to a bowshot ; ix rod idaou, sat down out from their midst. Herod. Ill, 83 ; out, on the out- side, in respect to the midst of them. The compound ixnodwv, out, or without, with respect to the feet, belongs here together with a number besides in which ix retains its proper sense, on which the genitive depends." This doctrine that ix signifies out, without, simply, and also proceeding from withina boundar}' line, or from superficial con- tact, together with other derived and related meanings, is sus- tained by Scripture usage : Matt. 27 : 38, " Two thieves were cru- cified with him, one (ix ds^tdji^) out from the right, and one (i^ eucuvo/uo'/) out from the left." Here we have the meaning " o?/<," with respect to the right, " out," with respect to the left, without any antecedent withinness. 1 John 2: 19, "They went (iC -^fiwv) out from us, but they were not (e^ tj/jlwv) of us." Here is a di- versity of usage in the same sentence. In the first case, there is reference to position within a company of persons and movement thence carrying without the company ; in the second case, there is no reference to position or movement, but to unity of character and continued sympathy as a consequence. A parallel passage is found in I Maccab., XIII, 49, "But they who were (ix r^c «V«?) of the citadel in Jerusalem were hindered (ixTropeuzffOuc) from going out." The first use of ix has lost all idea of separation and expresses belonging to, while the second ix (in composition) turns wholly on the idea of separation. So, in Herodotus I, 62, INNESS INAPPRECIABLE. 193 "Those Athenians who were (h. aazeoq) of the city." And Josephus XIII, 2, 1, " The impious and deserters {h ri^? SLxpoTtdksajq) of (= belonging to) the citadel, feared greatly." Another usage is shown in Matt. 12 : 33, "A tree is known {Ix rou xapnou) by means of its fruit." A similar usage, with one diverse, is seen in Rev. 9: 18, 19, "And out of {Ix) their mouths issued fire, and smoke, and brimstone. The third part of men were killed ((S-o) by these three, namely (tz ron -Kupdq)^ by means of the fire, and (ix too xamou) by means of the smoke, and {U rob Oaiou) by means of the brimstone, which issued (kx) out of their mouths." Here, in the same sentence h represents both agency and move- ment, beginning at a point indefinitely deep within the mouth. Inness inappreciable ; superficial ; no contact. Luke 1 : 38, " And began to wash his feet with tears and Q^i/xaffffs) wiped them off with the hairs of her head ;" John 11 : 2, "Anointed the Lord with ointment, and (hp-d^atra) wiped off his feet with her hair;" Matt. 10: 14, " When ye depart out of that house or city Qxrivd^are) shake off the dust of your feet ;" John 6 : 37, " And him that cometh (■n:pd<;) to me, I will in nowise {hjSdXw) cast out ;^^ Matt. 12:13, "He said (k'xretvov) stretch out thy hand. And (i^irsci's) he stretched it om^;" Acts 27 : 32, " Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her (ixne(7sl>) fall off:' In these passages we have dust shaken off from, and tears and ointment wiped off from the feet. Does the shaking or wiping, in such cases, begin within the feet ? When the hand is stretched out from the body, within what does the movement begin ? The sinner is invited to come to Jesus ; could the casting out of such a one begin at a point within Jesus to which the sinner had never attained ? The rope which holds a boat, not within a vessel nor in contact with a vessel but floating in the water, is cut, and it falls off, floating away. Does this floating movement begin at a point within the vessel? Prof. Hackett (Comm.) says, "The ropes of the boat which fastened it to the vessel ; not those by which they were lowering it, as that was already done ; let it fall off {i. e., from the side or stern of the vessel), go adrift." This justly esteemed scholar {primus inter pares from earliest 13 194 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. student life it gives me pleasure as a fellow-student to testify) knows nothing of the absolutism of Dr. Carson's doctrine. As man}^ of these examples present the preposition in compo- sition it ma}'^ be well to adduce others of simple form. Acts 28 : 3-5, " There came a viper (h r^? O^p/^rjc) out of the heat and fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang (cz t^c x^<-po<^) off from his hand. . . . And he {amnivd^a!;) shook off the beast into the fire." Prof. Hackett (Comm.), sa^'S, " ^z t^? Oip/j.y}'^, from the heat, the effect of it. . . . This is the common view of the expression, to which De Wette also adheres. It may also mean from the heat, the place of it, as explained by Winer, Meyer, and others ; h is kept nearer in this wa}' to its ordinary force. . . . Ix t^? yjtpbc^ from his hand, to which it clung by its mouth." This case of the viper all can understand. Whether it had fastened on his hand by coiling around it, or by a tooth struck into it, is a matter of no conseqence. If Dr. Carson is satisfied that the motion of the viper's fall began within the hand because a tooth may have been stuck into the flesh, we will make no earnest objection. He will no doubt in turn admit, if the toe of the sandal of Philip or the Eunuch touched the water's edge, it will justify the statement that the action of mounting up into the chariot began within the water. Acts 12:7, "And his chains (i^iTzerrov) fell off (ix rib'^ y-^P^''^) from his hands." Prof. Hackett translates, " His chains fell off from his hands or wrists. They were fastened to the wrist in the Roman mode." The Baptist Version translates, " His chains fell off from his hands." In a note, it is said, ix rwv ysipCov, not out of, but from his hands. They could not have fallen out of, unless he had held them in his hands." We have then, here, the most absolute and admitted evidence that Dr. Carson's doctrine respecting this preposition is erroneous. It may be possible to have even a little more conscience than the devil, and still question whether ix by its essential force proves that the Eunuch was dipped into tlie water or even that he was within tlie water at all. So far from Dr. Carson's friends accept- ing the doctrine that ix " always means out of, implying that the point of departure is within the object, to which tliere is no color of exception," they expressly deny tiiat it can have, in tliis case, the meaning " out of," and must have the meaning from. As it INNESS INAPPRECIABLE. 195 is admitted by Dv. Carsou himself that eiq may mean imto, it necessarily follows, so far as the force of terms is concerned, that Philip and the Eunuch may have stepped down from the chariot to the water and stepped up into the chariot from the water. While we claim that this may be the translation, we do not claim that it mud be. There is no need for our doing so.' It is in proof, that the position of the chariot may have been such as to necessitate stepping into the water in stepping down from the chariot ; and it is in proof, that the quantity of water may have been so limited as to make it unnecessary to change the position of the chariot on this account. These points being proved, as possible, the extremest definitions of £!C and h do not militate against our view ; while such proof is an absolute arrest to the (accustomed) assumption of a dipping. John 12 : 32, "If I be lifted up (ix rv^q yr^q) from the earth ; . . . This be said signifying what death he should die." This case shows, again, exterior position with respect to the earth, without the possibility of movement to secure such position beginning within the earth. Thucyd. IV, 31, "Which was (ix 0a.\a) in the rock;" Luke uses yet another form (23:53), "in a rock-hewn sepulchre (^v iJ.vyjiJ.aTi Xa^euTw^y Tliis use of ix, indicating material of which something is formed, and consequently sameness with that wliich is formed, is quite common, and is illustrated in John 3 : 6, "That which is born {ix Tr^e; nap/.uc) of the flesh, is flesh ;" and John 4:31 "(J Hv ix r>7c ?'^?', ix t/7t yy,<; i^n, xai ix ri^c yv^q XaXet) He that is of the earth, is of the earth (^earth-like), and speaketh of the earth (= earth-like)." Closely allied to this usage is that in which h/. indicates not the material of which anytliing is made, but the agency by which it exists or from which it receives character. 1 John 5," Whosoever is born {ix too Beou) of God sinneth not" = is like the Author of his life in character, who does not sin ; John 3 : 6, "That which is born (iz Till) Ihehimrix;) of the Spirit, is spirit " = is like the Spirit by whom tlie change expressed by " born " has been effected ; John 3:5, " Except a man be born (^z vdaroq) of water." Birth OUT OF. 197 here, and in the preceding cases, has of necessity, £^ modified mean- ing. It expresses, in general, a radical change. The specific character of this change will depend upon its cause. The change produced by simple water applied to a filthy person is very radical but purely physical. This cannot be the birth of water held out to Nicodemus. It must refer to that water with which he was familiar as a Jew, and especially as a " Pharisee." This water had nothing to do with physical cleansing. It had the power to cleanse from ceremonial impurity and to t^^pify spiritual cleansing. Therefore Nicodemus is taught the insufficiency of such change as water effects in a man's religious condition, and the necessity for such other change as is "of the Spirit," in order to see the kingdom of God. This usage of ix, with the agency, is strikingly illustrated in the interpretation of this passage as given by the change of a word in the Apostolical Constitutions VI, 15, "Whosoever is unwilling (ix) of contempt to be baptized, shall be condemned and reprobated as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, '^dv /lyj r;? iSanziffO^ ^^ vdaroq xai Ylvsoimzoq^ ' Except a man be BAPTIZED of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' " The s^'n- tax makes it impossible to translate ^anTtad^ by dipping or im- mersing. "To be dipped of or out of water and the Spirit," and " to be immersed of or out of water and the Spirit," are absurd statements. " To be baptized (in the sense to he made regenerate) of water and of the Spirit " is facile sj'ntax and as good theology according to the Apostol. Const's. This passage, therefore, over- turns the univocal theory of Dr. Carson both as to ^anri^u) and as to ix. This passage is, also, confirmatory of the interpretation of one parallel as to syntax mentioned in Classic Baptism, p. 335, "/SasTjCoirec ix 7r£'(9a»y," where ^x is indicative of agency, ^''Baptizing of cups," i. e., making, drunk by wine in the cups. " Baptism (ix) of the Spirit " is regeneration by the Spirit. And " Baptism (ix) of the wine cup " is intoxication by the wine cup. This use of ix^ as expressive of agency, is recognized by the Baptist translation of John 3 : 34, " God giveth not the Spirit (ix fiirpou) by measure unto him." Out Of. John 20 : 2. " They have taken away the Lord (^x rod fivTjiieiou) out of the sepulchre." This is a clear case in which the action con- nected with ^x " begins at a point within the object." This point 198 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of beginning, however, is not due to any essential force of this preposition, but 1. To the nature of the case. The place for a dead body is within a sepulchre. 2. We are expressly told that the body was tvithin the sepulchre, as in Matt. 27 : 60, "Joseph laid the body (iv) in his own new tomb;" Mark 15:46, "And laid him (Iv) in a sepulchre ; " Luke 23 : 53, " And laid it (h) in a rock-hewn sepulchre." If, under these circumstances, the body is " taken away," it is impossible for the movement to begin at any other point than that where the body is, to wit, within the sepulchre. The case proves, as stated by Harrison, and Kiihner, and Jelf, that " h is the opposite of ^v." It does not, however, prove that h i-equires for its object a preceding interior position such as that of the body within the sepulchre. The essential element is an exterior position in contrast with an interior position. How such position is secured, whether originally occupied without move- ment, or whether by movement from within the related object, or from within a superficial space, or from contact at any point, or by the dissolution of some intermediate bond, ix does not deter- mine. This is shown by another use of this preposition in con- nection with this same transaction. ■ Out From. John 20 : 1. " Mary Magdalene cometh {elq iivrniejov) to the sep- ulchre, and seeth the stone taken away {i/. too /Mrj/xewu) out from the sepulchre." A "stone," unlike a buried bod}^, may or may not be within a sepulchre. Do we know from other sources what was the char- acter and position of this stone ? The information on both these points is full and precise : Matthew (27 : 60) says, " He rolled a great stone {npoqxoXiffai; ttj Obpa TOO fivrjtisiou) to the door of the sepulchre, and departed;" Mark (15:46) says, "And rolled a stone (iTTt T7j'^ Oopav) upon the door of the sepulchre." This stone was " a great stone," and its office was to close the entrance of the sepulchre. Matthew indicates the position of the stone as " rolled (tt/jo?) (o, against the door ; " and Mark as " rolled to and (^M) upon the door." Now, observe the contrast between the natu- ral relations of a buried body and of this stone to a sepulchre. A buried body is of necessity within the sepulchre, and the stone which closes the entrance to a sepulchre is of necessity precluded OUT FROM. 199 from being within the sepulchre. In accordance with this, Mat- thew, Mark, and Luke testify that the body of our Lord was within the sepulchre, and Matthew and Mark testify that the stone was without the sepulchre, rolled against and upon the door Could contrast be broader as to the position, with respect to the sepulchre, occupied by this buried body and this protecting stone ? This testimony which puts the stone in position is confirmed by that which states its removal : Matt. 28 : 2, " The angel of the Lord descended from heaven and (npoazlOwv) came to and rolled away the stone {and) from the door, and sat upon it." Here we are told the angel came, not into the sepulchre, but to the stone, which was exterior to the sepulchre, and "rolled it away (ano) from the door." That this stone was not within the sepulchre is farther proved by the statement of Mark (16:3, 4), in which he uses ix, " Who shall roll {anb) away the stone for us (cx) out from the door ? And when they looked they saw the stone {ar.ir/.sxbhai) in the name of Jesus Christ, to be bap- tized." It is highly probable, that this was the order and the phraseology of the text used by Cyril, as it is also that of the Codex Sinaiticus. Objection from the order is therefore not only annulled, but whatever of weight belongs to it is thrown heavily on the other side. 3. The plea for disjoining /5a7rT£ff^i^vat and ivTui ovofian is greatly strengthened by the quite unlooked-for approval of the translator of the Baptist Version, who, retaining the order of the common text and translating "he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord," still, in a note says, "'fv tw 6v6;j.aTc^ in the name, or by the authority of the Lord, he commanded them to be immersed. 'Ek; to ovo/ia^ and iv rui ovo/iarc, are never substituted in Sacred, or Classic literature, as synonyms. The authority by which an}' act is performed must never be confounded with the meaning, or intention of it." 206 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. There are some points developed in this note which have special value as coming from a Baptist scholar. Among them are these: 1. 'Ev Tw dvop-ari although immediately sequent to ^a-ri^m has not, thereby, a complementary relation to it as expressive of the ele- ment within which the baptized object is received. Dr. Conant in translating Matt. 3:11, ^'■^aTzriZoj uimt; iv udan, I immerse you in water," says in a note : " This is the only sense in which ^■-'Can be used in connection with /3a;:T:tw." If the "con- nection " between ^anri%w and Iv referred to by Dr. Conant is that of simple sequence, then his position is contradictory to that of his associate translator. But if a connection between these words requiring the translation " immersed in " be not established by mere sequence, then it should be proved and not assumed that in Matt. 3:11 there is beyond sequence such a connection between [ia-Kxi'^u) and Iv udari as requires that iv vSarc should be taken as the complement of ^auTiZw. And this proof must confront and nullify, 1. The fact, that such complementary relation drowns; 2. The fact, that in the parallel passage (Luke 3:16, udari /Sa^rrjCw) there is no iv present, and its regimen in Matthew {u8azi) does not follow but precedes the verb ; and also 3. The fact, that Matthew offers another claimant (e?? iieTdvotoy) of far better right to this comple- mentary relation. 2. The translator of Acts says,"/5a:rT£Tw iv tm ovo/iari and t3a-ri'^w eiq TO ovo/m are not synonymous phrases, are not interchanged either in Classic or in Sacred literature, and require a discrimin- ating translation." This view antagonizes that of Dr. Conant presented in his translation of Matt. 28: 19, where he says, " i?i the name is the proper English expression of ek tu woimy And this antagonism is made farther manifest by the translation of Acts 8: 16, "Only they had been immersed (^k ru o'^ifia) into the name of the Lord Jesus," which translation (as to the preposition) is made emphatic in a note, " They had only been immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus." But against this translation and sentiment Dr. Conant says: '•'■ Into the name is not an English phrase, and though the literal form of the Greek does not give the sense." Dr. Conant, as the final reviser of the Baptist Version, has prevailed over his fellow-translator, and in Matt. 28: 19, Acts 8: 16, he has made clq rd vva/xa '■'-in the name;" and in Acts 10:48 he has made iv tu> ovotmn^ also, "in the name," thus confounding diverse forms, as his associate says is never done either " in ^Ev Tw 6v6;j.aTt TOO Koptoo. 207 Classic or Sacred literature." Baptist writers have neither unity nor consistency in their interpretations, whether we have regard to their relations to one another, to themselves, or to the princi- ples of language. 3. The translator of Acts teaches, that the difference between /9a7rr£^a> eic and fiunrt^oj iv is not merely verbal, but of essential and unalterable value among Classic and Sacred writers. This doc- trine is correct. And it is of vital importance in the translation and interpretation of the Scriptures. Both forms are there found, and tlieir use is discriminating in tlieir relation to each other, but uniform in the sphere appropriate to each. Tiiis diversity is ignored and the different forms are confounded by Dr. Conant in his Baptist Version, wliich merges fio-Tzzc'Coj £}<; in ftaTrri'Coj ^v, so that a reader of the Baptist Bible would never know that a baptism (er? TO ovo/xa) '''•into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Gliost " was commanded, or that a baptism (sk to Svo;ia) '•''into the Name of the Lord Jesus" was administered by the Apostles. The baptism announced by the Holy Ghost is blotted out. On this point hear, farther, the associate translator of Dr. Conant. In a note on Acts 4:18 he says: "Inasmuch as we have in the original Scriptures three forms of expression connected with ia^ does not express a dij:) of repentance, but a condition such as repentance effects, which condition is a spiritually purified condition, as tlie Scrip- tures expressly declare, that the /?a7rriV/>.a of repentance is {elq a(pE(nv (lixupTiwu) into the remission of sins, leaving the soul which has received this baptism in a condition of unsullied purity. Just as fidTzrw received its colored character from use among dyes, so fiunrcZu} receives its uncolored character by use among purifica- tions. Just as lapdiavtxov defines f:idp./ia^ so iJ-sTuvoiaq answers Paul's inquiry Eiq t\ l3d7:TCfT/j.a ; and defines to j3dnTciTiia''l(odvvou. Bd/j./xa^ used among dyes, expressed a thorough change of condition by some infiuence cai)able of coloring. This general idea was limited and delined by an adjunct; in tlie case before us by l\xf/du/.vixdv = Si purple (lid/j./ia) color. />VirTtfl-//a, used among purifications, ex- presses a thorough change of condition b}- some infiuence capable of purifying. This general idea was limited and defined by ad- juncts; thus there was a ftdTtri/y/m 'luuHauov^ a Jewisii baptism, which was by heifer ashes, etc., which was a real ceremonial puri- fication and a tyi)e of si)iritual purification; also, a fidTTTcrr/m h Iheuimzi 'Aytu}, a Iloly Spirit baptism, which was a real spiritual purification of the soul by Divine power; also, a iidizriaim 'Iwav^ou^ a Johannic baptism, which was a symbol purification giving ritual visibility to the real i)urification of the soul b^' the Holy Ghost; THE BAPTISM RECEIVED BY "THE TWELVE." 215 a [idnri(rij.a i-\ to* ovo/iarc ^ fr/uou XpiffToo = £is tu ova/j.a rou liupiau ^Itj/tou. a purification from sin by faith.resting (as a foundation) ujjon the name of Jesus Ctirist as "tlie Lamb of God that taketli awa}' the sin of the world," or (the same idea expressed under another form), by entering into the Lord Jesus, the atoning Redeemer, and thus becoming penetrated and pervaded with his sin-remit- ting power ; and, still farther, a fidTrriff/xa i^ udaro'; xai Ihshimroq^ a baptism by water and Spirit, which is a purification of body and soul by water impregnated with the power of the Holy Ghost. Tliis baptisvi is unknown to the Scriptures. It is of Patristic origin and pervades their writings and theology. We will meet with it hereafter. This glance at the various relations of i3d-Ti(Tfj.a makes it ob- vious, that to tlie inquiry Ei^ ti jSdTrrcff/ia liSanriffOrire ; the repl}!, '•'' El^ TO 'Iwavvoo j3aTtTiffij.a^ into the baptism of John,^^ gives an answer equally precise, with the reply to the question Elz r\ j3d,'j.ij.a ll3davd oIkov. "And I baptized, also, the household of Stephanas." HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. The peculiarity of these baptisms, as compared with the bap- tisms previously considered, is, that the household is baptized with the believing Family head. This fact is so distinctly and so repeatedly stated as to admit of no question. The reason for this fact, namely, the baptism of a household with its family Head, is questioned. Some say the reason of this baptism is stated as well as the fact, in that it is declared to be '■''his household," '■'■her household." The}^ say there was a necessity from the nature of the case, that in recognizing the sovereignty of God over him and his, and the grace of God in Christ toward him and his, he should make recognition of such sovereignty and grace, both as an individual and as a family Head, in the way appointed by God. The same condition of things which makes it fit and necessary that he should, by Christian baptism, acknowledge his subjection to the divine sovereignty and his need of divine grace, made it imperative that he should make like acknowledgment for " all his." It is undeniable, that the rights ' of God as a sovereign extend over an infant child ; it is equally ( 219 ) 220 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. undeniable, that the redemption of Christ is needed by an infant child ; but an infant child is unable personally to make acknowl- edgment of these great truths and their correspondent duties ; and if there be none whose duty it is to make such acknowledg- ment, and assume such responsibilities as grow out of this acknowl- edgment, then the rights of God and the spiritual interests of this child must pass into abeyance. But neither the claim of divine sovereignty, nor the efficacy of Christ's redemption, becomes inoperative through infancy. That sovereignty which an infant cannot recognize, the parent is bound to recognize as it extends over his child ; and whatever is necessarj' to qualify that child to understand this divine claim, and to respond to its obligations, is an imperative duty for the parent to perform. God makes this claim and requires this duty: " As the soul of the father, so, also, the soul of the son is mine." These truths underlie the languaffe of these baptisms, "/ler household," " all /izs," and constitute the underlying reason, why households were baptized with their family Heads. The relation between the household and the family Head, (making one family) and of both (in their unity) to God, is the reason, on the face of these Scripture statements, for household baptism. These are divine reasons, and are confirmed by a broader view of the family as historically presented in the Scriptures. The Family is a Divine Institution. The origin, character, and true value of the F'amily are elements of essential value in determining the ground and obligation of Household baptism. Fortunately those who are interested in this question admit, that the Family is a divine institution. They also admit, that the Family is from the beginning, and that the whole human race is one vast outgrowth of a single Family head. Within this world family there are a thousand times ten thousand other families of miniature dimension, but with identically the same constitution. These families, more or less conformed to their divine original, fill the earth. It is obvious, that this world is founded on a family constitution. Its constitutional unit is not an independent, dissociate individuality, but a conjunct and asso- ciate individuality in and under the Famih' constitution. Family Unity. The rights, duties, and obligations of the individual man or woman are essentially modified and controlled bj'^ their entering FAMILY UNITY. 221 upon that relation of twain-unity divinel}' established in marriage. These, also, are modified, varied, and deepened by the establish- ment of parental relations, the existence and nature of which are of God. The child belongs, in a profound and wonderful sense, to the father who has begotten it and to the mother of whom it has been born. And they are jointly and severally responsible, in the same profound and wonderful sense, for the unfolding of that life in holiness and to the glory of God. It is a multiplication of their own life; and God gives to them a vast, if not an abso- lute, control over it, and holds them responsible for the exercise of such control. There is a unit life as well as a multiplied life in the family; and there is an immeasurable responsibility for that life of "/ler household," and of "all Ais," resting on every family Head. The idea, that the claims of God as a Sovereign and the grace of Christ as a Saviour, come to a famil}^ Head with the same limitations to naked individuality as they come to one who stands alone in the world, is ineffably absurd. God has always dealt with the family as a unity in its Head. Therefore, the whole human famil}^ is what it is to-day — " As by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin;" "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." God covenants with the family Head including "his" as a unit3^ — "Noah was a just man and walked with God. With thee will I establish my covenant ; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and th}^ sons, and thy wife, and thy son's wives, with thee. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark ; for thee have I seen to be righteous before me in this gen- eration." Thus " his house " was saved through its family Head. Again, God covenants with Noah as the second head of the human family, and with his sons as subordinate family Heads — "And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying. And I, behold I, will establish my covenant with you and with your seed after youJ^ God includes in his fiiraily covenant children before lx^ they are born. The angels said unto Lot, " Hast thou here any besides ? son- in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place." The salvation of Lot's family turns solely on their being "his." Thej^ may have no im- mediate personal covenant relation with God, yet they are beloved for their father's sake, and embraced in covenant blessings with the Family head. 222 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Family Headship. Authorit3' is committed by God to tlie family Head — Gen. 18:19, " I know Abraham that he will command his children and his household after him." Dent. 32 : 46, " Ye shall command your children to observe to do all the words of this law." Obligation is laid upon children to respect this authority — Exod. 20 : 12, ^'- Honor thy father and thy mother." Ephes. 6:1," Chil- dren, obey your parents in the Lord." Responsibilit}' accompanies this authority — Deut. 4:9," Teach them to thy sons and thy son's sons." Prov. 22 : 6, " Train up a child in the way he should go." Ephes. 6:4, " Ye fathers, bring uj? your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Parents must enforce God's law in their households — Exod. 20 : 8, " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it hol}^ ; Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work : But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do any work, THOU, nor THY son, nor thy daughter.''^ The authority vested in a family Head and the responsibility under it is grandly announced by Joshua to all the family heads of Israel when they were called upon to choose whom they would worship as their God — '^ As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Joshua was a ruler over God's people and a ruler, in God's name and for God's glory, over his own house. "A bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection " (1 Tim. 3 : 4). Promises are given to encourage in the fulfilment of the duties of family Headship — Genesis 17:1, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee . . . to be a God u7ito THEE and to THY SEED after thee." Peter introduces Christianity by a reiteration of this promise embracing the family Head and household — Acts 2 : 39, " The promise is to you and to your children." Paul renews it to the Jailer — " Believe and thou shalt be saved and T[iY housed "By faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of HIS house " (Heb. 11:7). And every head of a family who does by faith receive the Lord Jesus Christ, does thereby lay hold of promises full of salvation to his house. Therefore the Lord Jesus says of the believing Zaccheus, " To-day is salvation come to this house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham " (Luke 19 : 9). ANOTHER VIEW. 223 For these and suchlike reasons we believe, that the language in which these household baptisms is expressed does declare, not merel}^ the historical fact that such baptisms did take place, but also, expressly and pointedly, the ground on which they do di- vinely rest; namely, the unity 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 him- self ; and to recognize the obligation, to consecrate that unity of family life to the glory of God laboring for its unfolding under the promises, in the beauty of holiness. Another view. Another view of these baptisms declares, that the statement of famil}'^ Headship on the one part, and of Household membership on the other part, is a mere record of historical facts wholl}^ out- side of the baptism, and in no wise entering into the character of the baptism or affecting its administration. Baptism is declared to be limited to an individual personality in the exercise of repent- ance and faith, and therefore restricted to an adult, acting with independent individuality. This theory denies family- unity under the Law of God, and rejects family life from the kiugdom of God. We object to this view as grounded in a misconception of scrip- tural baptism ; as presenting a fundamentally erroneous view of the relations of the human race to God the Creator and to God in Christ the Redeemer ; and also as dividing the kingdom of God against itself, making God's constitution of the church antagon- istic to God's constitution of the human race. 1. Baptism with water is grounded in the blood baptism of Christ. The blood of Christ secures through the Holy Ghost the regeneration of the soul, the remission of sins, and reconciliation with God. Infants need these blessings as trul}' as adults need them. Infants can receive these blessings as trul}^ as adults can receive them. Whenever infant or adult receives them, they are the gift of God. In the bestowal of these gifts God may be moved solel}'' by his own sovereign grace, or by the prayer of faith in the name of his Son. This prayer of faith may be offered by the adult for himself; the infant cannot offer such prayer for himself. Is the infant therefore excluded from the Cross of Christ (in its power through the Holy Ghost to regenerate, to remit sin, and to reconcile to God) by hopeless exclusion from the prayer of faith? 224 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. By no means. All the blessings of the prayer of faith are open to the new-born babe. The parent (whose life has passed into that infant life) may and is under infinite obligation to pray for that new-born soul as for his own soul. "As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son is mine." He may and he is bound to pray for the second birth of that infant soul, for the remission of that sin which proceeds from being born of his flesh, and for the eternal reconciliation with God in his holiness of this new-born babe, in the Name and for the sake of the babe of Bethlehem, the holy child Jesus, the crucified of Calvary ! What a parent may pray for to be given to his child, may be granted to a child, in answer to a parent's prayer. Now if the water in liaptism be the seal of blessings promised in answer to faith in the promises of God in Christ, and if those blessings are available for infants, and if parents are required of God to offer prayer, believing in those promises, for their infant children, then the seal of those promises belongs to infant children through parental faith. "When the Bible shuts out infants from the richest blessings of the Cross, and precludes parents from praying in their behalf for those blessings, then, but not till then, men maj' shut them out from the seal of those blessings which belong through covenant grace alike to parents and their children. Household relation to God. The idea that the human race stands related to God as an aggregation of individuals, on an exclusive basis of personal responsibility, is an error absolute and profound. Every page of Scripture and of history condemns it; every man's observation and experience refutes it. It is doubl}^ disproved by the Bible declaration — "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."' Personal responsibility is a truth most real and oppres- sive by reason of the responsil)ilities which gather around it. But personal responsibility, as tliat of mere individualism, is not the only responsibility in our world. The whole human race, by reason of a common life and death (the web and woof of its uni- versal existence) has a marvellous personality, together with its no less marvellous responsibilities. That there is a common life in every household is a simple fact beyond denial. To den^^ that that household life lias a head, and that in that head vests a house- hold responsibility which includes every living member of such HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. 225 household, is to kick against the pricks sharpened by God's truth, and made rigid by the experience of ages. Individual life and individual pei'sonal responsibility are not more truly or more fall}- taught in the Bible, than are household life and family responsi- bility under the household head. Was it in illustration of mere individual responsibility that the sword of the destroying angel was drawn in Eg3'pt to smite the first-born of every house? What was the personal act of impeni- tence or unbelief which gave individual responsibility to that first- born babe whose birth-cry was merged in its death-wail on that fearful night? Or, did that Messenger of wrath cross the family thresholds of Eg3'pt slaying the first-born (and wounding in that deathstroke every heart of the household) without responsibility for sill against God resting anywhere ? Was it in illustration of that mere individual responsibility which knows no father, no mother, no son, no daughter, that the command was given to the household Heads of Israel to sprinkle their family door-posts with the blood of the Lamb in order that the first-born of the house might be saved from death ? Where is the personal faith and obedience of that babe resting on its Mother^s bosom developed in that act of blood-sprinkling? Is the responsibility of that act (on which life and death are suspended) laid over upon that uncon- scious babe or upon the family Head ? Can such cases (abounding everywhere in the Bible and super- abounding in ever}^ age under the providential rule of God) be met by the doctrine of a naked individual responsibility ? The wailings of the households of Egypt over their dead children, and the jo}^ in the households of Israel that the blood of the Lamb, sprinkled by the obedience and faith of their Household Heads, HAS saved their CHILDREN who could, personally, neither obey nor believe, alike reject the doctrine. This doctrine is repudiated, and the doctrine of household life, and the responsibility of house- hold Headship to hear the command and promise of God for those who are sharers of this life, is established as an abiding and uni- versal truth by the command — "Ye shall observe tins thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sous forever. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto 3^ou, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say. It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses " (Exod. 12:24-27). 15 226 CHRISTIC BAPTI.SM. Litlle children of the household symbolly redeemed by the blood of sjor inkling through the faith and obedience op the family HEAD, was the truth written in blood and taught in every household of Israel for a thousand and a half thousand years, even until the typified Lamb came and by the shedding of his own blood, confirmed this great truth of the j^^^st and commanded that it should be preached at Pentecost and thenceforward, forever, that "the promise is to you and your children." Another illustrative case is found in the baptism of all the families of Israel (parents and children together) " into Moses." The demand made of Phai'aoh was, that Israel should go out of Egypt by families. He was willing that the adults should go, but not with the " little ones." But the God of the family constrained him to grant, at last, the permission. Now, on whom did the responsibility of this great movement, carrying these families out of the kingdom of Pharaoh into the kingdom of God, rest ? Was it the act of these " little ones," or of their family Heads ? Never was there such a procession of families going (as Paul (1 Cor. 10:2) tells us) on their way to baptism. There were a half million, more or less, families. It is not doubtful, I presume, whether there were any children in these families or hot. There, was quite a number of " little ones." And just as Lydia and her household, and the Jailer and all his, were baptized together, so these parents and their households received one and the same baptism. It is true, that while they " went down to the water " (and there was so " much water " that a thousand Jordans and Enons might have been swallowed up in it) still, it was not used for dipping. And while we reject the theory's conceit of a "dry baptism" in the Red Sea, we are happy (so long as there are any who like Pharaoh would send parents out to baptism without their " little ones ") to remind them, that God would not allow that to be separated which He had joined together, and would gently indicate the argumentum ad hominem which this cobajytism of a half million parents and children " into Moses " (type of " the Coming One ") puts into our hands. When God would establish a visible kingdom and churcli he rejects the Pharaonic individualism and demands his own Family constitu- tion. A brief glance at one more fact, and I pass from this phase of the error which destroys family' life and repudiates family Headship as ordained of God with authoritative and re- sponsible action under divine command and promise. When the THE FAMILY REJECTED FROM THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 227- antitype Passover Lamb bad come, and his precious blood was freely offered for the salvation of parents and their children (not less broadly efficacious surely than the blood of the type lamb) Jewish parents refused it — " All the people said, His blood be on us and on our children.''^ Parents rejected " Christ our Passover " for themselves and their children. Was there any efficacious power in that rejection by parents ? Has there not been a drawn sword (reddened with blood) over the houses of those " parents and their children " these eighteen hundred years in consequence of that rejecting imprecation ? Are not they presumptuously bold who in view of such facts (a few among others numerous as the stai's) do deny, that there is a Family life immediately and responsibly related through the Family Head to God in his com- mandments and promises, ordinances and judgments ? Are they who refuse the Symbol of the blood of the Lamb for their chil- dren, wiser than would have been the Parents of Israel had they said, " This sprinkling hij us can do our children no good ; they cannot repent, they cannot believe, they cannot obey, they can- not understand anything about it ; WE will not observe such a SERVICE " ? If Israel's parents had said, " Our act^ our obedience^ OVR faith, can do our children no good," would there not have been lamentation and weeping over the dead in all such homes on the morrow ? TJie Family rejected from the kingdom of God. The doctrine that the kingdom of God = the Church, is made up solely of individuals on the basis of a personal repentance and faith, without recognition or provision for the relation of parent and child in famil3r w^it}', any more than for the relation of a lawyer to his clients, of a physician to his patients, or a merchant to his customers, is a doctrine, which the Lord of that kingdom rejects on the ground of that folly and ruin which must be the portion of " a kingdom divided against itself." That the constitution of this world is divine, will be admitted by all who believe that there is a God. That the constitution of the human race has its fundamental element in the Family Insti- tution and not in the individual man will be admitted by every rational being. That the strongest, the tenderest, and the most influential ties bind parent and offspring together under divine constitution, the brute creation would testify, if men should deny. That moral duties and responsibilities inhere in the relation of 228 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. parent and child, making the parent responsible (who shall fix the limits?) for the moral wellbeing of the child, none can ra- tionally deny, who admit the moral natnre of the new-born babe and the claim of God — " all souls are mine." Now, from this kingdom, under a Family constitution, God has by sin been rejected. And he has declared his purpose to over- throw his enemies and to re-establish his kingdom — " Every knee shall bow to me ;" " Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained praise." The doctrine under consideration declares, that God will not re-establish this kingdom; but will set up another kingdom under a radically diverse constitution, from which family life shall be rejected and a solitary individualism be substituted. There would, thus, be two kingdoms of God in the world ; the one having the Family Institution as its controlling feature, and the other refusing to give the Family institution any admission. " If Satan cast out Satan, Satan's kingdom cannot stand." If God's Family be cast out of God's kingdom the re- sult remains to be developed. There has been no trial of such evisceration. The church for five thousand years has accepted this as the divine Constitution of the human race, nor has she ever supposed that God has set up another kingdom radically antagonistic to his own original kingdom. It does not, however, remain to be shown, that no nation or community organized on a basis rejecting or subverting the divine Institution of the Famil3\ can stand. This has abundantly been proved. Throughout heathenism generally the family is in ruins ; and the moral ruin is as abounding. China has a singular history both as to per- manence and as to regard for the family. Mohammedanism has substituted the harem for the family. France, at her influential centres, is largeh'^ destitute of family life; history declares the result. Romanism receives individual men and women into her monasteries, and nunneries, and priesthood, and rejects the family; the result is on record. Communism, Fourierism, Shakerism, Mormonism, reject or subvert the family; and the balance-wheel of permanence, and the germ of development and moral blessing is gone. They who are attempting to build up a kingdom in God's name of individual men and women, rejecting from it the Family In- stitution, have been engaged in the task too short a time and their piety is too much better than their logic, to show the natu- ral and fully developed fruit. THE FAMILY REJECTED FROM THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 229 Should a father and mother, with their newly born babe, appear before the custodians of such an organization, and ask admission into the Church, the visible kingdom of God, the answer must be: "You can be received because 3'ou can repent and, believe; but there is no provision for the impenitent and the unbelieving." But our babe has not performed one act of impenitence or origi- nated one act of unbelief. "That is true; but he must personally repent and believe or he cannot come into the kingdom of the gospel; 'Repent and be baptized every one of you;' 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.' Your child is a child of the Devil." Is our babe under the curse of the Law without any personal act of his but solely by the act of his parents and his birth from them, and yet incapable of being i-eceived into the kingdom of the gospel by their act, acknowledging the sovereign right of God in him, the commands of God laid upon us for him, confessing his need of cleansing by the blood of Christ the Redeemer, and accepting v/ith adoring faith the promises "made unto parents and their chil- dren," and holding him forth by the prayei* of faith to be received into a Saviour's arms? "Your child is under the covenant of DEATH as your child ; but he is not under the covenant of life as your child. No provision is made in the gospel for the salvation of children ivith their parents.'''' Will you, then, receive us as PARENTS? "No, we cannot. When we reject your child as your child received from God to be nurtured, trained, taught in his kingdom for his glorj', ive reject the family in all its elements and therefore cannot receive you into the kingdom of God as Parents, Father and Mother. We have no fathers and mothers, or sons 'and daughters, in our kingdom. And if your child (now unpro- vided for and left out in the kingdom of Satan because he cannot repent and believe) should live loi^ enough to repent and believe, he could not come into the kingdom as your child ; and when in it, he could not he related to you as your child under the laws of the kingdom, but only as an}^ other individual believer." Well, then, we will enter the kingdom of God as husband and wife. In God's name, and by God's ordinance, we twain have been made one. Marriage, no doubt, is a part of the law of God's kingdom. " No, it is not. The only elements which can be considered in receiving into the kingdom of God is individualism, not twain- unity any more than family unity. We cannot recognize j^ou in your relation as husband and wife, any more than we can recog- 230 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. nize Richard Roe and John Doe as partners in business, when they come together to be received into the kingdom. Beside, if we were to recognize Marriage as an elemient in the kingdom of God, and _yoj.i entering that kingdom as husband and wife should have a child born to you, ivhal could we do xvith it? We would be placed in the dilemma of recognizing Marriage, and Husband and Wife, as belonging to the kingdom of God, and canting Hhe fruit of the ivomb ivhich is His i^eward ' out of his kingdom^ as unholy /" When your members intermarry do they marry in the kingdom? "No; Marriage is God's institution, it is celebrated b}' God's minister, it is performed in God's house, it is sanctified by pra3'er in God's name, hut it is all out of His kingdom, and in the world" (Satan's kingdom?) "to which marriage and the FAMILY BELONG (!). In tlie kingdom of God there is nothing but naked individualism (man, woman), repenting and believing." Does not the Bible address Husbands and Wives as in the kingdom and as having duties to perform toward each other? "That is an accident not entering into the constitution of the kingdom any more than when it addresses rich men and poor men, and enjoins just weights and equal balances. Marriage no more enters into the kingdom of God than does a commercial partner- ship; nor the Family with its parents and children, any more than an Orphan Asylum with its Steward and Matron and orphan waifs." Thus rejected. Father and Mother bear away their babe, sa^'ing, " O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united." And let all who fear God and keep his commandments say — Amen. Besults. m 1. The Rev. Dr. Brantley is reported, at a meeting of Baptist ministers in Philadelphia, as saying: "The nation has no God, and the Family has no God ; individuals only have a God." How much better is this destructive logic than that of the child who destroys his watch in quest of the individual action of wlieel and spring, or than that of the daughters of Pelias who anatomize the body of tlieir parent into its individual members in search of a higher life, 1 do not know. Why this logic does not repudiate tile reasoning of the heathen Menenius Agrippa and of the chris- tian Paul in establishing a common life (with its peculiar duties RESULTS. 231 and responsibilities) as belonging, severally, to the nation and to the church, I cannot tell. Why duty and responsibility should attach to the whole man (body, soul, and spirit) and not rather a primitive code be established on the basis of the act of Scagvola and of Cranmer in committing the guilty hand to the flames, the friends of this logic must show. And in their labors must be in- cluded a vindication of the denial, that the church has any God, any more than the Nation or the Family — the baptism of all indi- viduals "into one body" with Christ as its head, being only a pretty rhetorical conceit to be resolved into the plain prose of a naked individualism. And when this shall have been all done it will only remain to show, that as the Famil}^ has no life but in its individual members (and on each separately and distinctively rests duty and responsibility without duties and responsibilities from community- of organic life), and as the same is true of the Nation, and of the Church, so, it is true of the Godhead itself, that in it there is no common divine life constituting the One God, Jehovah, but merely three distinct "individuals," the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This chemical logic which resolves all forms of life into inorganic, irresponsible, independent indi- vidualism, has a broad application, and is but ill}' adapted to that sexual and family life under which it has pleased God to give life to the human race; and just as illy adapted to tlie constitution of his church and kingdom as revealed through all his Word. 2. The terms in which these baptisms are expressed indicate ownership and partnership of life, with all consequent share in duties and responsibilities. Lydia was baptized and " hers ;" the Jailer was baptized and "his." The nature of the ownership is indicated by the object ; it was " her household,^' " all his house.^^ Parental ownership in children is of universal acknowledgment. This ownership is subordinate only to the divine claim — " all souls are mine." The rights invested in parents over their chil- dren are bounded and enforced b}' the inculcation of duty, by the imposition of command, and by the holding forth of promises all through the revelation of God. This language, expressive of Ijarental right in and over their children, which is from God, and involves eternal responsibilities toward God, the doctrine of in- dividualism repudiates. It does, also, repudiate the language addressed to parents for their encouragement — (" The promise is to you and to your children'''') — declaring that there is no union hereby established between parents and their children any more 232 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. than between those who are not parents and any other children. In other words, that the promise "to parents and their children," has in it nothing distinctive for parents and their children, but it means, indifferently, anybody and everybody. If such inter- pretation of the language of revelation be just, then we have no revelation. If this doctrine of individualism requires such interpretation, then it does hereby involve itself in a reductio ad absurdum = its Revelation is in words of concealment and con- tradiction. 3. The necessity in which this doctrine is involved of rejecting from the Gospel kingdom, the family, which God has ordained to be the integral and vital element of the human race, so, evoking the contradiction both of sustaining and rejecting the family under tlie same general economy, is, if possible, still more absurd, 4. But the idea that the kingdom of God and its embodiment, the visible church, is founded in a bare individualism, with its repent- ance and faith, must confront another absurdit}'^, which is the greatest of all, namely, that the kingdom of God was established for the recovery of a lost race in which countless millions of little children were an essential and ever-present element, j'et, in that kingdom there was no provision for so much as one new-born child to be received into it, but, on the contrary, was so constituted as designedly and necessarily to exclude iheni. The human imagination never conceived an incredibility more incredible, nor an absurdity more absurd. If the Shaster of Brahma, or the Koran of Mohammed, or the Book of Mormon, claimed to be a revelation from God designed to mould the human race after the will of God, and we should find, that the one suf- fered men and women to herd together as individuals, and the other converted the Family into a seraglio, and the third substi- tuted polygamy for monogamy', we would at once say, " This alone stamps the claim to be of God a fiction ; and the work to be ^or\Q preposterous ; because God's Family Institution is rejected." Any nation which shall attempt to develop a national life in purity, blessing, and abiding prosperity on the theory of individ- ualism (rejecting the family and its little ones as integral and vital elements of its life) will soon find occasion, with the great Napo- leon, to ask, " What is it mars the development of our national life ?" And the answer will be that of the noble woman who re- plied, " France wants mothers!" Any Lodge of Free Masons, or of Odd Fellows, or of Good INCREDIBILITIES. 233 Templars, who should seek to mould the world by receiving in- dividual men and women into their conclaves, rejecting the Family, would enter upon a fool's errand. Any man or body of men who should offer to the human race a constitution purporting to be that of the kingdom of God and for the human race, in which there was no Family, no Husband, no Wife, no Father, no Mother, no Son, no Daughter, but only individual men and women, would assume a position by which they placed God in antagonism with Himself; because in an- tagonism with that constitution which He had from the beginning given to the human race ; and would offer a revolutionary consti- tution ineffably unadapted to the human race. The claim, that such a constitution is from God is antagonistic to God's dealings with our race from the beginning; it is antagonistic to every page of his revelation in Old Testament and New Testament ; it is as ill-adapted as it must be ineffective to master the human race, as it is in ever}^ respect essentially incredible and absurd. No amount of proof can make it credible or bring it within the bounds of what is rational. This prodigious error the theory has taken into its fellowship. Incredibilities. Dr. Carson not only rejects the Family from the constitution of God's kingdom, but separates the salvation of parents and children from each other by an impassable gulf. Parents are saved by the gospel ; their children are not saved by the gospel. He sa3S (p. 215), "They tell us that the covenant of Abraham was the new covenant. Now, for argument's sake, let it be the new covenant, and I deny the result that they wish to draw. -In- fants ARE NOT SAVED BY THE NEW COVENANT" (Capitals Dr. Car- son's), " and therefore they cannot be connected with it, in any view that represents them as interested in it. It is a vulgar mis- take of theologians to consider, if infants are saved, they must be saved by the new covenant" (p. 173). "Certainly; if there were no way of saving children but by the Gospel, this conclusion (that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be saved) would be inevitable. The Gospel saves none but by faith. But the Gospel has nothing to do with infants, nor have Gospel ordi- nances any respect to them. It is good news ; but to infants it is no news at all. They know nothing of it. The salvation of the Gospel is as much confined to believers, as the baptism of the 234 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Gospel is. None can ever be saved by the Gospel who do not believe it. Consequently, b}' the Gospel no infant can be saved. . . . Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by the Gospel." Had the sword of Solomon divided the babe, it would not have been more murderous to the child or more pitiless to the mother, than is this theory which divides Christ and his Gospel separating parents and their children. It is a sadly erring theory which attempts to hammer out the promises of salvation to the believing to the full breadth of the Gospel, leaving it too short and too nar- row to wrap little children in. Was it something else than the Gospel which was announced to "the Mother of all living," say- ing, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpent's head?" Or, were little children excluded from this great work of "the holy child Jesus ? " Was it the Gospel which was proclaimed by the Angel messenger — "Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people ? " Gospel to the Shepherds be- cause "they could hear it," but no " Gospel" to new-born babes (like unto the Babe of Bethlehem that da^' born and laid in his manger cradle) because they could not hear it ! Was it the Gospel which that other Angel announced — " His name shall be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins?" or, was it something else, because little children may be included among his. people redeemed from their sins? Was it the Gospel that Christ announced when he said — " Except any one be born again he cannot see tlie kingdom of God ?" or something else, because little children may be " boi'n again of the Spirit," and then, the Gospel would have to be widened, so as to save all made regene- rate by the Holy Ghost, whether it can be manifested by repent- ance and faith or not? Was it of the fruits of the Gospel that the Saviour said, " All that thou hast given me shall come unto me?" or of something else, lest "little children" should be re- garded as given by the Father unto his Beloved Son when they could not personally repent and believe ? Should not the friends of a theor}^ which excludes little children from the kingdom of God, ])()nder that utterance of astonishment from the lips of that kingdom's Lord — "Have 3'e never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise ?' " And that other like utterance, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forl)id them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven ? " Are there two bauds in heaven, one of which says, "Unto him INCREDIBILITIES. 235 that loved us and washed us from oui- sins in his own blood, be gloiy and dominion forever," saying nothing of being old enough to hear, and repent, and believe, and therefore, " not saved by the GoHpel ;''^ while another band shall say, "Unto him that 'saved us by the Gospel,' because we were old enough to hear it, and repent of sin, and believe the promises, be glory forever !" Is this the Gospel of individualism ? But Dr. Carson cannot away with such a theory. Having de- fended the rejection of little children from salvation by the Gos- pel by a most groundless limitation of the term Gospel and its covenant promises, he is compelled to acknowledge the existence of a covenant which does embrace the babe and the suckling as well as the adult; which does bless "the senseless and the faith- less babe," notwithstanding that it cannot "hear" or understand "the glad tidings" of such a covenant being made in its behalf. He says (p. 216), "Theologians justly considering that infants have sinned in Adam, have also justly considered that they must be washed in the blood of the Saviour." The parts of this state- ment are not harmonious. "Theologians justly considering that infants having been included in the covenant of obedience with their family head (although they could not hear the Law, and could not obey the Law) and were thus brought into an estate of sin and condemnation," is a statement which should find its counterpart thus : Therefore theologians have also justly con- sidered that infants being included in the covenant of grace loith their family head (although they cannot hear the Gospel or be- lieve the Gospel) are thus, by a faithful observance of that cove- nant on the part of believing parents, brought into an estate of gracious covenant relation with God in Christ. But Dr. Carson while finding the want of knowledge and incapability of obedience no diflficulty in placing infants under a covenant of death, finds these things insuperable barriers against j^lacing infants under a covenant of life. " The legs of the lame are not equal." The attempt to make the Gospel an exclusive covenant with indi- viduals capable of believing, and excluding all covenant with believing parents for their children, is in flat contradiction to the declaration, "the promise is to you and your children;" to the fact, that Christ gave his blessing in response to the faith of parents to their little children brought to him ; and to the truth, that pardon of sin and reception into the kingdom of God are not grounded in repentance and faith as ultimate reasons, but as ex- 236 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. pository of what is essential — a regenerate nature, the work of the Holy Ghost alike in infant and adult. So, it is not true, that there is a diverse ultimate ground on which the adult or infant receives the highest blessings of the covenant of redemption. When Dr. Carson says, " The new covenant knows nothing of an}'^ salvation but through faith. Such a covenant cannot save an infant, who believes nothing," he contradicts Christ teaching, that the ultimate requisite to salvation is regeneration by the Holy Ghost and of which faith is a fruit. Infant children may he made regenerate by the Holy Ghost. The infant son of Zacharias and Elizabeth was so made regenerate — " filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." There is no other rational explanation of the prayer and blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ granted to the infants brought to him. A common covenant em- bracing infants and adults is acknowledged by Dr. Carson when he says, " But there is a covenant in which thej' are included, and which will save as many as are included in it — the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, in which he en- gaged to lay down his life, as a ransom, for his chosen, whether infants or adults." With such an admission what folly to deny, that infants are saved by the Gospel ; or to affirm, that adults are saved in any essentially different way from infants = bj^ grace, through the blood of Christ and the renewing of the Hoi}- Ghost. Alexander Campbell. A Baptist writer (Cliristian Standard, June 28, 1873) quotes Alexander Campbell (President of Bethany College) thus : " He did not admit, 'that infant children were depraved in any sense which makes it necessary to regenerate them, either with or with- out the Word, in order to their salvation.' " The editor, in commenting on this statement, says: "Point us to a single text concerning the work of the Spirit that is fulfilled in the case of ' a speechless and faithless babe.' A babe without knowledge, without faith, without love or hate, without the least idea of sin or righteousness, God or man, heaven or hell — re- generated ! ... It is the merest assumption without one i)article of direct proof; and an exceedingly nonsensical assumption at that. Tliere is nothing more at war with reason or common sense in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation than in this of infant regeneration — a miracle transcending all our conceptions and at war with all we know of human nature." ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 237 Thus, the error which begins with conteraptuous sneering at "senseless and faithless babes" as an apology for exchiding the Famil3^ and its children from the kingdom of God, progresses to the exclusion of these little ones from the salvation of "the Gos- pel," by Carson, and culminates in a denial, that they can be or that they need to be made regenerate by the Holy Ghost, by Alexander Campbell. Error carried out to its logical issues has, sometimes, the happy effect of frightening back to the truth those who had taken the first step, all unconscious of the end toward which their faces were set. A writer in the National Baptist (June 26, 1873) is shocked at the doctrine of individualism as it is applied to the nation and progresses to a denial of the Family, or the Nation, having any God. He refers to sentiments advanced at a meeting of Baptist ministers, held a short time previously, in Philadelphia. This is his language: "This argument is good only on the assumption that the unit of society is the individual, one person, either man or woman. But this is the boldest of absurdities. A man alone or a woman alone, is but half a unit, hardly that. It takes the two in conjugal union, and having around them the fruits of such union, to make up the true unit. In a word the family, not the individual, is the true unit of society, and of the state. . . . Hus- band is liousehand, the one who by his authorit}^ (in its legitimate exercise) orders and hinds together in one organic whole the dif- ferent parts of the one family. . . . Let Dr. Cathcart and every other Doctor who teaches the apostolic theory of the state, take note of it. And before again quoting this country as an example of the successful working of that theory, let them wait a modest century or two, until the real drift of it can be seen. ' The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine;' and if this nation tries the mad experiment of ignoring God, it will be ground to powder. God has never said that he is not the God of nations and states, and hence that they are not to serve him ; but he said, 'The nation and kingdom (not merely the individual, not an un- organized mob of individuals, but the nation and the kingdom) that will not serve thee shall perish.' " Here the idea, that the individual only stands in responsible and covenant relation to God under law and grace is logically carried out to the denial, that the nation or the Family has any God, and to the rejection of the Family as the integral element 238 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of national life, so as to shock this writer who accepts the doc- trine in its application to the kingdom of God and the household of faith. It cannot be 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 Family constitution of the human race, and with the whole structure of revelation in which Farail}^ unity is ingrained, and with the attributes of the Deity as making pro- vision for a race without providing for a class of that race made up of untold millions, and with the nature of the Deity itself re- vealed in TRi-uNE and not in tri-individual life. We believe that the constitution of God's gospel kingdom is in harmony with God's* constitution of the human race. We do, therefore, accept the statements — " L^'dia and n^K household^'''' " the Jailer and his household .^''^ " Stephanas and his household" at the normal value of their terms, and as declaring that "'house- holds" are received into the kingdom of God as embraced in a covenant relation established between the Family head and the God of the Family. And we do reject as the profoundest of errors, essentially vitiating the constitution of Clirist's kingdom, and as antagonizing every covenant formed by God with the human race from the beginning of time until now, the idea, that individualism has supplahted and excluded the family as an organic element in the kingdom of God and in the covenant of Redemption. ALL RITUAL BAPTISMS EXAMINED ; THE RESULTS. All the cases of ritual baptism in the New Testament which can throw any light upon the meaning of j3u-ri!^oj have now been examined. The result is clear. The full formula of New Testa- ment baptism embraces: 1. The verb in the active voice; 2. The symbol agency in the dative, with or without iv ; 3. The comple- ment of the verb, the verbal or ideal receiving element, in the accusative with etq. This full formula appears in Matt. 3:11, [ianTi^io Iv uduzt ei^ fisrdvucav ; and in an abbreviated form (also with the omission of iv and a change of order), in Luke 3: 16, udarc iSanrH^uj. No abbre- viated form call be made the basis of interpretation. It must first be completed by a supply of the ellipsis. In the full form the active voice expresses the transition of the ALL RITUAL BAPTISMS EXAMINED; THE RESULTS. 239 object from one condition into another ; the dative expresses the symbol agency by which this change is effected ; the accusative with £iT denotes the ideal element into which the object baptized passes, thus becoming thoroughly subject to its influence. That in this full formula the agency is represented by the dative is cer- tain : 1. From the office of the dative ; 2. From the universal Classic usage with the verb in the active voice ; 3. From the nature of the case, which forbids a living person to be put into water without withdrawal, which the meaning of the verb de- mands. It is no less certain, that in this full formula dq with its regimen represents the complement of the verb (the ideal element into which the baptized object verbally passes), and is thus represented as coming under its full influence. This is certain : 1. From the separate, and especially from the combined, power of ^ami'^uj dq ; 2. From the accepted force of such combination without excep- tion, in Classic, Jewish, and Patristic usage ; 3. From the fact that the full force of the verb cau be and the teaching of Scrip- ture requires, that it should be expended in this direction ; 4. From the fact that whenever a diversity in the baptism (=the controlling influence to which the baptized object is to be sub- jected) is designed, it is this regimen of e:? which is changed to meet the demand. Thus the eiq iJ.s.Ta\>oia\> expressive of the bap- tism of John is changed to the ziz to ovo/xa too Kupiou Irjffou^ to express the baptism of Christians ; and this is changed by the Apostle for elq tov Mcjar/V^ to express the baptism of the Israel- ites ; and again (to express and to condemn a suggested baptism of the Corinthians) we have ei<; ro ovofxa Ilaukou; while to ex- press a special baptism common to all Christians, we have dq kv (Twiia-^ and the ultimate and eternal baptism of all the re- deemed, dq TO ovo;j.a tou UaTpoq xa\ too Ylou 7.a\ too 'Aytou Uvebp-aToq; and finally, as a universal phrase covering every case of baptism, we have ei? t\ i,3a7iTL(T0rjT£. Few things, in the whole circle of revelation, are established on more full, varied, and unquestionable evidence than the state- ment, that the complement of ^anTi^io in the New Testament is in- variably an IDEAL element, suggestive of the most controlling spiritual influence, realized or symbolized. Corollary. To attempt the establishment of a system on the idea, that the Scriptures teach a complementary relation between ^a-KTiZoj and water, is to build on a most absolute and imprac- 240 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. ticable error which can never be reduced to practice ; but neces- sitates the abandonment of a baptism for the composite action of walking and dipping, as also a division of administrative func- tion between the baptizer and the baptized, and still fartlier and worst of all, the substitution of a dijij^ing into water (which is scripturally a nonentity) for that most precious symbol baptism "with water into the Name of the Lord JesusP CHRISTIC BAPTISM: DOCTKINAL TEUTH GROUNDED IN OR EXPOUNDED BY REAL BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST. HOLY LIVING THE FRUIT OF REAL BAPTISM. EoMANS 6 : 2-4. "H ayvodTEy on baoc ejSaTTTiadT/iiev kic Xpiarov 'Itjgovv cJf rbv davavov alrov e/3aTi TicdTjfiEV 5 1,vveTd(j)7]fiev ovv avru 6ia tov ^anTicyjuaTog elg tov ddvarov, " How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? "Therefore we are buried with him b\' baptism into his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism into the death of Christy not ritual Baptism. Those who believe, that ritual baptism should be administered by the candidate walliiug into the water " to a convenient depth," and the administrator dipping into the water so much of the body as the candidate may not himself have put under the water by walliing, attach a supreme importance to this passage for the vindication of their practice. This is done notwithstanding there is no administration of the rite in the passage ; notwithstanding there is no proposed expo- sition of the rite ; notwithstanding there is no declared allusion to the rite; notwithstanding there is no mention of water; and notwithstanding that the subject under discussion — hol}^ living- essential to every true Christian — excludes a ritual ordinance as the basis of the argument. The idea, that a ritual baptism is referred to in this passage is grounded on the most absolute assumption. That assumption is twofold : 1. That the ruling baptism of the New Testament is (not the superior and real baptism by the Holy Ghost, but the 16 ( 241 ) 242 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. inferior and ritual baptism with water) ; 2. Tliat wliere baptism is spoken of in the New Testament absolutely, reference is made to the inferior and ritual baptism, and not to the superior, and real baptism of which the rite is but the symbol. This assumption is erroneous in both its pai'ts. The proof is this: 1. It is an error of principle to give precedence to the in- ferior over the superior ; 2. It is impossible to reduce the assump- tion to practice : (1.) If it be ritual baptism which is spoken of, then, the ellipsis must be supplied and the phraseology com- pleted and interpreted on that basis. This being done, it would read thus: "As man}' of us as were dipped in water into Christ, , were dipped in water into his death ; Therefore we are buried with him by dipping in water into his death." Such translation and construction is untenable, because the substitution of dipped for " baptized " is the erasure of a most important word of inspi- ration and the insertion of its right opposite in meaning ; and because it destroys the integrity and the momentous truth in the phrases, "baptized into Christ," baptized "in/o his death;" and because neither Paul nor any other rational man ever wrote or reasoned after the style of this ritually completed phraseology ; (2.) A baptism into water (not taking out) is impossible ; a bap- tism into Christ (not taking out) is the very demand of Salva- tion. Baptism into Christy Real Baptism. 1. The presumption in every case of the absolute use of baptism in the New Testament is, that the reference is to real baptism. It is universall}' admitted, that the New Testament speaks of baptism by the Holy Ghost, which is most real in its operation and in its spiritual effect, thoroughly changing the condition of the soul from the love of sin to the love of holiness ; it is also of universal admission, that the New Testament announces a baptism of water, which is believed (so far as the parties immediately involved in this Inquiry are concerned) to have no essential spiritual power, but to serve as a rite to symbolize the purifying power and effect in the soul of the real baptism by the Holy Ghost. This real bap- tism is as abiding in the Churcli as is tlie atonement on which it is grounded, and as universal in its application as is the blood of the Lamb which cleanseth from all sin. It was preached by .John ("He shall baptize 3'ou by the Holy Ghost") as the distinguish- ing characteristic of the coming and kingdom of the Mightier BAPTISM INTO CHRIST, REAL BAPTISM. 243 One. It was declared by the Lord Jesus (" Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Ghost ") when he was about to ascend to his throne. It was proclaimed by Peter at Pentecost, "I will pour out of mj' Spirit upon all flesh." It was republished at Caesarea, when on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Peter "remembered the word of the Lord, 'Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Ghost.' " It was declared by Paul to the Corinthians, to characterize every soul united to Christ, " We are all baptized by one Spirit into one body." And it is this same baptism of the Spirit, received by every Christian, which Paul declares to the Romans when he says, " So many of us as have been baptized into Christ have received newness of life." This real baptism vindicates its claim by the ability to meet in the most absolute manner all the exigencies of the argument. A symbol baptism presents its plea in vain, because it does as absolutely fail to meet such exigencies. The demand for a real, regenerative baptism of the Spirit is imperative. This necessity Patristic writers recog- nized and accepted. While groundlessly deducing from the pas- sage the idea of a symbol burial in water, they earnestly believed that the baptism was not a dipping in water. This no Patristic writer believed. Whatever error attached to their view it pre- served that vital element in the argument of the Apostle, to wit, every one baptized into Christ must die to sin and live to holi- ness ; because every such person has, by such baptism, received newness of life. But the modern advocates of a burial in water, rejecting the idea that the Spirit does really baptize the soul in the rite, and introducing the novelty that dipping into water is Christian baptism, do eviscerate the argument of the Apostle of all its life. 2. That this baptism is real, by the Spirit, and not ritual, by water, is farther conclusively shown by the fact, that dq with its regimen related to fia-Kri^uj declares definitely and finally the bap- tism and the nature of the baptism. This is true without exception of Classic usage. In such phrases as iSanTi^^u) elq ddXaffffav^ elq Uiivr^M^ dq miTajiov^ no one ever thought of any other translation or interpretation than that which makes the baptized object pass into the sea, into the lake, into the river, without any purpose or power of the verb lo bring out ; therefore, subjecting the object to the unlimited influence of sea, lake, or river. The same is true of Jewish writings. When Josephus speaks of a baptism dq avaitrO-^aiav an intelligent translation pre- 244 CHRTSTIC BAPTISM. eludes any other than a baptism " into insensibility," the verbal form being modelled after that of a ph3'sical baptism ; but inas- much as a physical passing " into insensibility " as an element is impossible, this idea is rejected ; and that other idea of unlimited influence consequent upon an object being introduced, without withdrawal, into a physical element, is accepted as the idea de- signed to be conveyed b}' such phrase. The same form, with the same power of expression, is used by Patristic writers. Clemens Alex, speaks of a baptism elc; o-kvuv into sleep ; where, again, we reject the impossible idea of a passage "into sleep" as an element, and accept the associate and inseparable idea, unlimited influence of sleep. Now, unless the Greek of the New Testament be under essentially different laws from all other Greek (Classic, Jewish, and Patristic), then baptism '-''into Christ" is modelled after the form of a physical baptism which represents an object passing into a physical element, and thus subjected to the fullest influence of such element ; but inasmuch as the redeemed souls of a world cannot, in fact, pass "into Christ^^'' we reject this idea (except as suggestive) and take the inseparable, consequent idea of unlimited influence exerted by Christ over his redeemed people --=^ taking away tUe guilt of sin, and giving "newness of life " through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The same explanation applies to baptism " into iiis death," which is only a more precise state- ment as to the source of that influence exercised by Christ over his [)eople. Christ is what he is to his people by reason of his atoning death ; therefore, " so many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death." 3. There is no just ground for error or doubt as to the import of ek and its regimen in relation with (iaTzri'lw. The principle of interpretation is clear and fixed. It is found in the influence exerted over an object in physical baptism. The nature of such influence is no less clear and fixed. It is the most unlimited =:r penetrating, controlling, and assimilating influence which the nature of the case allows. The variable quantities in such bap- tism are found in the nature of the element and the nature of the object. If water or oil he the element into which a fleece of wool is baptized the effect upon the wool will l)e diverse, according to the diverse nature of water and oil. If a vessel and its crew be baptized together into the sea, the effect of this common baptism on vessel and crew will be diverse, according to the nature of life- less wood and of living men. A baptism "into insensibility" DR. CARSON. 245 differs from a baptism "into repentance" just as inaensihiUty differs from repentance. And a baptism ^'- into Moses," '-'■into Paul," '''-into Christ," differs the one from the other just as Moses and Paul and Christ differ the-one from the other. If these thiugs be true, then, when in the statement of any baptism elq and its regimen appears, the baptism is thereby defi- nitely and absolutely declared.^ and all farther inquiry is concluded. In the passage before us the baptism spoken of is declared to be "t«.to Christ" and (its equivalent baptism) "z«to his death;" and this it must be for all with whom the word of God expressly declared is the end of all controversy. And as we can only be made partakers of the blessings which belong to Christ and his death, by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, this baptism can only be the real and regenerative baptism of the Divine Spirit. Dr. Carson. The following is a summary of the views of Dr. Carson on this passage : "All eminent scholars will confess, as plainly as prudence will permit them, that we have both the meaning of the word and the inspired explanation of the mode in our favor. . . . But the thing is so plain in itself, that if all the men on earth should deny it, I could not think otherwise of it than I do. . . . Any one who under- stands the words, will be able to understand the assertion as clearly as Newton or Locke. Buried with Christ by baptism must mean that baptism has a resemblance to Christ's burial. Were the angel Gabriel to hesitate, 1 would order him to school. In many cases of error I can see the plausible ground on which it rests ; but here I can perceive no den in which deception can be con- cealed. . . . Believers are buried with Christ by baptism, and it is by baptism, also, they die with him. Death, burial, and resur- rection are all expressly in the emblem. . . . There are two dis- tinct emblems in baptism : one of purification by water, another of death, burial, and resurrection, by immersion. . . . But the fact is that baptism, as far as it is here expounded, refers to death, burial, and resurrection, without any mention of purification, or any allusion to it. Baptism is here spoken of, not with respect to the water, but with respect to the mode. In this there are death, burial, and resurrection " (pp. 383-386). " They are literally immersed, but the burial is equally figura- 246 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. tive as the death ; and the}'' die in baptism as well as they are buried in baptism. Indeed it is hy being buried that they die. That this figurative burial is under water is not in the passage : this is known from the rite, and is here supplied by ellipsis " (p. 411). " Here is a burial by or through the means of baptism. What buries us into death ? It is baptism. But the death into which baptism buries us must be a figurative death. It is faith that buries us truly into Christ's death. But the death and burial here spoken of are effected not by faith, but by baptism. . . . Nay, it is by burial we die. We are supposed to be buried into death. To immerse a living man affords an emblem of death as well as of burial. The baptized person dies under the water, and for a moment lies buried with Christ. Christ's own death was spoken of under the figure of a baptism " (p. 157). " Twist and twist as you will, still there is burial in baptism. Believers are buried into death. It is not they die and are buried, but they are buried and die. Mode is the point at issue, and is the onl}^ thing signified by the word itself. Some Baptists it seems do not see the force of the argument on Rom. 6 : 3, 4. At the very worst this is only the loss of a single argument, an argu- ment, however, which I would hold were an angel to reject it " (p. 420). " To be baptized into Jesus Christ imports the being baptized into the faith of Ws death as our substitute ; but to be baptized into his death imports that by baptism we are exhibited as dying with him" (p. 159). " The death, burial, and resurrection which are ascribed to baptism, take place in bajjtism, and by means of baptism. The washing away of sins, ascribed to baptism, is effected b}' baptism. This washing, this death, this burial, and this resurrection, then, cannot be the washing, death, burial, and resurrection which are effected by faith, and which take j^lcice before bajjtism. If the washing away of sins, the death, burial, and resurrection, ascribed to baptism, were effected previously, and by other means, the Scriptures are not true that speak of them as effected in baptism and by baptism. The reality lias already taken place, but it is represented in figure, as taking place in the ordinance, and by means of the ordinance " (p. 161). CRITICISM. 247 Criticism. 1. "All eminent scholars will confess, as plainly as prudence will permit them, that we have both the meaning of the word and the inspired explanation of the mode in our favor." Answer: The result of this Inquiry shows that Dr. Carson and his friends have fatally mistaken the meaning of the word, having substituted the meaning of [idTz-u) for [ia-Ti^u). Whether there be any " in- spired explanation of the mode " in this passage, the examination of it, in which we are engaged, will determine. 2. "Any one who understands the words will be able to under- stand the assertion as well as Newton or Locke." Answer : A right understanding of words is oftentimes adequate to develop truth ; but the mere understanding of individual words in organic phraseological combination is oftentimes worthless to elicit the truth. The passage before us is, to a remarkable degree, made up of phrases which cannot be broken up into disjunct words without the destruction of their life. 3. '■'' Bui'ied with Christ by bajytism must mean that baptism has a resemblance to Christ's burial. I would order the angel Gabriel to school. I can perceive no den in which deception can be con- cealed." Answer : To give the statement " buried with Christ by baptism " as the statement of Paul, is as untrue as for Herod to give the detruncated body of John to his disciples, and declare that it was the Forerunner of Jesus. The headless trunk of John cries out "Murder!" and "buried with Christ by baptism" is but a murdered trunk ; its head (" into his death ") having been decapitated by the sharp sword of the theory. It is only b^^ the death of its slain victim that the theory has any hope of life. This is an illustration of the death dismemberment of an organic phrase. Dr. Carson might as well quote for Bible truth, " There is no God," leaving out " The fool hath said in his heart." And if the angel Gabriel, under the " order " of Dr. Carson, were to go to school where the heads of organic phrases were lopped off, as is here done by this lordly Imperator, he would be but little wiser at the end of his schooling than at its beginning. 4. " Death, burial, and resurrection, are all expressly in the emblem." Answer : This is the purest assumption and assertion. It is the purest assumption to talk of any emblem being in the passage ; and it is the purest assertion, to say that there is death, burial, and resurrection in baptism here or anywhere else in 248 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Scripture. Sirius is as truly in the solar system as resurrection is in baptism. 5. " There are two distinct emblems in baptism: one of purifi- cation by water, another of death, burial, and resurrection, by immersion." Anawer : That there should be "two distinct" em- blems in one emblematic rite is unnatural and incredible, if not impossible and absurd. It savors strongly of humanism, which " has sought out many iuA^entions," and not of divine simplicity. Whatever may be the essential merits of this statement, two things are certain: 1. There is not one word of Scripture for its support ; 2. Dr. Carson is at fault in his arithmetic. Instead of '•''two distinct emblems," a correct summing up furnishes us with four (1.) Purification; (2.) Death; (3.) Burial; (4.) Resurrec- tion. And why a dipping into water should be limited to giving birth to this quartette group, I do not know ; but the paternity, as it stands, must be set down to a prolific theory and not to Christian baptism. 6. " But the fact is that baptism, as far as it is here expounded, refers to death, burial, and resurrection, without any mention of purification, or any allusion to it." Answer : Tliat is to say, when Paul undertakes to establish the essential purity of Chris- tian character, he frames an argument " without any mention of or allusion to purification," but does so clearly establish the mode of a rite (!) that " the angel Gabriel must be ordered to school " if he should have the shadow of a doubt on so vital a point, as compared with the minor issue of soul purification through union with Christ in his wondrous work of redemption ! t. " Baptism is here spoken of, not with respect to the water, but with respect to the mode. In this, there are death, burial, and resurrection." Answer : Then, why these remarkable things should be unrevealed and unsuggested for more than a quarter of a hundred years after baptism was instituted, taught, and practiced, must remain among " the hidden things," until resolved by the theory. 8. " They die in baptism, as well as they are buried in baptism. Indeed it is by being buried that they die." Ansiver : These are three conceptions to be credited to a rich imagination, but for which divine inspiration refuses to accept the slightest respousibility. 9. "That the figurative burial is under water is not in the p'assage : this is known from the rite, and is here supplied by ellipsis." Ansiver : Dr. Carson is always honest in his intention CRITICISM. 249 even when most profoundly erroneous in his conviction. " There is no water and no burial under water in the passage." Then here is an admitted fixed point. And on it we stand and sternly refuse that either " water or burial under water " shall be assumed or asserted into a passage from which they have been excluded by the Holy Spirit. But it is said, that we know that they should be there "from the rite." 'First prove (don't assume and assert) that " the rite " is there. " It is supplied by ellipsis." Then prove (as the law of ellipsis demands) that "burial under water" appears in any other antecedent passage. When such proof is given we will lift our foot from the concession and stand back; but not till then. 10. "Here is a burial by or through the means of baptism. What buries us into death ? It is baptism. But the death into which baptism buries us must be a figurative death." Answer: To say that there is any burial b}^ iHtual baptism, in the passage, is as untrue as to say that the headless body of John is the living Forerunner. Both the question, " What buries us into death ?" and the answer, " It is baptism," is as far removed from express- ing anything in the passage, as the west is from the east. There is not a syllable in the passage about Christians being '•'•buried into death " by baptism or an}- thing else. The statement of in- spiration is, "We are buried with Mm (Christ) by baptism (not into water, nor 3'et into death, but) into his death." The article, Tov Odvarov, shows that it is not death in the abstract that is spoken of, but as concrete in the crucified Christ. And the state- ment of a " burial into death by baptism " as representing the text is the most absolute perversion and contradiction of the text. The burial is not "into death," but co-burial " with Christ," and this co-burial with Christ is not by baptism in water, but "by baptism into his deathJ'^ 11. "It is faith that buries us truly into Christ's death." Answer : Truth and error are here mixed togethei". The error consists in the substitution of bury for baptize. The Scriptures know nothing of a ^''burial into Christ's death." They do teach a " baptism into Christ's death." " Burial into Christ's death " is nonsense ; " Baptism into Christ's death " is the wisdom of God and the power of God, as well as the love of God, and the grace of God, bringing life from the dead. The truth of the statement is in the declaration, " It is faith that baptizes us truly into the death of Christ." And if Dr. Carson and his friends 250 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. will be satisfied with the double truth which he has stated; (1.) " There is no water nor burial under water in the passage ;" (2.) " Faith baptizes us, truly, into the death of Christ ;" we will re- joice together in having attained unto the mind of the Spirit. And abandoning the remarkable reading, " As many as have been dipped in water into Christ, have been dipped in water into his death ; buried with him by the dipping in water into death," we will accept the better reading, '• As many as have been bap- tized by faith into Christ, have been baptized by faith into his death ; buried with him through baptism bj'^ faith into his death." This is the simple and exhaustive truth of the passage. " Water," "burial under water," "death in water," "resurrection out of water," are all finger-marks of human improvements (?) of the inspired text. 12. " AVeare supposed to be buried into death. To immerse a living man, affords an emblem of death as well as of burial. The baptized person dies under the water, and for a moment lies buried with Christ." Answer : These statements are nothing but successive shocks to the good sense and right feeling of thought- ful minds. It has already been stated, that " burial into death " has no existence in the passage. And there has been occasion, many times, to say. Dr. Carson has no right to use immerse or bury for baptize. He asserts that " dip " is the only and uni- versal meaning of the Greek word; and between the distinctive meanings of dip and immerse there is as much difference as be- tween light and darkness. "Immersion" will not only furnish an emblem of death and burial for a living man, but will give the reality — '^dead By cold submersion, razor, rope or lead." '■'■ immersed Deep in the flood, found, when he sought it not The death he had deserved, and died alone." If ever (apart from the remarkable interpretation of this pas- sage) the avowed momentar}' dipping of a living man (or the upper part of his body after he had walked into the water) was ever considered by any people as indicative of a death, and burial, and resurrection, it might be worth while to indicate when, or where, or among whom, this singularity has made and revealed itself. As to the conceit, that "the baptized person dies CRITICISM. 251 under the water," I respond with Origen, " No living person is ever buried." And as for " lying buried with Christ, for a mo- ment, under the water," the Bible doctrine will be more accept- able to his people who are " crucified with him," that they lie buried with him in his rock sepulchre, not for a moment, but through all the time that he lies there, even as he himself taught in that only Bible type of his burial — "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly : so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and so long his people are co-buried with him. So long as this miracle type of Christ's burial remains of divine authority, we cannot ac- cept its right opposite (momentary dipping) as a substitute, however earnestly men ma}' plead for it. 13. " Christ's own death was spoken of under the figure of a baptism." Answer: Yes; it was. Christ was baptized into death, into penal death, into that death which was demanded by the broken law. And how was he baptized into death ? Was it by being dipped into water? Or, by drinking the cup held to his lips by a Father's hand, in which were melted down, the humiliation of " taking upon him the form of a servant," the bearing of the name of "Nazarene" and Beelzebub, the endurance of buffetings and stripes, the nails, and the thorns, and the spear, and the averted face of his ever-loving Father ? All this he drank, and hy it ivas haptized into i^enal and atoning death. And now, havino" endured this penal death satisfying the demands of the Law, his death becomes impregnated with a sin-remitting' and life-giving power, so that all who are baptized " into his death " become fully partakers of these wondrous virtues, and therefore Paul teaches, " So many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have been bap- tized into HIS death,^^ not into death, which would make the death of Christ of no effect ; not into penal death, which would super- sede the death of Christ as the propitiation for our sins ; but "into HIS death," that we might be brought fully under its sin- remitting and life-giving power. How vain to appeal to the bap- tism of Christ into penal death to buttress up that marvel of a "baptism into death" — a dipping into water! 14. "Twist and twist as you will, still, there is burial in bap- tism." Answer: This ever-echoing refrain of a '■'• burial in bap- tism," as extracted from the statement, " buried with him by baptism into his death,^' is an error so patent that it would be inexcusable in a Sabbath-school child, or in " a wayfaring man 252 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. though a fool," whatever excuse may be found for it in one who " orders the angel Gabriel to school." Burial and Baptism have nothing common. 15. " Mode is the point at issue, and is the only thing signified by the word itself." Answer: The word never signifies a modal or definite act of any kind, much less " dip and nothing but dip." 16. " To be baptized into Jesus Christ imports, the being bap- tized into the faith of his death as our substitute ; but to be bap- tized into his death imports, that by baptism we are exhibited as dying along with him." Answer: Whistling to the wind, is as much an interpretation of these Scripture phrases as this fancy exposition of Dr. Carson — "Baptized into Jesus Christ" means " to be dipped in water into the faith of his death as our substi- tute "(!). Yes, just as truly as "baptized into insensibility" means to be dipped in water into the faith of obliviousness to all sublunary things! And " baptized into his death" means, by dipping in water we are exhibited as dying along with him (!). But whence these diversities of interpretation? Wh3' have we "faith" introduced into one exposition, and an "exhibition" in- troduced into another? Must we interpret "baptized into sleep" as a dipping in water exhibiting us as going to sleep ? There is just as much authority for introducing a dipping in water into the interpretation of " baptized into insensibilit}^," and " baptized into sleep," as into "baptized into Jesus Christ," and "baptized into his death." These phrases have an absolute completeness within themselves, as have those other phrases, " baptized into repent- ance," " baptized into the remission of sins," and must all be inter- preted on the same principle, namely, the baptized object is declared to come under the full influence of " insensibility," " sleep," " re- pentance," "remission of sins," "Jesus Christ," and " his death." The statement in every case is direct and without intervening ellipsis of any kind whatever, and to introduce water is to murder the truth. While these phrases are complete in themselves thej' may be enlarged by a statement of the agency by which they are effected ; but, in the present case, we have nothing to do with the agency effecting these baptisms, but simplj' with the baptisms de- clared to be eflected. And these are as destitute of water as is "Jesus Christ" and "his death." n. " The reality has already taken place, but it is represented in figure as taking place in the ordinance and by the ordinance." PROFESSOR RIPLEY AND OTHER COMMENTATORS. 253 Answer: This admitted distinction between the real baptism and the symbolization of that baptism in a rite, covers radical truth. It is the real baptism received by every true Christian of which Paul speaks and not of its shadow}^ symbol. The Christian is really " baptized into Christ," " into his death" (which are equiv- alent baptisms), that is, he is brought under the full influence of Christ as Lord and atoning Redeemer, by the H0I3' Ghost work- ing in him faith and repentance, and thus made partaker of remis- sion of sin and newness of life. Tliere is in all this, no death of the Christian, that can be exhibited, it is Christ that dies ; there is no burial of the Christian that can be exhibited, it is Christ that is buried ; there is no resurrection of the Christian that can be exhibited, it is Christ that rises from the dead and from the grave. There is but one tiling pertaining to Christian life which can be exhibited by symbol, and that is its purifying nature ; this is done by the pure water of the rite. And this is that which God has ordained to be done. Dr. Carson (p. 279) says, "I arraign our opponents as estab- lishing innumerable false principles of interpretation, and as trampling on many of the clearest laws of language. Here, then, let me be met." I have endeavored to plead to this arraignment. Professor Ripley and other Baptist Commentators. 1. Professor Ripley, of Newton Baptist Theological Seminary (Christian Baptism, pp. 83-97), has given this passage an ex- tended examination. If this examination has not yielded such results as fairly belong to the language of the Holy Spirit, the failure can be attributed neither to the want of a Christian spirit, nor of ample learning on the part of this christian Scholar. In addition to what has been already said a few points ou\y need claim attention. The translation of v. 4 is important both doc- trinally and critically. The translation given by Prof. Ripley is, " buried with him by baptism into his death." The translation in the Baptist Version is the same, " buried with him bj- the immer- sion into his death." Stuart, Bloomfield, Alford, and others, give the same translation. The incalculable difference between bap- tism into simple death and " baptism into his death" is shown by the following passage from Irenaeus, 975, " Quemadmodum Serpens Evam seduxit ... sic et hi in mortem demergunt sibi credentes." Baptism into death = cZ(/2ngr ^/low shalt die. "Baptism into his 254 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. death " = release from sin and its death penalty. The definite article with ftdTzriffiJM indicates a particular baptism ; as does the definite article with Odvarov indicate a particular death; ^'We are buried with Christ by the baptism which is into the death of Christ." This is, no doubt, the true translation. It is doctrin- ally important, because it teaches, that all the blessings of Chris- tian life are concentred in Christ's death; and are appropriated, not by a dipping into water, nor by a baptism into death (real or emblematic) but by the baptism which is into Christ's death, efiected not by man through a rite, but by the Holy Ghost uniting to Christ and making participant in all the blessings of his sacri- ficial death. This real baptism of the soul into Christ, and into his death, by the Holy Ghost, is set forth as to its purifying nature in a rite by symbol water. This translation is important, critically, because it gives clear and bold relief to the nexus of the Christian's burial with Christ. The qualifying antecedent for burial with the slain Lamb of God in his rock sepulchre is, baptism into his atoning death upon the Cross. This precludes, in the most absolute manner, the connection of burial with Christ with a dipping in water. It also arrests the removal of the body of Christ from its rock sepulchre to be de- posited at the botton of a pool of water, that the baptized may there lie buried with him "for a moment" (Carson), or, be "buried with him by baptism, by being plunged into the water" (Gale). 2. Prof. Ripley loses the benefit of his just translation by eliding it from his argument, and constructing a new basis on which he plants himself. This basis is as foreign in its nature from that furnished by the Holy Spirit as any two things can be. His argument is this: " The burying is performed bij bajMsm, an external rite. ... It is 8cd rou fianriffiiazo^ BY baptism that we are buried. . . . Baptism is here represented as the very thing., the very instrument, or more properly, the very act, by which, or by means of which we are buried." The italics and capitals are as given by Prof. Ripley. In a note we arc told : " It is important to bear in mind that the burying is performed by baptism, and thus refers to an exter- nal act." The sine qua non in the argument of Prof. Ripley, and which he tells us is " important to bear iu mind," is, that the baptism in PROFESSOR RIPLEY AND OTHER COMMENTATORS. 255 the passage is " an external act." But where is the authority for this statement? There is none attempted to be given. It is opposed to every feature of the passage. The word for burial (ffuverd^Tj/jiev) is unfavorable to it. Its meaning, as approved by Prof. Riple}', "we were interred, or covered up in a grave, or laid in a tomb " is not appropriate to a dipping in water. The prep- osition in composition shows that there is no reference to water, but to the rock within which Christ was buried, not baptized (!). It was only in that rock sepulchre that we could be buried-m^/i him. The argument of the Apostle is made as worthless as a broken reed b}'^ making it to lean on an external rite. Paul would never undertake to prove that Christians did not and could not live in sin, because they had professed through a rite, that they would not do so. The language of the Holy Spirit excludes " an external act" as explicitly as it can be done by the Greek language. It is impossible to baptize the body or the soul " into the death of Christ" hy an external ac<, just as it is impossible to dip "into insensibility" or " into sleep." But the state or condition indi- cated by " Baptism into insensibility," " Baptism into sleep," may be induced by appropriate agencies, and so, that state or condition indicated by "the baptism of the soul into the death of Christ" may be effected through the appropriate agenc}', which is only and solely the divine power of the Holy Spirit. The error of converting this baptism into " an external act " is farther shown by its rendering the passage thoroughly imprac- ticable for intelligible interpretation. Prof. Ripley considers [iaizri'^u) to express an " act," what act he does not say. If it ex- presses any act it must be a definite act. Carson saj's it is dip ; Gale uses plunge to expound this passage. But as dip is not plunge, nor plunge dip, the Greek word, if it expresses the dis- tinctive idea of either, cannot express that of the other. Booth objects to plunge, and the " Baptist Quarterly " objects to dip. The Baptist Version adopts " immerse ; " but this does not express any definite act, nor action embracing varied definite ele- ments, but condition effected by some unexpressed act, which may be endlessly multiplied and varied within the limits of com- petency to effect the demanded condition. To abandon act and adopt condition as the demand of /?a7rr:Jw, requires the revolu- tion and abandonment of Baptist argumentation from the begin- ning. Beside this, the noun (,3d7:TC(r;j.a) which appears in this passage (but which does not appear in Classic Greek) has no 256 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. physical application in the New Testament. It is a matter of no moment whether "the act" of Prof, Ripley be represented by "dip" or "plnnge," or by the "immerse" of the Version, each Is alike destructive to all grammar or logic in the passage : where it is completed on that basis — " As many as have been dipped, plunged, or immersed in water into Christ, have been dipped, plunged, or immersed in water into his death; buried with him b}^ dipping, plunging, or immersing in water into his death." In such a construction a double and impossible 7'6le is assigned to these verbs, and to make a rational construction j'ou must wholl}'- recast it and abandon (not interpret) the words of inspiration. And this Prof. Ripley is constrained to do when his argument is based, as it is, upon the partial quotation, " buried with him by baptism," omitting " into his death" (which the Holy Spirit gives as defining the baptism) and substituting " in water." ■ And tliis line of argument, abandoning that portion of the text in which is its jjulsating life, is followed by Prof. Chase, Prof Jewett, Dr. Carson, Dr. Gale, and every other Baptist writer with whom I am acquainted, and has been urged for nearl}^ two cen- turies, from Gale to this hour, as I have just read in the " Western Recorder " " the man whose hands had buried me in baptism." 3. Prof Rii)ley sa3^s, verj' justly, "The expressions, baptized into Jesus Christ, and baptized into his death, require explana- tion." These phrases are the hinges on which the interpretation of the passage turns. As they are understood or misunderstood, the passage will be understood or misunderstood. Prof. Ripley, in elucidation of these phrases, appeals to Matt. 3 : 11, correcting the translation thus, " I baptize you unto repent- ance (ek /isTfivmav), that is ijito repentance." And adds, " The meaning of this declaration I understand to be this, I baptize you into an acknowledgment of repentance ; so that by this bap)tisin you acknowledge yourselves to he in a state of Repentance ; in other words, by submitting to this baptism you profess repentance and bind yourselves to a life of amendment." What Prof. Ripley says respecting "acknowledgment" and "profession" is, undoubtedly, involved in the reception of this ritual baptism of John, but the form of liis statement is not an interpre- tation of tlie phrase used b}' John. The Forerunner came {y.-rjp()aawv lidmiiTfm /j.eravoiac; elq av ttjU rpiTJiiepov t»u Xpiaroi) aivir- Topevat ra^jyV." "And ye were covered over thrice into the water, and again uncovered ; and thus you darkly signified by symbol the three days' burial of Christ. For as our Saviour spent three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth ; so ye, also, by the first uncovering imitate the first day of Christ in the earth, and by the covering the night. For as one in the night cannot see, hut one in the da}' lives in the light ; so in the covering, as in the night, ye saw nothing ; but in the uncovering again, ye were as in the day. And in this ye died and were born ; and that saving water was to you both grave and mother." 270 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. There is just as much scriptural authority for this triple into and out of the water, as there is for one. And there is just as much scriptural authorit}^ for the symbolization of day and night by putting under the water and raising above the Avater, as there is for such symbolization of burial and resurrection. And there is just as much scriptural authority for making the water of Christian baptism "a grave and a mother" as there is for either of the others. And there is just as much scriptural authority for the practice of these early errorists in putting men and women into the water naked to symbolize " naked came I out of my mother's womb," as to make the water " a mother and a woml)." That is to say, there is not one word of Scripture to sustain any of these imaginative follies. Leo {ad Palaestinos, Ep. 81) says: "None by his death paid the debt of another, except Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are crucified, all dead, buried, and raised up." Origen, IV, 1040: "Si mortui sumus peccato, et consepulti sumus Christo, et consurreximus cum eo, necessarium videbitur secundum banc formam ostendi quoraodo etiam cum ipso tres dies et tres noctes in corde terrae sepulti fecerimus. Et vide si possimus tres dies consepulti Christo facere, cum plenam Trini- tatis scientiam capimus. . . . " If we be dead to sin and co-buried with Christ (in his new sepulchre, mentioned just before) and co-risen with him, it will seem necessary, according to this form, to show, how also we are* buried with him three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. See, if we can make three days' burial with Christ, when we receive full knowledge of the Trinity. The Father is Light, and in his Light, which is the Son, we see Light, the Holy Spirit. But we make also three nights, when we destroy the father of darkness and ignorance, together with lying, which is born of him ; and in the third place we destroy the spirit of error, which inspires false prophets." These diverse interpretations of the three days and three nights' burial (equally good and equally bad) nullify each other, just as the marvellous motherhood and nakedness of the one dipping (together with self-incongruity and Scripture contradiction) pre- cludes its acceptance. IV, 1039: On the page preceding the quotation just made, there is another passage relating to this subject, not without in- terest: "But some one may ask, why the Apostle in these pas- Karaduaiq — Avaduaiq 271 sages, speaking concerning our baptism and concerning Jesus, should say : ' We liave been co-buried with him b}' baptism into death ; ' and elsewhere, ' If we die — with him, we shall, also, live — with him ; ' and, likewise, ' If we suffer — with him, we shall reign — with him;' and never sa_ys. We are co-baptized with Christ ; since as death is joined to death, and life to life, so, also, it seems baptism ought to be joined with baptism. But see how much caution there is in the words of the Apostle, for he says : ' Whosoever of us have been baptized into Jesus Christ.' He says, therefore, our baptism is into Jesus Christ. But Christ himself is said to have been baptized b}' John, not with that baptism which is into Christ, but with that which is into the Law. For so he himself says to John : ' Suffer it to be so now ; for so it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' By which he shows, that the baptism of John was the completion of the old and not the beginning of the new." Origen, here, repudiates, 1. The idea that dipping into water is baptism of any kind, and especially, it is not Christian baptism, which is '-'• into Jesus Christ," nor is it the baptism received by Christ from John, which was "rnto the Law." 2. He declares that the express statement of Scripture distinguishes the baptisms of Christians and of Christ (symbolly received through John) as radically as it distinguishes between grace and law. Origen had no faith in the modern doctrine, " baptism is mode and nothing but mode ; what is baptism in one case is baptism in another." Origen believed with Ambrose multa sunt genera hap- tismatum; and that one genus, " into Jesus Christ " (z. e., into the gracious remission of sin through his obedience to the law and dying under the penalty of the Law) was Christian baptism; and that another genus, "into the Law" (i. e., into the voluntary assumption of obedience and fulfilment of all Law demands, in his proper person for the benefit of his people) was Christ's bap- tism from John. That genus of baptisms which is into water, and which by the force of its terms drowns human beings, was as unknown to Origen among the genera of religious baptisms, as it is unknown to all the writers of the New Testament. Karadvatq — Avadu(Tt<;. In the quotation from Cyril, and in others about to be made, as well as in Patristic baptisms everywhere, we meet with xara- 272 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. dou)^ d^ja) three baptisms of one mystery'', but one baptism, given 'into the death of the Lord,' let him be deposed." A hasty judgment might conclude that these "three baptisms" were three dippings into water, and that fidizTiffpa took the place of zaTadixTiq -^ but this is not so; 1. Because the evidence of such interchange is wanting ; 2. Because the passage expressly de- clares the one [-idizTiGpa (opposed to the three ^a-KTiapa-a) to be not into water, but, as always, into a wholly different element — " into the DEATH of the Lord ; " and consequently " the three " must be supposed to be of the same general character. This is confirmed by the subsequent part of the Canon, " for the Lord did not say ' baptize into my death,' but ' into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" The "three baptisms" are clearly into the three, several, Persons of the Trinity, making " the one myster}'," and not three dippings into water. This is further confirmed by the reason assigned for the rebaptism of the Phr3'gians, namel}^, " because they did not baptize into the three Persons, but believed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be one and the same," and therefore used but one xaTaduucq. The orthodox baptism as stated by Clemens Rom. (1045) leads to the same result — "I am baptized into the one Unbegotteu, the 18 274 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. only true and Almighty God (l^anriZo/iai £}q 'iva ayiwr^rnv)^ and into the Lord Jesus the Christ, his only begotten Son {xa\ elq rov A'npcnv 'IrjtTovv Tvv Xpc(TTdv), and I am baptized into the Hol^'' Ghost, that is the Paraclete (iSanTt^^oim: xai etg TO UvBU!J.n. TO "Aytir^).^^ Such spe- cial evidence (together with that of general usage) renders certain, that these rpcd /SanritTij-aTa do not express dippings into water but, as always, into an ideal element. Jerome (YI, 1139, Comm. Jonah 3:3) introduces another of these interpretative conceits based on the notion of a three-one baptism : " When our Lord sends the Apostles that they may baptize those who were in Nineveh, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, hoc est, itinere trium dierum. And this very sacrament of man's salvation (unius diei via) is a journey of one day, that is, it is perfected by the confession of one God. It is to be observed, also, that he does not say (tribus diebus et nocti- bus) three days and nights, or one day and night, but simply (diebus et die), days and daj^, that he might show that there is no darkness in the myster}^ of the Trinity and the confession of the one God." The Bible gives no more countenance to tlu'ee dippings, or one dipping, into water with the attendant feats of imagination which picture a womb and a birth, a death, a burial, and a resurrec- tion, three nights in the grave exhibited by three dippings under the water, and three days in the grave by three liftings out of the water, than it does to the three daj's' journey around Nineveh to denote the Trinit}^, and the one day's journey into Nineveh to denote the confession of the one God. When the simplicity of truth is abandoned we are at once environed by a complicity of errors. 4. In the New Testament we never find xara^iar^TiZw, nor ava- fianri'^oj, xaza^aTZTtaixa, nor ava[iaxrt<7iJ.a ; while xaraduvw, avaStjvw, xaral^fxTiq, fha8'')(7c<;, abound in Patristic baptizings. This marked diversity in the use of terms narrating and expounding baptisms between the inspired writers and the unin- spired writers coming after them, shows, that there was something in the baptisms of the latter which demanded the introduction of a new [jliraseology, as compared with the baptisms of the former. And this new after-element introduced into Christian baptism was precisely that which this new i)hraseology was avowedl}^ used to express, to wit, a burial and a i-esuri'eciion. This conclusion is in harmony with the essential meaning of IN CHRIST. 275 ^aTzriZio (never taking out what it puts in), and its universal ideal relations as to the receiving element. We therefore say, that the interpretation which introduces into the passage under consideration water, and a baptism into water syml)olizing death, and burial, and a resurrection (to say nothing about " womb," " birth," and " mother"), is without the slightest foundation in a just exegesis. "in CHRIST" BY BAPTISM INTO CHRIST, PILLS WITH FULNESS OP CHRIST. CoLOSSiANS 2 : 9-13. "Qti ev avT(J KaroiKel irav to nXrjpu)[ia ttjq dedrrjTog crw/zar^/cwf. "Kai kare ev avru Trerr7\,?jpG)/i.evoi.' . . . . 'Ev cj Knl nEpiETfiTjdTjTe nepiTO/uy axEipoiron'/ru, kv r?} aireKSvaEt tov GUfinrog tuv dfiapriuv rrjg aapKoc ev ry TVEpirofxy tov Xpiarov, avvTadsvTEQ avTcI) ev tu (iaTTTia- fiaTL. 'Ev tj KOI. cvvtjyEpQriTE Sea Ttjg ttlgteuq Trjg evepyEiag tov Qeov tov EyEipavTog aVTOV EK TUV VEKpUV' . . . . GWE^uoLTjaE (jhv avTU), x^ptffd/iEvog v/ilv ircivTa Ta izapanTufiaTa, " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. "And ye are made full in him, who is the head of all principality and power ; " In whom, also, ye have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, being buried with him by the baptism (into his death ) ; " In whom, also, ye have been raised together through faith, the working of God who raised him from the dead ; " And you, being dead in sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he made to live together with him, having forgiven you all your tres- passes." Translation. The preposition h throughout this passage (however translated, in or by) has a causative force, except in the first sentence, where the condition in which Christ is by his divine nature is made the ground cause of the condition of his people who are " in Him." Since the condition of all who are in Christ is determined hy their being " in Him," and they must be what they are because 276 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of his relation to them and their relation to him (under the full influence of which they are thus represented as coming) some, as Prof. Ripley, translate "6y whom," while others, retaining the strong and deeply expressive form "in whom^" show its causative power by the translation of h in other phrases dependent upon it. Thus Tyndale translates: "For in him dwelleth all the fulnes of the godheed boddyly, and ye are full in him, which is the heed of all rule and power, in whom also ye are circumcised with cir- cumcision made without hondes,6?/ putting of the sinfall boddy of the fleshe, thorowe the circumcision that is in Christ, in that ye are buryed with him thoroive baptism, in whom ye are aim r3'sen agayne thorowe faith, that is wroght by the operacion of god which raysed hym from deeth." It would be difficult to improve this venerable translation. Prof. Ripley, however, does not ac- cept some of its most important features. He proffers this trans- lation of V. 12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead; that is b}' your faith in the power of God who raised up Christ from the dead, ye iiave in baptism been buried with, him, and risen ivith him. It was in baptism, then, a physical act, they had been both buried and raised up with Christ." Italics and capitals are as quoted. Prof. Ripley objects to the translation by Prof. Stuart, " Ye are arisen with him by faith wrought by the power of God;" but says, " That the original is capable of this version, no one can doubt who is acquainted with Hebrew usage, and with that of New Testament Greek, in regard to the Genitive case." On this point Olshausen {Comm. in loc.) remarks: "Faith is here more accurately designated as Ttitrnr: rv^q hepystaq mu deotj. All the later interpreters are unanimous on the point that these words are to be taken thus: 'Faith which the operation of God calls forth,' and not ' Faith in the operation of God.' .... This passage is the most decided and open of those in the New Testa- ment in which faith is referred to the operation of God." The translation of Tyndale, and Stuart, and others, must stand against that of Prof. Ripley. It is greatly to be regretted that the logical connection in the language of the Afjostle has been inter- fered with by the division of the vv. 1 1 and 12, by which that which should have closed v. II, is made to begin v. 12. The clauses which follow iv o) y.a\ in v. 1 1 , and precede Iv w xa\ in v. 12, are epexegeti- cal of the statement, "In whom also ye are circumcised with a cir- IN CHRIST. 277 cumcision made without hands," the nature of which circumcision is explained as "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh;" and the author of the circumcision is explained by the declara- tion, that it is "the circumcision of Christ;" while the manner of its accomplishment is explained by " being buried with him by baptism " (into his death). The ellipsis being supplied from Rom. 6 : 4. The sentiment and the construction show that all intervening between the iv m xai of v. 11, and the Iv m /.at of v. 12, belongs to the first of these phrases, and consequently makes the baptism into the death of Christ executive of the circumcision of Christ which separates and buries the body of sin, and so regen- erates and purifies, and introduces into "newness of life." And as h uj xai 7TepuTiJ.rj6rjT£ has no concern with a rite, but begins and ends with Christ and his people in union with him ; so, also, iv a> xai ffuyrjyipOrjTs has as little to do with a rite, but declares a res- urrection in and with Christ, because of union with him, through faith wrought in the soul by the power of God. The conjunction of reaurreclion with the baptism is without justifying authority either in the proper interpretation of this passage, or in the nature of a baptism. The introduction of ritual baptism into this passage can only be effected by violence, and when effected it makes the sentiment unscriptural or an excrescence and a stumbling-block. Interpretation. The parallelism between Colos. 2 : 9-13 and Rom. 6:2-11 is obvious, and is universally admitted. There is, also, a parallelism of equivalence between phrases in these passages (diversely ex- pressed), which claims attention. Among such passages are the following: 1. "Oaot iiiar,Ti(rO-qtiev dq XpiffTov "Ir^ffouv^ Rom. 6:3; and iirre iv auruj (^= Xpcaro)^ n£nArjpujiJ.ivoi^ Colos. 2:10. To be "baptized into Christ," and "to be filled of Christ by being in him," are expressions which, under diversity of form, express the same substantial truth. There is no more difference between " into Christ " and " in Christ," as they appear in these phrases, than there is between into the river and in the river, as they appear in the statements, " the lead fell into the river," and " the lead is in the rivei'." " Fell into " expresses, directly, the passing into the river, which necessarily involves, as a consequence, the subsequent being in the river. The baptism " into Christ " of 278 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Romans, representing the soul as passing "into Christ," neces- sarily involves the being in Christ of Colossians, for in a baptism there is no withdrawal of the object baptized. And the soul which is " in Christ " has, of necessity, previously passed into Christ. And this passing into Christ, without withdrawal, is designated by the Scriptures as being baptized into him. Therefore, when- ever the Scriptures speak of Christians being " in Christ," they teach a previous baptism '''• into Christ." Into Christ, and in Christ, are parts of a whole truth mutuall}^ complementary of each other. "Ye in Christ are made full," is a universal declaration applicable to all "in Christ," without exception. And no one who is out of Christ is or can be partakers of his fulness. The statement in Romans, " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ" is equally universal, and no one who is not "baptized into Jesus Christ " can receive through him " newness of life." If dipping into water does not give the soul a place " in Christ," dipping into water will never " baptize the soul into Christ." Every one who is " in Christ " is so by reason of having been " baptized into Christ ;" and every one who is " baptized into Christ" does, thereby, become "in Christ." I am not aware that the friends of the theory have pressed into service " Ye are in Christ made full" as proof of its truth; and j'et the same im- aginative logic which finds water with its death and burial, and womb and mother, in these passages, might readily do so. An empty vessel put under water is made full ; and what better im- agery is needed to teach that the body, as an empty vessel, is put under the water to emblemize the soul empty of all good, being put " in Christ " to be made full of his fulness ? But before such a plea is entered we make claim to an equiva- lence of value between "baptism," and being "made full." Any vessel which is "made full" has its powers to receive exhausted. The soul which is " made full " of the fulness of Christ, can re- ceive no more. To make full is consequently used to express subjection to controlling influence ; as by Peter at Pentecost, in- terpreting the charge, "these men are full o/ new wme," replies, " these men are not drunken^ as ye suppose." To be full of wine, is to be under its controlling influence, to be drunken. But it has been proved b}'^ scores of facts, that to be baptized into any- thing is expressive of subjection to the controlling influence of that thing whatever it may be. A living man baptized into water is brought under its suffocating influence, and drowned ; hot iron IN CHRIST. 279 baptized into cold water is brought under its controlling influence, and made cold; a medical prescription baptized into milk is brouglit under its controlling influence, and made emollient ; the soul baptized into Christ, is brought under the controlling of Christ, and is i*edeemed by his blood. " Baptized into Christ," and " ye are, in Christ, made full," are varied forms expressive of the same identical truth, namely, the full participation in the blessings of Christ as a Saviour. In like manner the phrases, " buried with him (dcd rod jSanrcfffjiaToc;) by the baptism into his death," and, " buried with him (kv rw (io.n- riir/iarc) in the baptism (into his death)," are diverse, yet equiva- lent expressions ; they both indicating a consequence of baptism into Christ's death. The first states directly, that union with Christ in his death (expressed by baptism into his death) unites with him in his sepulchre-burial ; the second makes the same statement, indirectly, the co-burial with Christ being caused by the influence proceeding from being "t>i the baptism into his death." So, also, the phrase " he hath made you to live together with him, having forgiven you all your trespasses," finds its equivalent in the phrase descriptive of John's preaching — "the baptism of repentance into the remission of sins." " Repentance " is the evidence of a new life from Christ and with it the " baptism into" ( = the full) " remission of all our sins." This preaching was reiterated by Peter, " Repent, and be bap- tized into the remission of sins," resting by faith " upon the name of Jesus Christ." It is repeated by Paul's, " Whosoever is bap- tized into Christ is baptized into his death," for without the shed- ding of blood there is no remission of sins, and baptism into the atoning death of Christ brings under the full influence of its sin- remitting power. The parallelism of these passages of Paul is far more profound than that which could be exhibited by sameness of words. Where the sameness of words finds no place, the sameness of truth may stand out the more strongly in the diversity. " /n Christ" de- clares the baptism of the New Testament as surely as '''•Baptized INTO Christ," and perhaps in terms and under circumstances sufficiently explicit to forbid "m Christ" from being trans- formed into in water. 280 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. To Fill "Baptize," in Romans, is no more used with a physical appli- cation, than is " made full," in Colossians, used in a physical ap- plication. It is also true, that when baptize is used with water in the New Testament it is no more used as indicative that some object is to be put into the water, than Jjll when used with bread (as, " wlience should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so gi'eat a multitude") is used to express the physical fill- ing of the stomach. This bread was not to be used to fill the stomach as a physical receptacle, but as a physical substance possessed of a quality to Jill appetite, exhaustively satisfy hunger. So, "he would fain have filled his belly ivith husks^^ does not mean, that he was fain to exhaust the containing capacity of the "belly" by putting into it husks, but to satisfy appetite by eating husks. And water witli baptize is not used as a fluid capable of receiving an object, but as a fluid possessed of a quality capable of symbolizing purity as developed in the phrases "baptized into repentance," " baptized into the remission of sins," " baptized into Christ," " baptized into his death." The abounding use of " fill " in unph^'^sical relations truly illus- trates, and is fairly equivalent in force with that of baptize. In illustration take the following examples : " Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness^^ (Ezek. 23 : 33) as compared with Josephus, Jew. Antiq., x, 9, " Baptized by drunkenness ;" " Be not drunk with wine, but filled with the Spirif^ (Eph. 5:18) as compared with the Classic Greelc " baptized by wine,^^ and the frequent Scripture phrase "baptized by the Sjnrit;'^ "Being filled loith all unrighteousness " (Rom. 1 : 29), " Why hath Satan filled thy heart^^ (Acts 5:3) as compared with the means of recovery, equal in extent, depth, and power, "Baptized into repentance" (Matt. 3: 11); "To fill up their .sms," as compared with "Baptized into the remission of sins'' (Luke 3 : 3, Acts 2 : 38) ; "I have filled him with the Spirit of God," as compared with " By one Spirit are we all baptized" (1 Cor. 12 : 13); "John shall be filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1 : 15), " Elizabeth was filled icith the Holy Ghost" (v. 41), " Zacharias was filled ivith the Holy Ghost" (v. 67), "Peter filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 4 : 8), " That thou mightest be filled with the Holy Gliost " (Acts 9:17), " Paul filled with the Holy Ghost " (Acts 13:9), as com- pared with, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost " (Matt. JEROME AND OTHERS. 281 3:11), "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost '^ (Acts 1 : 5), " Then remembered I the word of the Lord," " Ye shall be BAPTIZED by the Holy Ghost^^ (Acts 11 : IG); and, lastly, "That ye might be filled " (entering) " into all the fulness of God " (Ephes. 3:19), as compared with, "Baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghosts In such usage, " to fill " expresses completeness, exhaustive satisfaction ; the soul that enters, through the love of Christ, "into all the fulness of God" is exhaustively satisfied; and the soul that is baptized through the redeeming love of Christ into the Triune God (made subject and assimilant to the divine per- fections) is exhaustively satisfied. To fill and to baptize, while diverse, are accordant and equivalent in their diversit}' when used in such relations. Jerome and Others. Jerome (Comm. in loc.) connects what is the beginning of v. 12 in the English Bible with the close of v. 11, as explanatoiy of the circumcision of Christ. He also refers the resurrection of Christians to their relation with Christ (in quo et resurrexistis, as also in the circumcision, in quo et circumcisi estis) and not to ritual baptism. So, also, the Douay Version, " In whom also ye are circumcised." ..." In whom also you are I'isen again." Ambrose (III, 498) translates iv [iaTtriaimTi, '"'"per baptismum." Origen (Horn. XIV, on Luke) translated by Jerome (VII, 247) teaches that the circumcision of Christians is " in Christ," and their resurrection, also, is " in Christ," and not in ritual baptism by rising out of the water. " Therefore his death, and his resur- rection, and circumcision were accomplished for us." As Paul rejects the Jewish circumcision made with hands, and takes instead "the circumcision of Christ," which is without hands (the baptism of the Holy Ghost which unites to him in his death, burial, and resurrection), so Justin Mai'tyr rejects Jewish circumcision (which he calls a baptism) on the ground that he has received the nobler baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is his lan- guage (537) : " What value to me is circumcision being approved by the witness of God?" " Tiq hstvou zoo iSaTzriffimzix; XP^^^ "/''V Iheuimrt. iSefSaizziffijAvu) What need has he of that baptism who has been baptized by the Holy Ghost ? " Justin Martyr was a Greek of the Greeks, and when he calls cii'cumcision a " baptism " it is settled that among Greeks baptism meant something else than a dipping into water. And when he compares by contrast circum- 282 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. cision baptism by the exscinding knife, witli the soul baptism by the Holy Ghost, he had another idea of Christ's baptizing Iw the Holy Ghost than that of his "dipping in tlie Holy Ghost." Cyril (513) says : " By the likeness of the faith of Abraham we come into adoption. And then, after faith, in like manner with him we receive the spiritual seal, l)eing circumcised b}' the Holy Ghost {Sta TOO hiurpoo) through the washing, not as to the foreskin of the body but of the heart, as Jeremiah says, ' Circumcise to the Lord the foreskin of your heart ; ' and according to the Apostle, ' By the circumcision of Christ, being buried with him bj' baptism.'" Cyril, in common with Origen and Jerome, identifies the burial with Christ through baptism into his death, with the circumcision of Christ; and like them grounds the resurrection in union with Christ. A just interpretation of this passage furnishes no support for a ritual baptism as giving origin to the form of its language or sentiment. On the contrary a strict criticism makes this passage with its parallel in Romans mutually elucidatory and confirmatory of each other, as teaching a most intimate union between Christ and his people effected by Divine power, and making them fully participant of redemption from sin and death through liis death, and of life and immortality through his resurrection. Especially is there no authority for attaching the notion of a resurrection . from this passage to ritual baptism. The crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection are all to be found "in Christ." As addi- tional evidence for this truth, so far as the resurrection is con- cerned, see 3:1," If ye be risen together with Christ" aovrffifiQ-rfs tG) XfnaTu} (Cod. Sin. iv Xptazw)^ which proves that the iv cj of v. 12 belongs to Christ, as Tyndale has translated it, and not to bap- tism as in the common version. BAPTISM INTO CHRIST MAKES CHRISTLIKE. Galatians 3 : 2G, 27. TiavTeg yap vloi Qeov hart 6ia tt/q niareug h Xpiaroi 'Ir/cjov' "Oaoc yap elg Xpiarbv kfia-rrTladr/TE, Xpcarov kveSvaaade. " For yo are all the children of GotI by faith in Christ Jesus ; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Not Ritual Bajytism. In support of the position that this baptism is ritual I know of nothing which can be adduced except the mere presence of the THIS IS REAL BAPTISM. 283 word " baptize." But such a position on such a basis is antago- nized and nullified by the fact, that this word is used to express a real baptism b}'^ the Holy Spirit as well as a ritual baptism by water. That the latter is here referred to, therefore, must be proved and not be assumed. The attempt at proof must begin with the supply of an ellipsis, namely, "As many as have been baptized into water into Christ, have put on Christ;" which at- tempt is confronted with these difficulties : 1. Such phraseology condemns itself; 2. "Baptized into water" destroys life; 3. To change " baptized " into dipped (to save life) is to substitute an- other word, of essentially diverse meaning, for the word of inspi- ration ; 4. There is no such language in Scripture as " baptized INTO water,'''' and therefore such language cannot be introduced by ellipsis in the interpretation of any passage of Scripture. It is neither answer nor contradiction to this to say, /Sr/rnCc h udarc occurs in Scripture ; because the relation between h udart and jSanTc^u) (as thus occurring) is not such as is sought to be intro- duced into the passage under consideration ; namely, as comple- mentary of j3a7tTiZio and as the receptive element into which the baptized object passes ; but expresses the s3'^mbol, ritual agency in the baptism (el^ /izravoiw^) " into repentance," as is shown in Johannic Baptism ; 5. If this ellipsis should be insisted upon (as that without which all is lost) this new difficulty emerges, namely, a baptism into water has no power to bring '•''into Christ ; " and if this is sought to be met by another ellipsis, " As many as have been baptized into water have made a profession of entering into Christ," we ask: And what about "putting on Christ"? And, again, an ellipsis is proffered, "put on Christ hyprofession.''^ Such helps, to meet the difficulties arising out of a primary error, re- minds of the cycle and epicycle introduced to escape the difficulties induced by the error which made the earth the centre of the solar system. The cycle and the epicycle failed to change error into truth, and this ellipsis and epiellipsis equally fails to give truth to an erroneous interpretation. This is Real Baptism. That this baptism spoken of by Paul is a real baptism in which the condition of the soul is thoroughly changed in its relations to Christ by Divine power is fully established : 1. By the express statement of the words of inspiration. The words " baptized 284 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. into Christ'' do mean, and under the true meaning oi ^anri^w and the usage without exception of such phrase, can mean nothing else than, thorough subjection to the controlling influence of Christ as distinctivel^y distinguished from that of all other beings ; 2. That this is the true interpretation of this phrase, is made, if possible, more certain b3' the special interpretation of the Holy Spirit in declaring, that "baptized into Christ" finds its equiva- lent in " put on Christ." No one ever yet questioned, that the essential meaning of " putting on any one " W^as the assumption in fact of the character of such one, whatever it might be. The only issue then, is this : Shall we accept this double statement of truth by the Holy Spirit at its essential value, or shall we evis- cerate it of its divine life and substitute for it "profession?" 3. The agency effecting this baptism is not stated in direct con- nection with the baptism, but is stated in the context, and neces- sitates a I'eal and not a ritual baptism. This entire chapter pre- sents "faith" as the bond of union between the soul and Christ; V. 1 exhibits "Christ crucified ;" v. 2, "received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing o^ faith V v. 3, "having begun in the Spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?" v. 5, "he that ministereth to you the Spirit doeth he it by the law or hy faith V v. 1, " they which are of faith are the children of Abra- ham ;" V. 8, " and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the gospel unto Abra- ham, saying, ' In thee shall all nations be blessed,' so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham ;" v. 11, " the just shall live hy faith;'''' v. 13, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. . . . Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree ; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith ;" v. 22, " that the promise by faith o/" Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe ;" v. 26, " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ;" v. 27, " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ;" v. 28, "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus;" v. 29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs accord- ing to the promise." If anytliing can be made certain it is that the agencies operative throughout this chapter are " the Spirit " and " faith," which is itself the work of the Spirit. This accords with the general teach- ing of Scripture, that the soul is baptized and made participant PUT ON CHRIST. 285 in the blessings of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and with the special teaching of Coloss. 2 : 12, "Buried with Christ b}'^ baptism into his death, in whom ye are risen together through FAITH wrought by God ;" 4. The entire complexion of the Apostles' argument imperativelj' demands a real baptism by the Spirit into Christ, thus establishing the soul (v. 28) "in Christ," as in Colossians, " in whom ye are circumcised ;" " in whom ye are risen together." Tllustration. The figure by which baptism into Christ is illustrated, that of putting on a garment as an exhibition of character, is common in Scripture. It appears in Isaiah 61 : 10, "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be glad in my God ; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered we with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." Isaiah 59 : 17, " He put on the garments of vengeance for cloth- ing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak." Also, in Rom. 13 : 12, 14, " Let us put off the works of dark- ness and put on ^/je armor of light. . . . Bnt put yeonthe Lord Jesus Christ;" 1 Cor. 15 : 54, "This corruptible mn&t put on in- corruption, and this mortal must j)^i on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then Death shall be swallowed up (eic) INTO VICTORY ;" 2 Cor. 5 : 4, "Not for that we would be un- clothed {t/.duaaoOai) but clothed upon (iTrevduffarrOac)^ that mortality might be swallowed up by life ;" Coloss. 3 : 12, " Put on as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies^ kindiiess^ humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, . . . and upon all these, charity, which is the bond of perfectness." Two things are made certain by these passages: 1. " Put on," as a figure e vestiaria, is never used in Scripture to express what is fictitious, unreal, or a mere profession, but that which is true and real; 2. As the phrases, "put on the armor of light," "put on incorruption," " put on immortality," " put on charity," ex- press a reality, so " put on the Lord Jesus Christ " (Rom. 13 : 14), and "put on Christ" (Gal. 3 : 27), express a reality. And inas- much as " baptized into Christ " is declared, on divine authority, to be the equivalent of " put on Christ," then baptized " into Christ" must express a reality and not a shadow. 286 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. These passages have other instructive bearings on our Inquiry. No one doubts that the phrase, "Death is swallowed up into Yie- tory" (y.o.TaTt60f^ u Odvaro^ eU v'txo':) expresses the complete influence of Victory over Death ; how, then, can the phrase " As many as have been baptized into Christ," express less, or anything else, than the full influence of Christ over all so baptized ? And as the phrase " swallowed up by life" {y.a-anuOfi rd Ov-qrov utzo r-T^q C<«ii?), expresses "life" to be the agency hy which the swallowing up and the consequent influence is effected, so, in the phrase of Josephus, " baptized b}' drunkenness," drunkenness expresses the agency by which the baptism is etTected and by its nature in. volves the nature of the baptism, to wit {ei<; a'^aKT^-qfrtw) " into insensibility," and so also, in the frequent Scripture phrase " bap- tism of repentance," repentance expresses the agency by which the baptism is effected, and determines the character of the baptism, to wit (£:? dfsffiv dfiapTtcuv) "into the remission of sins." And farther, as the phrase "swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (r^ mptnijoripa Xutttj xaranoOfj) 2 Cor. 2 : 7, expresses " sorrow " to be the agency (by the Dative), so Luke 3 : 16 expresses, by pre- cisely the same grammatical form (udan ftanrt'Coj), water to be the symbol agenc}' by which the baptism is effected (eiq /xezdvoiav) " into repentance " = " into the remission of sins." As " sorrow " is the agency by which the swallowing up is accomplished and not the element into which the object swallowed up passes, so, " water " is the agency by which the baptism is symbolly effected and not the element into which the baptized object passes. From all which we draw this conclusion : From the essential meaning of i^a-Kzi'^io the Scriptures could not, as in fact they do not, teach a baptism into water, while for the same reason they could, and in fact do, teach a baptism " into Christ," " into repentance," " into the remission of sins," and other like, profound, and abid- ing baptisms. Interpreters. The views of Interpreters, both ancient and modern, accord very generally in the belief, that the piirases " baptized into Christ" and " put on Christ" express a real and profound truth, and not one of sfemblance and profession. RosENMULLER, on Rom. 13:14, '■'-Pat on Chrid. Imitamini Christum, similes illi fieri studete. Sic apud Dionys. llalic. Ant. L., XI. Appius et reliqui decemviri vocantur obxln iiszpid'^ovTsq INTO CHRIST. 287 dUd rov Tapxuvtnv hsivov i:vdu6;j.£vot non amplius modum servantes, see] Tarquinium ilium indnentes, i. e., imitantes." And again, he says : " To put on, induere, quum de A'irtutibus usnrpatur, signiScat, iis summo studio deditura esse, eas diligen- tissime sectari. Tbemistius, Orat. 24, liortator. ad pliilos., irrEc- dyjTzep dpsTYjv dvr] luariwv ■^tKpierrro quoniam virtute loco vestium in- dutus erat. Athenteus L. XI 11. C. 2, j3ouX6;j.evoc hdusadai durr^v durdxpscav quum fi'ugalitatem illam induere velitis." These classical quotations show, that the use of this figure out of the Scriptures, as well as in them, was a strong expression covering a reality. Olshausen, Rom. 13: 14, " To put on Christ. The figure is derived from a robe of righteousness. Profane writers also use to put 0^' and to put on in like manner, in the sense of fashioning one^s self unlike or like a person.'" On Galat. 3 : 26, 27 : '■'■Bap- tism into Christ is here conceived of in its profoundest idea. The putting on Christ is a description of what happens in the new birth. This expression denotes the most intimate appropria- tion of Christ. To put on the new man = being renewed. To put on immoi'tality denotes the change of the mortal body into the immortal nature of corporeity. But with whomsoever Christ joins himself, to him he, the Son of God, also communicates the nature of a child of God." Bloomfield, Rom. 13:14: ^^ Put on Christ, i.e., Take upon you his dispositions, follow his example. A metaphor e re ves- tiarid, and found also in the classical writers. So Lucian, Gall. 19, dn(>du(7dij.tvo(; 8s rd> UvOayopav riva perrjiKptaffU} ;j.st adroy. Bengel, Galat. 3 : 2*7 : Ye have put on Christ. Christ is the Son of God, and 5'e are in Him, the sons of God. Tho. Gataker says, ' A Christian is one who has put on Christ.^ " Ellicott, Galat. 3:27: " Into Christ, not in Christo, but in Christum ; Beza, sed ut Christo addicti essetis. The meaning of ei:. It was the common opinion of these writers that the water of baptism was not " aqua sola^''^ mere water, but a new " power," or " qualitj'^," analogous to that of a dye, or medicated element, was imparted to it adapting to accomplish those transforming results ascribed to it. This idea is referred to by Rigaltius in a note on the passage as explanatory of the language of TertuUian. He says : " Nor could sins be washed away before Christ had come ; because the waters themselves had not yet been washed or medicated by the baptism of Christ (quia scilicet nee ipsae aquae adhuc laverant, nondum baptismo Christi medicatae fuerant) ; therefore they were not yet fit to wash away that kind of uncleanness." It is in this idea of the " medication " of the waters of baptism that the usage of tingo by TertuUian finds its facile explanation, as well as its perfect justification. Neither he nor any other early Christian writer shows the remotest sympathy with the modern error, that Christian baptism is a dipping into water. How they used the water has no more concern with the baptism effected, than how they used the oil or the spittle. Cyril of Jerusalem, 1078 : " Immediately upon entering (dze- 8u£(j0£) you put off the tunic ; wliich was an image of despoiling the old man with his deeds. Having put it off, you were naked, in this, also, imitating the Christ, naked on the cross. . . . Oh wonderful thing! you were naked before the eyes' of all and not ashamed." 1088 : " Having been baptized into Christ, and having put on Christ, ye became of like form with the Son of God. There- fore having became partakers of the Christ (Anointed) you are well called Christoi (anointed ones), and concerning you God says, ' Touch not my {'/^ptarwv) anointed ones.' Ye have become Christoi, having received the antitype " (the oil in baptism) " of the Holy Spirit. And everything has been done to you typically, because^ 3'ou are types of Christ. And he, indeed (Xouadpsvo^) having washed in the river Jordan, communicated to its waters the fragrance of his divinity." This exti-act from Cyril shows that he believed Christian bap- 19 290 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. tism to be "into Christ;''^ to be productive of a real and power- ful effect ; that the effect of baptism " into Christ " was to make Ohristoi, just as the effect of putting fleeces of wool into 2i purple dye^ is to vavilie purple jieeces ; and that the water of baptism was capable of all this, not b}' its power as aqua sola, but as sharing in that divine power communicated to all such water, in common with those of the Jordan. Basil M. Ill, 1564 : " Being born from above may be deemed worth}' to be baptized in the name of the only begotten Son of God, and of that great gift announced b}' the Apostle, saying, 'As many as liave been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' It is a necessary consequence that one who is born should be (^iv(V)(Ta(Tflai) clothed. Then {l\'(%(7dfj.s:\'(i<;) having been clothed upon as it were by the Son of God, we become worthy of the perfect rank, and are baptized into the name of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the testimony of John, gave us power to become the Sons of God" (John 1 : 12). WiCKHAM (Doctrine of Baptism, London), p. 438, quotes and translates Jerome thus : " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was not so much cleansed by the baptism as by his baptism cleansed all waters. . . . After he was baptized, and by his baptism had sanc- tified the waters of Jordan. . . . The Apostle shows how we are born the sons of God by the faith which is in Christ Jesus, say- ing : ' For as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' Now that Christ is a thing to be put on, is proved not onl}' from the present passage, but also from another, the same Paul exhorting us, ' Put j-e on our Lord Jesus Christ.' . . . When a man has once put on Christ, and being passed into the flame, has been made white with the whiteness of the Holy Spirit, it is not perceived whether lie is gold or silver. As long as the heat thus occupies the mass, there is one Qolor of fire, and every diversity of kind, of condition, and of bodies, is taken away by a clothing of that sort. For he is neither Jew nor Greek. . . . Since all diversity is taken away b}^ the baptism of Christ and by being clothed with him, we are all one in Christ Jesus." These views of Jerome as to the reality and power of " baptism into Christ," and " putting on Christ," accord with those of others quoted. This baptism is by the Holy Ghost into CnRisT>and not into WATER, bringing all who partake of it under the full influence of Christ as Lord and Saviour. "in CHRIST." 291 Dr. Pusey. Dr. Pusey accejots these Patristic views not merely as to results, but, also, as to the causes of those results. Quoting (p. 93) Chrysostom X, 104, " As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ: 'And wh}' saith he not. As many as have been baptized into Christ have been born of God? for so had he proved more directly that they were sons. He saith this in a way much more awfully great. For since Christ is the Son of God, and thou hast put him on, having the Son in thyself, and being transformed into his likeness, thou hast been brought into one kindred and one species with him ; ' he remarks : ' St. Paul speaks then not of duties, but of privileges, inestimable, incon- ceivable, which no thought can reach unto — our union with God in Christ, wherein we were joined in Holy Baptism,' ' Ye are all one in Christ Jesus,' brings out the more clearly how the being 'clothed with Clirist,' is the same as being '•in Christ Jesus ; ' are in Him, by being clothed upon by Him ; . . . for, seeing we are i7i Him, then the putting on Christ is a spiritual realit}', the being encompassed, surrounded, invested with him, as a body is with a garment. . . . So, we see the force of those words by which St. Paul so frequently describes our Christian privileges, the being Hn Christ.' " The radical error in this interpretation is the introduction into it of a ritual baptism, which has no place in the mind or language of Paul. And while the presence of the Holy Spirit is recognized and declared to be a sine qua non in order to the spiritual result, still, the incorporation of the work of the Holy Spirit with the use of the ritual water, is a pure error without support here or elsewhere in Scripture. "7w Christ.'' Attention has been already called to (what Dr. Pusey sa^^s is of so frequent occurrence in Scripture) "tn Christ," as having the most intimate relation to " baptized into Christ." The phrase "in Christ" is universally regarded as most real, and of the deepest spiritual significance. It occurs in the following pas- sages: Rom. 6:11, 8 : 1, 12 : 5, 16 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 1:2, 30, 3:1, 4:15, 15 : 18, 22 ; 2 Cor. 5:17, 12:2; Gal. 1 : 22, 2 : 4, 17, 5 : 6, 6 : 15 ; Eph. 1:1, 8-13,20,2:5,10,13; Phil. 1:1, 4:13, 19; Colos. 1 : 2, 292 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. 28 ; 1 Thess. 2 : 14, 4 : 16 ; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Peter 5 : 10, 14 ; 1 John 5 : 20. According to the force of (ianriZm^ as shown by this Inquiry, all who are "baptized into Christ," do, thenceforth, remain "zn Christ," since this word does not take out what it puts in, but leaves its object within what it is placed. And as bearing on this point it is deeply interesting and no less instructive, that the Scriptures do so constantly represent all Christians without ex- ception, both as "baptized into Christ,''^ and as "in ChrisV^ This is precisely what should be upon our interpretation both of the word and of the phrase ; and it is precisely what should not be according to the word and the phrase as interpreted by the theory which makes Christian baptism to be " a dipping into WATER." Dr. Carson. Dr. Carson (p. 213) says : " The Apostle does not state the im- port of an ordinance of God in Gal. 3:27; he does not allege that their submission to baptism was an evidence of putting on Christ, for it is not such ; but it is a figure of putting on Christ. Some of them might not turn out to be real believers, but in their baptism they were taken for such." This exposition is purely contradictory to the inspired text. Dr. Carson says, " The Apostle does not state the import of an ordinance of God." The Apostle does declare the "import" of that of which he speaks, namel}^, "Baptism into Christ," and declares that it clothes with Christy and if this is not the " import " of an "ordinance of God," then nothing is plainer than that the Apostle is not speaking of "an ordinance of God," but of some- thing which can do what he saj^s it does do. Again ; Dr. Carson says, " The Apostle does not allege that submission to baptism was an evidence of putting on Christ; for it is not such." But the Apostle does declare, that to be "baptized into Christ" is to put on Christ. Then why will Dr. Carson insist upon substituting for " baptism into Christ," a " dipping into water," which cannot (according to his confession) clothe with Christy and thus compel himself to contradict the Apostle ? Dr. Carson says, " Baptism into Christ" is a ritual ordinance, and nothing but "a figure" of putting on Christ. Paul says, "Baptism into Christ" does, in very truth, clothe with Christ, and, therefore, " Baptism into Christ " expresses no figure, but the real work of the Holy Ghost. INTO CHRIST — IN CHRIST. 293 Dr. Carson says, " Some ' baptized into Christ ' might not turn out to be real believers," which indeed is true enough of "some" dipped into water, but applied to those " baptized into Christ," is untrue, and flatlj'^ contradicts the Apostle who affirms, " as many as" — "whosoever is baptized into Christ, pw^s on Christ." eiq Xpiavov ijSanriffOyjTe = Xpcardv kveSuaaaOs. The language of the Apostle in this passage is complete as it stands. To introduce a ritual ordinance necessitates (as Dr. Carson admits) a revolutionaiy change in the language and in the sentiment. Any justifiable interpretation of the language as it stands, must affirm what the Apostle affirms, to wit : All bap- tized INTO Christ do put on Christ, and consequently, that this is not ritual baptism, but the baptism by the Holy Ghost. hduarjffOs duva[j.iv = (iaTZTiffdijaeads eiz dovafuv. The entire equivalence of " putting on " (used figuratively) and of "baptizing into" (used figuratively) is farther conclusively shown by a comparison of the parallel passages, Luke 24 : 49, " I send the promise of my Father upon you, tarry . . . until (tvduayjtrOe duvajxiv) ye be endued with power from on high," and Acts 1 : 4, 5, 8, Wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me. . . . Ye shall be baptized {i3aTzri(TO-q in the second clause is generally given as local, " in the cloud and in the sea," with an application to the Israelites, as indicating the place where, or that in which, they were baptized. There are insuperable difficulties to such a view; 1. It is con- tradictory to the facts. Granting that, without undue violence, they might be said to be " in the sea," still, there is no violence which can locate them " in the clouds The conclusion, then, is plain ; that the sentiment of the passage cannot turn on the Israel- ites being "in the sea," for whatever is '-'•in the sea," is also '"'• in the cloud ;" 2. This error, which puts the Israelites " in the cloud and in the sea," is grounded in an antecedent error which makes h expository of the idea of /SaTrrt'Cw, while, in truth, b> has nothing to do with such oflEice, which belongs wholly to slq through which the verb exhausts itself. Principle, therefore, joins with fact to forbid a local idea being attached to this preposition so far as the Israelites are concerned. If a local and not instrumental idea be given to Iv, its relation must be transferred from the Israelites to the power of Jehovah. It is a fact, that the power of Jehovah was "z'/i the sea," miracu- lously dividing its waters ; and it is a fact, that the power of Jehovah was '•Hn the cloud," miraculously dividing out to the Eg3'ptians, darkness from the one side, and to the Israelites, light from the other side. While the facts forbid that " in the cloud and in the sea " should be applied to the Israelites ; the' facts de- mand that the power of Jehovah should be recognized as alike 296 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. • "in the cloud and in the sea." And herein we have the clear and unquestionable basis for the instrumental translation of this preposition. If the power of Jehovah was " in the cloud and in the sea," miraculousl}' employing them in the accomplishment of this baptism, then, obviously, they were instrumental agencies ; and nothing can be more conformed to the truth than the trans- lation, " hy the cloud and hy the sea." And this is precisel}^ what the exigency of the case demands ; the baptism is declared to be ^Hnto Moses," and the agency required for such baptism is now furnished in the double miracle, wrought by the power of Jehovah through " the cloud and the sea," which so profoundly impressed the minds of the Israelites and brouglit them fully to acknowledge the often doubted and questioned mission of Moses, so as to justify the declaration that they were now, and thus, baptized into him. Interpretation. Ambrose, I, 867, says, " Then we read that, in virtute sua magna et brachio suo excelso, populum suum de terra ^gj^pti liberavit, quando traduxit eum per mare Rubrum, in quo fecit figura bap- tismatis." Ambrose, in this passage, uses, "iw virtute sua magna et brachio suo excelso," as Paul uses the corresponding Greek preposition in, cv TTj v£(pikrj xai iv rfj OaXdfTffrj. The Latin " in " becomes instru- mental because Jehovah is represented as being "t?i his great strength and ^n his exalted arm," and therefore, " by them he delivered his people and led them through the sea." The " figure of baptism " which Ambrose and his associates find in this trans- action is very different from that of those who, in these last days, make Christian baptism a dipi^ing., which neither he nor they knew anything about. The figure, he says, is in the drowning of the Egypt ans and saving the Hebrews, which is " daily showa in baptism by the drowning of sin and error, and the saving of piety and innocence." How the power of Jehovah was in the divided sea and miraculous cloud Ambrose (III, 393) shows by quoting, " Thou didst send forth thy Spirit and divided the sea for them ;" and again (424), " The cloud is the Holy Spirit." " By the Holy Spirit and by the water a t3'pe of baptism was ex- hibited." TV, 827 : " The water saved Israel and slew Pharaoh. Baptism saves the likeness of God and destro3's the sins which it served. The waters, a wall on their right and left, designate our BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 297 faith which we receive iu baptism ; our wall defending us from enemies visible and invisible." Such interpretation has interest and value as a display of imagi- nation ; but as for any exegetical value in expounding the " bap- tism into Moses," it must be classed with "grave," "burial," "womb," "mother," and "a dry dip," as wood, hay, and stubble, fit only to be burned. Basil M,, lY, 124: "The sea and the cloud, induced at that time, faith through amazement, but as a type, it signified, for the future, the grace that was to come." Basil makes the sea and the cloud agencies accomplishing their end by the most overpowering influence. Tliis is shown by the additional statement, " The cloud was a shadow of the gift of the Spirit which cools the flame of the passions by mortifying the members." He adds, " ru-uio'z et? Mcorrrjv efianriaOrjaav they were typically baptized into Moses." John of Damascus, I, 261 (Paris, 1112), also, speaks of this baptism as accomplished by the sea and the cloud as agencies — To dca ry^q OaMfTcrrjq y.di r^? vefil-qiq. Jerome, XI, "745, thus comments: '•'' Et omnes in Iloyse bap- tizati sunt.^^ " In Moj^se, qui Christi typum gerebat — Were bap- tized into Moses who was a type of Christ." Jerome believed that this baptism was "z» £!? tj' intimates the passing into a new state." If such meaning (l3anTt^w:=d{p) be true, then a baptism eJc a Uopddvtiu) and all were baptized into Joshua {eiq '"Ir^aouv) by the Spirit and the river {Iv zoj IhehnaTt xai TTora/jM).^^ And in this statement we have conclusive proof that the Red Sea baptism was into Moses and by the cloud and sea, and not " a dry dip," since here there is no chance of a dry dip between water walls and cloud roof. But if this was a bap- tism of " all Israel into Joshua," by the Spirit and the miraculously arrested flowing of the river, then the other was a baptism into Moses b}' the power of Jehovah exerted through " the cloud and the sea." Moses and Joshua were divinely appointed leaders of Israel ; each was, in his i^eculiarity, a type of Christ, and the thorough submission of Israel to their leadership and influence, induced by the miraculous intervention of Jehovah, is described by Paul in the one case, and b}' Origen in the other, as a baptism into MosES, and a baptism into Joshua. Menander, Donatus, and Paul, were all teachers (although of widely diverse doctrine), and the reception of them as leaders and teachers, above all others, is described as being baptized into Menander^ Donatus^ and Paul. Ambrose (IY, 187) says: '•'•'• Aut in nominine Pauli bajytizati estisV If believing (in Christum baptizamur) we are baptized into Christ, that (in nomine ejus justificemur) we may be justified by his name, why is it that we make men the authors of this faith V Ambrose teaches clearl}'^ that it is baptism " into Christ " which gives a right to his name, and to the righteousness which comes through that name, and not by a dipping yito water ; and also tiiat a baptism into Paul, or into Cephas, or into Apollos, would make these men " the authors " of our hopes. TO BAPTIZE — TO FILL. 313 He farther says (v. 13, Comm.) : " The Corinthians began (subjici) to be made subject to tlie names of different heretics, so that men were seen to be venerated in the stead of Christ." Ambrose here uses " subjici " as a substitute for, and the equiva- lent (measurably) of iSanri^w ei^, as expressing subjection = under controlling influence. Sub-jacio to lie under, to be subject to, and divers other forms of speech, as well as " baptized into," readily develop in forms of expression denoting controlling injluence. Analogous Figure. While the Greek very frequently uses /Jarrt'^w to express the controlling influence of one thing over another thing by the com- munication to it of its qualit}' (on the basis of a porous substance put within a fluid having some distinguishing quality, and com- municating that quality by penetrating and pervading such sub- stance), it is nof common to express by this word the controlling influence of one person over another person by a verbal form sug- gestive of a like source of influence. There is no reason in the nature of the case why such statement should not be made ; but the form of statement has remarkable boldness, while it has, also, an exhaustive power of expression. It appears for the first time in the New Testament, and is there first applied to the return of a revolted world to subjection and allegiance to the living God, which is expressed as a baptism " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is afterward applied to sinners, guilty and perishing, as made pai'takers of remitted sin and a regenerated nature through Christ, stated as a baptism ^Hnto the Name of the Lord Jesus." We have, also, the baptism of Israel into Moses as a t3^pe of Christ. "Sye have, also, the statement of a baptism "into the name of Paul," in order to show and to express with the deepest condemnation the sin of the Corinthians in faltering in that sole and supreme dependence which was due to Christ. While this form of speech is pre-eminent for boldness of con- ception, and capability for giving expression to the profoundest thought, the same general idea of controlling influence is expressed by other forms of speech originating in a dilSerent class of facts Among these is the statement of complete influence grounded in the filling a vessel to its utmost capacit}'': "We will fill ourselves with strong drink " (Is. 56 : 12) ; "I will fill the inhabitants with 314 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. drunkenness " (Jer. 13 : 13) ; (the same as [^£i3aTtTi/7fiivi>v u-S iiid-q^z^ baptized by drunkenness, Josephus) ; " full of wisdom ;" " full of indignation;" "full of bypocris3^;" "fullof subtilty." The figure is bolder when the filling, and consequent influences, is that of persons. "If first I be somewhat filled with you " (tj/iu)'^ ItrnXTjaOCu) (Rom. 15:24). This figure is so bold that our translation has modified it into "filled with your company.^'' But the same figure, in a more fully sustained form, is presented by Pope, " I am too full of you not to overflow upon those I converse with." Here is fulness and its controlling influence. " Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 5:3.) "The best com- mentators seem agreed that ' to fill the heart of any one ' is a Hebrew form of expression signifying to impel, to incite, to em- bolden, to persuade any one " (Bloomfield). " To take 2:>ossession of; in}.-^<70-/]v to be Jilted with, i. e., to be wholly occupied with, to BE WHOLLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF anything ; TrsTr^pw/jLivoix; TTopvsta 'filled with (r= wholly under the influence of) fornication ' " (Rom. 1 : 29) (Robinson, Lex.). Compare with r.e-Kl-qpwiiivou^ ■Kopveia the parallel phrase dq -Kop^jzlav [ianriX.oo(TL (Clem. Alex.) ; and can any one doubt that these phrases (starting from the diverse points of fulness and withinness) do meet together in the same ultimate conception, to wit, "to be wholly under the influence of^ fornication? "To be filled with fornication," and "to be baptized into fornication," is a diversity of form expressive of unity in effect. Hence we have additional proof of the correct- ness of the " conclusion " in Classic Baptism, that the secondary use of [ia-ri'tw expresses to be wholly under the influence of any- thing, which conclusion was established in Judaic Baptism, with specific application to ceremonial purification; and exemplified in Johannic Baptism as bearing on spiritual purification ; and is now shown to be its exclusive use in Christian Baptism as related to the righteousness, the atonement, and the reconciliation of Christ, in their bearing upon his redeemed people: 1. Really, by the Holy Ghost ; 2. Symbolly, by ritual water. Satan is " the Father of lies," and when he fills the heart his influence is shown by lies. "I have filled him with the Spirit of God" (Exod. 31:3); "filled with the Spirit" (Ephes. 5 : 18) ; "filled with the Holy Ghost " (Acts 4:8); " men full of the Holy Ghost " (Acts 6 : 3) =: " Completely animated and supported by the influence of the Holy Ghost " (Bloomfield). This figure, by which controlling influence is expressed by fulness, is more common and less im- TO BAPTIZE — TO FILL. 315 pressive than that which is derived from putting one thing within another thing, especially one person within another person ; but while differing in their origin, and in shades of significance, as well as the measure of their power, still they are entirely analo- gous as to their general end, namely, giving expression to a con- trolling influence. When Peter, at Pentecost, denied that he and his associates were " full of new wine," and thus under its influ- ence = " drunken," declaring that he and thej- were "full of the Holy Ghost," being " baptized by the Holy Ghost," according to the promise of the Saviour and the prophecy of Joel, he admits that he and they are under some controlliug influence ; but he denies that it is such as comes from the fulness of wine, and aflflrms that it is such as comes from the fulness^ or the baptism, of the Holy Ghost, which terms, as expressive in general of con- trolling influence, are entirely equivalent expressions. And as the verb to baptize has here (according to universal admission) nothing to do with effecting a baptism into water, so it has just as little to do with any such thing anywhere else in the New Testament. A baptism " into Christ " has no more to do with a baptism into water, than has a heart "full of Satan " to do with a heart full of water. A baptism " into Paul " has no more to do with a baptism into water, than Paul's being " filled with his friends " at Rome has to do with his being filled with the water of the Tiber. The water in ritual baptism no more depends for its manner of use upon /Sarrj'^w, 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 (,3aKTt!^a) and the manner of using the water) no more stand, in Scripture, con- joined with each other by grammatical or logical relation, than do the earth and the moon stand in creation conjoined by a sus- pension bridge. 316 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM INTO CHRIST INVOLVES THE ASSURED HOPE OP RESURRECTION AND ETERNAL LIFE. 1 Corinthians 15 : 29. Ti ■Koujaovaiv ol (iaTrTLL,6fiEvoL vTrep ruv vEKpuv^ el o/lwf vEKpoi ovk eyeipovrai, " What shall they do who are baptized over the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why, then, are they baptized over the dead?" The Baptism. The embarrassment in the interpretation of this passage does not arise so much from difficulty in determining the nature of the baptism, as in determining the nature of the relation between the baptism and rcLv vexpwv. There is no reason, so far as I am aware, for referring this baptism to that which is effected by the Holy Spirit. There is no aspect in which such baptism brings into relation with " the dead." There is no sufficient reason for identif3'ing this baptism with the baptism of "suffering." Such baptism has no place in the New Testament except in connection with the atoning sufferings of Christ. There is, indeed, mention of suffering in the context, but not so as to identify it with this baptism. We must accept it as referring to ritual baptism received in a time of persecution, when, as stated in the immediately succeed- ing verse, the life of an avowed Christian was " in jeopardy every hour." 'Tnip Twv vsxpuJv. The precise relation between this baptism and " the dead " ma}^ be due to some local historical fact, not fully stated and which ma}', now, be forever beyond our reach. The form of the phraseology fianzi^u) unkp does not originate in the verb and must be due to some cause independent of it. The burden of the context, preceding and succeeding, is the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. through the Lord Jesus Christ as assured doctrines of Christianit}'; in immediate con- tact with this baptism unsp vsxpCov we have a statement that Chris- tians are hourly in peril of death ; and the last verse of the chapter exhorts to steadfastness and unmovableness amid en- compassing dangers. While the argument of the Apostle de- '^Ynep TuJv vexpojv. 317 velops a great and universal truth of Christianity, still, it is evi- dent that it has a local coloring from facts then existing at Corinth. And our interpretation of the language so far as it is due to those facts cannot be more certain than is our knowledge of those facts. I have no certain, detailed knowledge of them and can, therefore, oifer no certain interpretation. So far as the facts appear to be known they seem to justify an interpretation like this: 1. unkp tu>v vtxp&v over the dead; Why are Christians baptized into Christ, who teaches that trials and martyrdom await his disciples, and who have the dead of all generations buried beneath their feet declaring the end of man in this world, unless they believe and have conclusive evidence of a resurrec- tion of the dead and of a blessed immortality through Christ ? The assumption of the badge of Christianity which exposes " every hour" to death reveals a faith in a resurrection which out- weighs all appeal to " the dead " as evidence against it ; or, 2. rcbv vexpihv " the dead ;" may refer definitely to some Christians who had been slain at Corinth, and immediatel}^ thereupon others had been baptized, if not literally over, yet so as to justify the statement that their baptism was " over the dead" martyrs. All so baptized could only expect to be slain in like manner ; therefore the fitness of the inquiry, "What shall such do, if there be no resurrection ?" or, 3. If such interpretation should be thought questionable on the ground of (a generally admitted) exclusive metaphorical use of vTzep in the New Testament, then, it may be understood as mean- ing /or, in the stead of, " the dead " slain before their eyes, or, day by day, far and wide, because they were Christians. To join the band of Christians at such a time by baptism, was to step into the place of newly fallen martyrs and to confi'ont that death which they had met. Such action might well elicit the inquiry. Why do men thus give themselves to death, filling up the places of the slain, unless they believe and do know that in that Christ, into whom they are baptized, they shall have a resurrection from the dead ? Again repeating, that so far as the baptism is concerned, there is no special diflSculty ; but so far as the relation of the baptism to "the dead" is concerned there is difficulty, because of the want of definite historical knowledge ; I offer these interpretations as what may be in the direction of and proximate to the truth. 318 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM INTO CHRIST INCLUDES AND CREATES UNITY AMONG ALL SO BAPTIZED. 1 Corinthians 12 : 13. 'Ev Evl Uvev/j-ari y/ie'ig TravTcg etc iv ao>na kfiaTTTladrjtiEV, " By one Spirit have we all been baptized into one body." Translation. '£v bA Hveoimri. By one Spirit is accepted as the translation of tliis phrase by parties of diverse views on the subject of bap- tism. Not only does Dr. Carson accept the common English Yersion, but the Baptist Version, and the Christian (Campbellite) Baptist Version (by Anderson) ; it is also accepted by Alexander Campbell, himself; Luther in his Version translates by durch; Murdoch's Version from the Syriac has " hy one Spirit ;" Com- mentators and Scholars, generally, agree in this translation. It is not merely in this passage that iv IhevfiaTt is translated " hy the Spirit," but this accord extends to v. 3 where it appears twice, " speaking {h) by the Spirit of God," " can say (iv) by the Holy Ghost ;" also, v. 9, twice, " to another (ii-) by the same Spirit ;" thus, in one chapter, we have that phrase which the friends of dipping in baptism have insisted upon being translated as the receiving element, and refused to regard as indicative of agency, acknowledged to be used five times instrumentally ; and this when appearing in its accustomed relation to baptism. It is obvious that such concession bears weightily not to say controlling!}^, on the translation and interpretation of this same phrase in relation to the same subject, elsewhere. It cannot be said, that a difference is determined here by the use of dia and xazd, in connection with iv, communicating to it their distinctive meanings. For each preposition retains its own peculiarity while uniting in a common issue to which each com- municates its own specialty of coloring. Therefore Winer (p. 419) says, "In the parallel clauses in 1 Cor. 12:8, 9, spiritual gifts are referred, by the use of <5:«, x«ra, tv, to the llvsoim from which tliey all originate : <5£«, designates the Spirit as mediate agent; zard, as disposer; ^i^, as container." Thus while each THE GROUND OF THE USE OF ^v Tlveuimrt IN BAPTISM. 319 word has its own distinctive significance, all unite in indicating the UvBu/ia as possessing influential power, and thus lay a basis for the translation "by" as common to them all. Therefore Winer (p. 389) says, "When h and did are joined together in the same sentence, Scd expresses the external means, while iv points to what was wrought in or 07i one's person, and as it were cleaves to him. . . , Such passages show that both prepositions are identical as respects the sense.''^ Hie Ground of the use of hv UveufLaTt in Baptism. It is admitted that h in Uvebp-an in this passage, is indicative of agenc}^ (as truly as 5ta, or y.a-d) and at the same time indicating such agency as originates in ivithinness. This aspect of agenc}'' or influence is profoundl}' characteristic of the New Testament, especially' of that which is divine in its character. It is in this aspect that the II0I3' Spirit alwaj'^s appears as the Agent in bap- tism. While Christ is declared to be the Baptizer he is declared so to be on the ground that he, himself, is "in the Holy Spirit," and thus invested with the power of the Spirit, does baptize by the Spirit. John's prophetic announcement (Matt. 3:11) that " He should be iv IJveup.aTi 'Ayiio in ( = invested with the power of) the Holy Ghost," was verified when (v. 16) the Spirit of God descended upon him ; and John was able to verifj' his own prophecy: "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit de- scending from heaven, like a dove, and it abode upon him. He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Hoi}'' Ghost " (Joiin 1 : 32, 33). To convert this statement into a declaration, that Christ should baptize in the Holy Ghost, that is, as we are told, should on two occasions (at Pentecost and Csesarea) confer certain miraculous endowments, is as vapid and incredible in itself, as it is opposed to the whole course of Scripture prophecy, history, and forms of language. The descent of the Holy Spirit on any one (in Old Testament or New Testament) is invariably to confer some gift and to qualify for some duty. It was so in this case. And from this moment, and in all his utterances and acts even until " he {did Ihsu/mTnq aitovioi;) through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God " on the Cross, he was ever "in the Holy Ghost." That this 320 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. descent was personal to Christ, and the prophetic anointing for his work (Is. 61:1) is evident from the declaration of John, " God giveth not the Spirit b}^ measure unto him " (John 3 : 34), and from his own declaration (Luke 4; 18), "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ;" also, from the declaration immediately after the descent of the Spirit (Matt. 4 : 1), " Then was Jesus led up (t3-o) by the Spirit into the wilderness ;" also (Luke 4 : 14), "And Jesus returned from the wilderness (iv) in the power of the Spirit;" and, again, from his own declaration (Matt. 12: 28), "If I (iv) in the Spirit of God, cast out devils;" if, now, to this be added the historical narrative of the execution of this baptism in that case related in Acts 2 : 33, " Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see/ind hear," the proof is absolute, that i'.^ ruj Ihsu;j.arc re- lates to the personal condition of the Lord Jesus, as qualifying Him to baptize others by the Holy Ghost imparted unto them. All of which is grammatically confirmed by the presence (actual or by ellipsis) of both ^v and eiq in New Testament baptisms ; under which circumstances no example can be found in which ^v indicates the complement of ftunrd^u) ; nor yet when it stands alone, fulfilling this office with the active form of the verb. The ground of the use of Iv ru> Ilvevp-an (as also of iv Xptaru} in Christ) "zVi the Spirit," is the influence inseparable from within- ness, where one thing is enveloped in another thing. Generally it is the inclosing substance that influences the inclosed ; some- times it is the reverse, as where " a little leaven is hid in three measures of meal." Both forms of influence are freely used in Scripture, Christians are said to be in Christ and Christ in them ; " There is no condemnation to them that are (iv) in Christ Jesua^^ (Rom. 8:1);" Christ (iv) in you the hope of glory." So, it is said of the Spirit; " If the Spirit of God dwell in you " (Rom. 8 : 9), " For David said {iv tw Ilvso/iart zai "Ayiw) in the Holy Ghost ^^ (Mark 12 : 36). This withinness is for the sake of influence. " If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you^ he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall quicken, also, your mortal bodies {^la) by his Spirit that divellelh in you." There are some who prefer translating " For in one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." This is not objectionable so long as iv is regarded as pointing out the origin and thus indicating the baptizing power ; but if it should be used to indicate (against £(>) the ideal element of the baptism, it must be rejected. ' DR. PUSEY. 321 Interpretation. Dr. Pusey (p. 166) says : " 'For in one Spirit were we all bap- tized into one bod}^,' showing that to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized in the One Spirit ; and neither is the baptism of Christ without the Spirit, nor is there a baptism of the Spirit without the baptism instituted by Christ. . . . There is no dis- tinction, as if some were baptized into 'the outward body of pro- fessing believers,' as men speak, others into the invisible and mystical body of Christ, the true Church ; some baptized with water, others with the Spirit ; we were aZZ, St. Paul says, ' baptized into one body in One Spirit ;' so then, if any had not been bap- tized in the One Spirit, neither would they have been of the one body." Dr. Pusey employs the phrase, " the baptism of Christ " to denote ritual baptism with water. This is unscriptural. " The baptism of Christ" can, scripturally, denote nothing but that baptism which is effected by the Holy Ghost and the administra- tion of which is limited to Christ — " He that cometh after me is mightier than I, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." The Lord Jesus Christ is especially declared in Scripture never to have baptized with water. It was wholly foreign from his char- acter to act through shadows and symbols. His acts and his gifts were realities. The ritual use of water was but a symbol of the baptism by the Holy Ghost. So John declares by the great gulf b}' which he separates them ; and so Christ declares by re- serving to himself the one and committing to his disciples the other. But these Dr. Pusey confounds ; while the teaching of Scripture and the facts of their administration prove them to be wholly distinct. While Dr. Pusey conjoins what the Scriptures separate ; he separates what the Scriptures conjoin. He divides the baptism under consideration into two, by converting the agency (^i^ iv\ TlvebiJ-art.) into a distinct baptism. There is nothing said about two baptisms ; but " all being in " (:= under the influ- ence of) "One Spirit, are," thereby, "baptized into one bod3\" The introduction of ritual water is without authority by any word of Scripture, and is, as much, without need from the nature of the case ; the Holy Spirit alone being entirely competent to effect the baptism announced without any co-ojjerating influence of water. 21 322 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Dr. Carson says : "In 1 Cor. 12 : 13 it is taken for granted, all who are baptized belong to the bod}^ of Christ. They who are baptized are supposed already to belong to the body of Christ; and for this reason the}- are baptized into it. The}' are b}' bap- tism externally united to that body, to which the}' are internally united by faith. None are here supposed to be baptized upon the expectation, or probability, or possibility, that they may yet belong to that body. They are baptized into the body." This maybe a very good exposition of Dr. Carson's theory of adult baptism and of the constitution of the church ; but it can hardly be called a very good exposition or an exposition of any kind, of 1 Cor. 12:13, The idea that a ritual baptism is here spoken of, not only has not so much as a sand grain to rest upon, Ijut is in absolute contradiction to the express statement of the text, to wit, that the baptism is effected by the Divine Spirit. But this most positive statement Dr. Carson and friends can- not accept, because they entertain that marvellous idea which teaches, that the great characteristic of the Messiah's coming and kingdom (baptism by the Holy Ghost) is exhausted by the com- muui(!ation of certain extraordinary gifts on two occasions ! Therefore the clear statement of inspiration, that every soul made a member of the body of Christ receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, must be rejected, and its place supplied by a dipping into water. Professor Pepper (B. and C, p. 21) seems to admit that this may be spiritual baptism ; also (p. 28) that repentance may be baptism of the Spirit. R. Ingham (Christian Baptism, London, p. 7) says: " Through the operation, under the guidance, and in the possession of one Spirit, are we all baptized into one body." /7avr£C. The Apostle makes a universal statement so far as those are concerned who do " by the Holy Ghost call Jesus, Lord." All such are by v. 3 declared to be " iv Ih^ojiaTt 'Aym, in = under the influence of the Holy Ghost." This use of cv Ihvjimri 'Ayiio in v. 3 appears to l)e the ground of its use in v. 12; if ovStiq^ ''''no one^ can call Jesus, the Lord, except h HvsOriart 'Ayiw^" then ttavts?, all who call him the Lord, are in = under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and " have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus " by BAPTISM INTO ONE BODY. 323 this Divine Agent. Now, it is "all" of such individual persons who, being iv thshij.ari ' Aytio in = under the influence of the Holy Ghost, made subject to the LoRDship of Christ, and " saved from their sins" by Jesus; in other words, having been made individ- ually regenerate by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they are pre- pared to receive a farther baptism b}' the distribution of varied and related gifts from "the one and the selfsame Spirit, who divideth to every one severally as He will." By such gifts to all (the one sup- plementary of the other) a unity, one interdependent whole, is established; and as "all" the individual members are " in " = under the influence of, controlled by, " one Spirit," they are per- fected by varied endowments in their relations to one another, and in their common relation to Christ their head, and thus are iv. kv\ f]vsuiJ.aTi Tjixelq T:d\'-eq slq ev trcu/ia ii3a7ZTitT0rj;j.sv. This baptism of unification, by the distribution of appropriate and varied gifts to every member of the body of Christ, as dis- tinguished from the baptism of regeneration, which unites the individual soul to Christ and makes participant in his redemp- tion, should cause no surprise; it is as to its nature and end precisely that baptism which the Apostles received at Pentecost. The Apostles had before received that baptism of the Spirit which gives repentance and faith and a regenerate nature ; they now receive that baptism of gifts which will fit them for their place, as Apostles, in the "one bod}' of which Christ is the Head." As the Pentecost baptism of the Apostles was not the baptism of iuipenitent sinners " into Christ," but a baptism of gifts, con- ferred upon those who were already iv Ihebimn^ " for the edifica- tion of the body of Christ," so, also, the baptism announced to the Corinthians was not a baptism for those who (not being iv Iheuimri ' Ayiu)) " call Jesus accursed," but a baptism of gifts to all, even the least, in the body of Christ, perfecting all in every one. This work of double baptism (of the individual " into Christ," and of "all into one body") will the Holy Spirit carry on among " Jews and Gentiles," until this wondrous work shall be done by the consummating baptism of the redeemed of all ages and of all nations " into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 324 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM WITH WATER, THE SHADOW OF ESSENTIAL TRUTH, IS WORTHLESS IN COMPARISON WITH BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST, WHICH EFFECTS THAT TRUTH. 1 COKINTHIANS 1 : 17. Oi) -yap aneaTecXE fie Xp/aroi fiaiTTi^Eiv okTC Evayye7iiC,£adaL. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." Interpretation. When Paul says, Christ did not send me to baptize ritually, but to preach the gospel, through which by the Holy Ghost the soul is baptized really, he means to speak comparatively, and to teach: 1. Ritual baptism does not enter as an essential into the gospel ; 2. Eitual baptism is an essential appendage to tlie gospel, but whatever may be its value, it has no value in comparison with the gospel; and must be esteemed as subordinate to, the gospel. So that, if ever the gospel and its worth, should come into antag- onism with the rite and its worth, the gospel must be acknowl- edged as having an unapproachable supremacy over the rite. Therefore, while the administration of the rite was included in Paul's commission, it occupied so subordinate a position (con- sequent and dependent upon the preaching of the gospel) that he could most truthfully say, " My mission is to preach the gospel and not to administer ritual baptism. Which is only a ritual exhibition of the spiritual result of the gospel as blessed by the Holy Gliost in purifying the soul from sin." This view of Paul concerning tlie nature of ritual baptism and its relations to the gospel are not, b}^ any means, the views of all others. There are some (Patrists and others) who believe, that ritual baptism is the agency by which the soul is regenerated, its sins washed away, and incorporation is effected in the spiritual body of Christ. On what grounds these can suppose Paul to deny, that such work did lie within his mission, I cannot imagine. There are others (Alexander Campbell and friends) who be- lieve, that ritual baptism stands in the same relation to the remission of sins, as does Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE. 325 Whether this class undertakes to separate remission of sins from " the gospel," or whether they would say, Repentance and faith have nothing more to do with " the gospel " than has ritual baptism, and that Paul might as properlj' have said, I was not sent to preach repentance and faith, as he said that he was not sent to baptize, I do not know. Or if, when Repentance for sin with its accessories, and faith in the Redeemer, as Lord and God ("my Lord and ray God"), and as Jesus (Saviour, by righteous- ness and atonement), and as Christ (Anointed, prophet, priest, and king), whether, when these were eliminated from the gospel, they would undertake to declare how much was left of the gospel for Paul to preach, I cannot tell. But if ritual baptism is for the remission of sins, how it happened that Paul should be sent to the Gentile world with a commission in which "/or the remission of sin " was left out, must be a marvel. There are yet others (Px-ofs. Pepper, Curtis, and friends of the theory generally) who believe, that Christian baptism is a dip- ping into water, exclusively, imperatively, and divinely appointed, being ordained as the door of the Church, the essential ante- cedent and prerequisite to the Communion Table, the sirie qua non to the existence of a regular, true, and lawful chui'ch. This dip- ping into water, we are informed, is unspeakably glorious — " Where through the transparent drapery, the outward garment of profession, shines the rich vesture of a living faith within, the whole assumes a symbolic lustre and magnificence, sufficient fully to justify the warmest eulogium of the Christian. Not too ecstatic to be applied to it is the language of the Prophet when he says, ' I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joy- ful in my God ; for he hath clothed me with the garments of sal- vation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.' . . . This divinely appointed confession of Christ" (dipping into water), "animated by a true faith, is a garment which well befits all Christians ; ' it becomes the crowned monarch better than his crown.' It can make pov- erty honorable, decrepitude and old age cheerful, sickness and death happ3\ It suits all ages and gradations of intellect. What sight on earth so beautiful as to behold the young and lovely descending into the waters of baptism, yielding up their hearts and lives to the service of the Saviour, ' putting on Christ.' . . . It is a garment that never wears out ; but like those shawls of 326 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Cashmere that retain their colors brilliant for successive genera- tions, is unfading and resplendent to the last. . . . This garment is the uniform, divinely appointed for Christians upon earth. It contains a significance and mystery that angels desire to look into, and that shall never be unravelled, until Time shall be no more, and unto all the saints shall be granted everlastingly to be clothed in fine linen, clean and white" (Prof. Curtis, pp. 69-73). Any one who attempts to establish a church, or to enter into the church, or to sit down at the Lord's table, except under the sanction of this dipping into water, is an " ignorant perverter," and "acts a lie," unless he is so "sincere and ignorant" that he "cannot be made to know" what he is about (Prof. Pepper, pp. 34, 46). Such " ecstatic eulogy " (with its natural anathema) of "dipping into water," outrivals the most glowing flights of a Gregory or a Chrysostom. When we turn to the plain prose of the Bible and hear Paul say, " I was not sent to baptize (' to dip into water') but to preach the gospel," these waxen wings melt and the eulogist above the clouds gets a fall. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and the founder of churches, not sent to open "the door of the church" or to give a seat at its Communion table, b}' "that only wa}'" — dipping into ivater! PauVs Commission. It is worth while to look at Paul's commission for more and for more important reasons than this statement, that he was not sent to baptize ("to dip into water"). This commission is found in Acts 26:16-18: "I have ap- peared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness . . . delivering thee from the people and (twv iOvu»^) the Gen- tiles, unto whom now {antxTxiklu)) I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness, of sins, and inheritance among them that arc sanctified through faith that is in me.'- With this Commission before his eyes, the most earnest de- fender of "dipping into water" as the faith delivered unto the saints, and the warmest eulogist of its "ecstatic" blessings, will hardly deny the literal accurac}' of Paul when he declares, dipping into water makes no appearance in his Commission, and that he was made an apostle for a very different purpose, namely, " to Paul's commission. 327 preach the gospel." What is in this Commission ? We have : 1. The preaching of the truth ("to open their eyes"); 2. Con- viction of error and repentance for sin Q'' to turn them from dark- ness to light"); 3. Supreme allegiance to the true God ("to turn them from the power of Satan to God ") ; 4. Forgiveness of sin to the repentant {too XajSs'tv aipzaij aij-aprtiov) ; 5. Salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ("inheritance among the sanctified by faith in me "). Is this the gospel ? Is it the whole of it? Has " dipping into water," that vital element of the gospel, without which no lawful church can exist, no true church membership can be recognized, no right to eat of the broken body and shed blood of a crucified Saviour can be admitted, has this vital ele- ment (stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae) been overlooked in the Com- mission from the adorable Head of the Church to his personally chosen and commissioned Apostle to the Gentiles ? Whether it be through oversight or not, it is most certain that no commis- sion to dip into water was given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ. The lack of it, however, does not seem to embarrass Paul. He goes forward to preach a gospel of which dipping into water forms no part, and to found churches into the membership of which " dipping into water" does not constitute "the door" (Pepper, 20-23), and to celebrate the dying love of Christ, all unconscious that " a dipping into water " admits or rejects from doing this in remembrance of the Crucified, under the penalty of " acting a lie." Whether this element entered into the Commission of the other Apostles any more than into that of Paul, will be considered hereafter. Paul fulfilled his Commission (26 : 19, 20) by preach- ing— " Repent and turn to God through faith in Christ." Not to Baptize. Paul does not deny the obligation, or divine authority, of ritual baptism (hovvever much he might do both as to a dipping into water) ; but he denies its relative worth ; he denies that this rite is a primary element in the gospel, or essential to its per- fection of power. It is a divine appendage to the gospel as a hel]) to human infirmit}'^, and is dependent upon the gospel for its value. Prof. Pepper (p. 20) says: "The gospel spoken is the in- terpretation of the gospel embodied in ordinances." This makes ordinances precede the gospel. Paul teaches the reverse of this. 328 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. The gospel is antecedent to its symbols, which are but reflectors of its truths and must be interpreted b}^ them. The gospel in the woman's seed was before Abel's slain lamb. The duty of the Patriarchs was not first to slay lambs, but first to preach the promise, and then expound the bleeding victim by that promise. Salvation to the first born was first promised, then came the slaying of the lamb and the sprinkling of the family door-posts in Egypt. REPENTANCE AND FAITH THOROUGHLY CHANGE THE CONDITION AND DO THEREBY BAPTIZE THE SOUL. Hebrews 6 : 2. PaTTTLGfiuv 6i.6axv?- " Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God (baptizings of doctrine), and of the laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Ti'a7islation. There is no generally accepted translation or interpretation of this passage. Whether what is about to be ofi"ered relieves the difficulties heretofore felt, and bears within it the self-evidencing power of truth, others will determine. The translations which have been proposed are, in general, these: 1. That which makes all the Genitives to depend on dsfiihov (Murdock, Alford) ; 2. That which makes all after the first two to depend on dtdayj^q (Olshausen, Ebrard) ; 3. That which supplies di8a;(Y/'; before p-szavoiaq and rdfrrtwc, and makes ^a-Tz- rtaiJMv the objective Genitive (Stuart, Kuinoel) ; 4. That which makes (iannawv dtdd/r/<; belong together {i3ar.Ti(Tfxu>v the governing noun) and depend on OsfiiXwv (Winer) ; 5. That which unites fiar:- Ttff/idiv dida'/Y/^ making the former the governing noun, and recog- nizing the peculiarity in the construction of this phrase (1)}^ the absence of the conjunction) as compared with other phrases in the sentence (Bengcl); 6. That which connects these words as in the preceding case, but with a ditt'erent grammatical relation, and makes them, with the following phrase, parenthetical and in appo- sition with the preceding " repentance " and " faith " (Calvin). BAPTISMS OF DOCTRINE. 329 The general objection which has been, reciprocally, made to these several interpretations has been — "unjustifiable departure from the construction." In the translation which we have proposed making " baptizings of doctrine" in apposition with repentance and faith, and paren- thetical, tlie peculiarity of construction which marks these words, is not only regarded but is effectively used ; the normal law as to the Genitive in grammatical construction is observed, and made harmonious throughout the sentence ; and the use of the plural form (ia-KTKTiiwv^ receives explanation. The only point which seems to need elucidation is, the ground on which " baptisms of doc- trine " can be placed in expository apposition with repentance and faith. This belongs to the interpretation and the justifj'ing reason will there be oflered. Interpretation. paT:rt7?, which removes it entirely from its popular Jewish use ; 4. The noble jirinciple ruling Paul's life — "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." The plural form of this word, as relating to Christian baptism, has been an embarrassment. This difficulty is factitious, not real. It is true, that there is but one Christian baptism ; but it is not true that there is but one form of words, or one form of thought, by which that baptism can be expressed. John preached a baptism e;? /is-rhotav^ and also a baptism d^ acpzatv dimprtiuv. These bajotisms, in relation to each other, have distinctive char- acteristics, and so regarded are two baptisms; but in their com- mon relations to salvation, they are one baptism, and John conjoins them in the [-idnTiaiJ-a neravoiaq iiq affetriv aiJLu.fnt.u)v. Peter introduces faith as a co-operative element with repentance in this baptism — ^^ Repent and be baptized (iTri) believing upon the name of Jesus Christ, eiq av dcda^-r,q and [id-KTtffiJ.a /leravoia^. The One is in general, a teaching baptism, and the other is in particular, a repentance baptism. The use of the Genitive is the same in both cases. Commentators. Calvin {Comm.) : " Some read them separately, 'of baptisms and of doctrines,' but I prefer to connect them, though I explain them differently from others ; for I regard the words as being in apposition, as grammarians say, according to this form, ' Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands.' If therefore these two clauses, the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands, be included in a parenthesis, the passage would run better ; for except you read them as in apposition, there would be the absurdity of a repe- tition. For what is the doctrine of baptism but what he mentions here, faith in God, repentance, judgment, and the like?" Bengel (Comm.): " /iVi is not put before /JaTrrjrr/iaiv ; for three pairs of chief particulars are enumerated, and the second par- ticular in every pair has the conjunction ; but only the third pair is similarl}^ connected ; from which it is also evident, that iSanrKTiicbv and Sil^ayifZ must not be separated. BaTz~i(Tiun dtSap^i; were baptisms which were received by those who devoted themselves to the sacred doctrine of the Jews; therefore, by the addition of Stdaxr^^, they are distinguished from the other Levitical washings." In a note to this comment, it is said: "Bengel evidently un- derstands these words as baptisms of or into doctrine, not as Eng. Vers., the doctrine of baptisms — Ed." CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 333 Winer (p. 192): " Heb. 6:2 is a difficult passage; (iaizTKriiiuv ftidayjii; (depending on Os/jJmov) certainly belong together, and ^cda/7^<; cannot be torn away so strangely and regarded as the governing noun to all fo.ur Grenitives, as Ebrard still maintains. But the question is, whether we should here admit a transposi- tion for didayv^q [iar.T.ap.w^^ as most later expositors do. Such a transposition, however, would be at variance with the whole structure of the verse ; and if ^anrt.(t[xre'z — TEACHING to indulge in pleasure and lust they bap- tize out of chastity into unchastity." This passage is conclusive as to the following points: 1. A baptism is a thorough change of condition ; 2. This change of condition will exhibit the evidence of an assimilation to the char- 334 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. acteristic of the baptizing influence, whatever that characteristic may be; 3. This change of condition is without limitation as to the nature of the influence effecting it, the manner of its exercise, or the time of its duration ; 4. This change of condition ma}' be expressed under a form of words (^z, eiq, fta-ri'^uj) originating in physics, witliout requiring a correspondence, in form, to such physical use ; 5. An ideal baptism expresses a profound realit}' ; 6. The presence of water, actual or imaginary, is unnecessary to a baptism ; Y. Teaching is capable of baptizing ; and it Avill so baptize a.s to exhibit its characteristic in its disciples. Teaching that inculcates "the indulgence of pleasure and lust" will baptize its discij)les into impurit}'; and teaching which enjoins "the observance of all things whatsoever Jesus Christ has com- manded," will baptize its disciples into purity and " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Corollary. All who accept the baptism of Clemens Alexan- drinus, dz r.op'^dav, must accept the Bible baptism d^ iierdvoux'^, e:? a^efftv^ eiq Xpiffzov ^Irjffouv^ eiq rd ovoixa rou llarpdq^ xai The examination of this passage of Scripture shows that the statement, that baptisms are effected by doctrinal truths, is a statement in perfect harmony with the entire scope of Scripture, is confirmed by the results antecedentl}^ reached, while it is itself, in turn, confirmatory of them. Since writing tlie above a translation of the Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, by Hermann Cremer, Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald (Edinburgh, 1872) has been published. The following quotation s. v. [iar.zi'^u) bears upon the interpretation above given to the passage before us: " The baptism of John is styled zar'. i^. the ^dnnaiia jitrawiaq ; we might accordingly designate Christian baptism [iar^Tiaim TzisTtu);:^ coll. Acts 19 : 45, Acts 8 : 12, 13. ... Heb. G : 2, /?«7rrj^,awv Ma;^^; as a constituent of the u r?)? n-p'/St'^ "!""" ^^- ^^yo':- Accordingly it is less probable that the writer referred to Christian baptism in dis- tinction from O. T. lustrations, than to the difference and relation between Christian baptism and that of Jolin, — a difterence which would often need to be discussed." There is no need for introducing the bai)tism of John, distinc- tively, since the baptism of Repentance and the baptism of Faith alike belong to Christianity. Cremer also says : The specialty of a baptism depends upon the relation into wliich candidates are brought as denoted by ei<: ANTITYPE BAPTISM SAVES. 335 and its kegimen. " Ek is invariabhj used in an ideal sense.'^ Such is the doctrine of this Inquiry. The acceptance of this doctrine carries with it all the essential results of the Inquiry, when consistently carried out. ANTITYPE BAPTISM SAVES THE SOUL, AND IS BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST. 1 Peter 3: 21. 'Q Kal Tjnaq nvTiTvirov vvv au^ei pdirTia/ia [ov acp/fof, cnroOeaig pinrnv, aAAd ovveidtjOEioq aT^Tjdrjq^ hnep^rrjiia eif Geov), 6i.' avaardaeug 'Itjcov Xpcarov. " By which, also, antitype Baptism now saves us (not of the flesh, the put- ting away of filth, but of a good conscience, the requirement toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The Text. The reading of this passage is not settled. Knapp introduces V. 21 with o xa\^ and places w xai, in the raai'gin. Bloomfield re- verses this arrangement. The Codex Sinaiticus omits both o and to, commencing the verse with xa\. These diversities are not unimportant. If the reading 8 be accepted then a relation is established with " water " in the pre- ceding verse and, also (though not with the same facility), with avTiruTTov ftdTrri(r;j.a. If u> xai be adopted then its relation is naturally formed with the iv u> xa\ of v. 19, and the reference is to the Holy Spirit, and necessarily stamps a like character on avriruTzov (idn- Tiff'ia. The omission of the Codex Sinaiticus throws its whole weight against any reference to " water" in v. 20, and as strongly favors the reference to the Holy Spirit, because with the reading which it presents no connection can be established between avrt- TUTzov ftd7:Tt fidnTca/xa. " There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; " One Lord, one faith, one baptism, " One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." " One Baptism." Professor J. L. Dagg (Manual of Theo., Southern Bapt. Pub. Soc, p. 16), states the followhig objection and reply: " Objection. Paul teaches that there is one baptism. Now, there is a baptism of the Spirit ; and if water baptism is a perpetual ordinance of Christianity, there are two baptisms instead of one." " Answer. Paul says, ' One Lord, one faith, one baptism.' As he uses the words Lord and faith, in their literal sense, so he uses the word baptism in its literal sense. In this sense there is but one baptism. John the Baptist foretold that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit : And Jesus said to his disciples, ' Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.' Both these baptisms were known to Paul. These figurative bap- tisms were two in number: while the literal baptism was but one. He must therefore have intended the latter." 1. This i-easoning is not satisfactory. It is a mistake to say : The baptism by the Holy Ghost foretold by John as characteristic of the Coming One, is a distinct baptism from that declared by the Saviour, " Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am bap- tized with." The first statement announces a Divine and eflicient agency in baptism ; the second announces the nature of the bap- tism which the disciples of Christ in all ages must receive, namely, the baptism of the Cross, which has a sin-remitting power and all the virtues of a perfected atonement, which bap- tism is expressed as a baptism into Christ — " as man}^ as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, have been baptized into iiis DEATH." This baptism is effected by the Holy Ghost. The state- ments of John and of Christ, therefore, do not declare two bap- tisms but the divine Agent, and the "one baptism " of Christianity effected by that divine Agent. ONE BAPTISM. 345 2. The reasoning is defective, because it assumes that " Lord " and "faith" being spoken of literally, therefore "baptism" must be spoken of physically. This is an error. "Baptism " represents the phrase " baptism into Christ," and this phrase expresses a reality as absolute as does " Lord " or " faith." In the phrase " faith upon Christ " (which is represented by " faith ") there is no more of the physical than there is in " baptism into Christ " which is condensed into the one word " baptism." 3. A third error is in the assumption of U baptism into water. There is no such thing in the New Testament. Baptism, with water into Christ, s^'mbolizes the real purification effected in the baptism, by the Holy Ghost into Christ. The conclusion falls with the unwarranted assumption on which it rests. And the " objection " remains, namely : According to the theory there are two baptisms (the one in the Holy Ghost, the other in water) which enter (Dr. Dagg seems to admit, although other of his friends do not) into the constitution of Christianity ; and thus the theory is placed in opposition to the statement by Paul, that Christianity has but " one baptism." Dr. Carson (p. 212), adopts another line of argument: "We learn from Ephes. 4 ; 5 that there is but one baptism. Now, as the baptism of the Commission cannot possibl}' extend to infants, if there is such a thing as infant baptism, there must be two bap- tisms. If then there is but one baptism, there can be no infant baptism." This logical dart we catch upon our shield and let it drop into the dust, thus: Baptism into Christ by the Holy Ghost (the "one baptism" of Christianity) is essential to salvation; Infants, by the admission of Dr. Carson, receive salvation ; therefore, the baptism of the Commission, so far as it is the " one baptism " of Christianity, does apply to infants. Or, ad hominem; Baptism of the body in water, cannot possibly identify with baptism of the soul in the Holy Ghost ; therefore, since it is affirmed that there is a baptism of the soul in the Holy Ghost, if there be such a thing as a baptism of the body in water, there must be two bap- tisms; but Paul teaches that there is but "one baptism," there- fore, there can be no baptism of the bodj^ in water. R. Ingham (Christian Baptism.^ p. 7, London) : " Ephes. 4:5; ' One Lord, one faith, one baptism ;' we do not believe that the bap- tism of the Spirit is here meant, from the fact that baptism in or by water was the instituted and well-known ordinance of the church 346 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of Christ, and that the divine Spirit had been mentioned in the immediately preceding verse; also because water baptism com- manded by Christ, and practiced and enjoined by the apostles, must now have ceased, if the apostle here refers to the baptism of the Spirit; or there must have been two baptisms ; or the apos- tle must have been guilty of an omission, nay, of a misstatement, in saying that there was ' one baptism.' To consider this the baptism of the Spirit is, we think, in opposition to all the candid." The reasons for this conclusion are: 1. "Water baptism was the instituted and well-known ordinance of tiie Church." This reason is founded in the error that water baptism constitutes a wholly distinct and diverse baptism from that baptism which is by the H0I3' Ghost, dislocating " water " from its divinely ap- pointed relation to the baptism as a symbol agency, and convert- ing it into (what is evei'y way impossible) a receiving element. 2. '' The divine Spirit had been mentioned in the preceding verse." This is most true ; and the mention is most adverse to the con- clusion. " There is one body, and one Spirit," is the statement ; and this statement identides itself, most unmistakably, with 1 Cor. 12 : 13, "We are all baptized by one Spirit into one body ;" and this latter statement declares one universal baptism under Christianity received by all who are received into the bod}' of Christ, which baptism is by the divine Spirit. This must be the " one baptism." 3. " If this be baptism of the Spirit, water bap- tism must have ceased." This is not an alternative. It is founded on an entire misconception of the rite, as noticed in " 1 ;" 4. "Or there must have been two baptisms." Nor is this an alternative. There is no second baptism in the rite wholly diverse in purport and genus from the baptism effected by the Hol,^' Ghost. This would be absurd. Does the lamb bleeding on the altar of Abel and Noah and Abraham embody truth wholly diverse from that exhibited in the Lamb of God bleeding on the Cross? Do the bread and the wine in the Lord's Supper embody truth wholly di- verse from that in the broken body and shed blood of Christ received by faith through the Holy Ghost? Were the purifyings of Judaism or Heathenism Iwo purifyings, or sprinklings, or pour- ings, or dippings, or washings, or one purification, effected by essential power attributed to the rite, or symbolizing in shadow what a higher power must effect in reality? A rite must, in its essence, represent a higher kindred reality. But if the essence (that without which it cannot be) of ritual baptism be a dipping ONE BAPTISM. 347 into water, then there is absolutely nothing in the higher related truth of baptism by the Holy Ghost, which it can represent. Nor is there anything in the language of Scripture to justif}' the idea, that Christian baptism is a dipping into water. The Scriptures teach, that after the Coming One baptism would be b}' the Holy Ghost " into repentance," " into the remission of sins," " into Jesus Christ," and it is a pure absurdity to imagine, that ritual baptism would be another and diverse baptism, or any other bap- tism more or less than this same baptism symbolized. Therefore John says, " I (udaTt) symbolly, baptize j^ou (si? fj.e-dvij.Eviiv : " There is also one baptism, that which is given into the death of our Lord." Tliis is, by eminence, the one primal baptism of Christianity. Ignatius had no faith in water dipping aa the " one baptism." DR. PUSEY. 351 Dr. Pusey. PusEY (Holy Baptism, p. 162) says: "'One Lord;' one faith in Him; 'one Baptism' iyito Him; and so into God the Father who is above all, the Author of all ; God the Son who is through all, as having been by Him created; God the Holy Ghost, who is in all" . . . (p. 163). And so among the ancient Fathers, St. Gregory of Nazianzen : " One Lord, one faith, one baptism. What say ye, ye destructive baptists, and anabaptists ? Can one be spiritual without the Spirit ? or honoreth he who is ba{>tized into one created and a fellow-servant? Not so, not so. I will not belie thee, Unoriginated Father; I will not belie thee. Only Begotten Word ; I will not belie thee. Holy Spirit. I know whom 1 have confessed, whom renounced, with whom been united." In a note it is stated : "The Eunomians rebaptized in the name of the Father uncreated, and the Son created, and the Holy Ghost created by the created Son." This Eunomian baptism shows, that the " untrue and illegitimate baptisms of heretics" did not consist in a departure from a dip- ping into water, but in a " baptism of doctrine " which abandoned the true baptism " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Evidence from every legitimate source rejects the idea, that this passage has any reference to a dipping into water, and confirms the position, that it is purely spiritual in all of its elements. "One Lord," Jesus Christ; " One faith," upon Jesvs Christ; " One baptism," into Jesus Christ. CHRISTIC BAPTISM: PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE IK WHICH THERE IS SUP- POSED TO BE AN ALLUSION TO BAPTISM. PURIFICATION. John 3 : 25. Tlepl Kadapiajiov. "Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying." There are a few passages of Scripture in which the word baptism does not occur but which have, very general!}^, been supposed to refer to it. Among these there are some which have exerted a very powerful influence in moulding doctrinal views, as involved in the subject of baptism, and, also, the mode of admin- istering the rite. It is, therefore, desirable to take brief notice of some of these passages. The passage now to be considered is not one of those deeply- influential passages, and yet it has a really important bearing on the subject, and justly claims attention. Diverse Reading. There is a diversity of reading ("foudatou — 'foudaicu^), as to the singular or plural form of the word denoting the party in opposi- tion to the disciples of John. The Baptist translation adopts the singular form ("with a Jew"), and in the Quarto translation with notes, says: "Almost all modern translators and editors regard this as the true reading. All, I believe, reject ^/<>u3aiw^^ of the Textus Kecei)tus, as spurious." Whether the singular or the plural of this word be adopted is a matter of no essential moment; but so long as the Codex Sinaiticus presents tlie plural form the Textus Keceptiis may be allowed to stand. The translator adds farther: "I confess that I consider the conjectural emendation of Bentley, adopted by Penn {frjffou), sustained by an overwhelm- ( 352 ) "about purifying." 353 iug weight of internal evidence; but, as there is, as far as known, no manuscriptal authority for this reading, I dare not recommend its adoption.'' Markland agrees with Bentley and others, in the change suggested ; but the reasons assigned (from internal evi- dence) is no more satisfactory than that from external evidence, which is confessed to be, nothing. If the discussion be made to take place between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus, the entire statement of the Scripture is revolutionized, and instead of a discussion respect- ing purification, we have a discussion respecting the comparative personal merits of John and Jesus : "The disciples of John must have felt their vanity wounded while the Jew, probably, gave it as his opinion, that the baptism of Jesus was more effectual than that of John" (Olshausen); "The Jews resorted to Jesus, while the disciples of John were contending, that purifying ought to be sought from John " (Bengel) ; " The Jews, doubtless, had been baptized by the disciples of Jesus, and preferred that baptism to John's" (Bloomfield). These interpx'etations depart essentially from the Scripture record in two radical particulars : 1. In chang- ing the discussion from {-J^epi y.adapt.(TiJ.oo) " purification " to the personal merits of John and Jesus, for which there was no ground, as the testimony of John had been clear and profound, from the beginning, on that point; and as to the comparative value of the baptism administered b}^ John and by the disciples of Jesus (" for Jesus himself baptized not ") there is no evidence whatever of 2iny diversity existing or being supposed to exist; 2. The conver- sion of "the Jews," or of "the Jew," into disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of all Scripture warrant. It is incredi- ble that the disciples of Jesus would be designated as "Jews" in contradistinction from the disciples of John. And as for the substitution of Jesus for "Jew" in the text (in opposition to all MSS. and construction) this arguing in a circle is presented. The true text is " Jesus," because the discussion was between the disciples of John and of Jesus, and the discussion was between the disciples of John and of Jesus, because the true text is " Jesus." We must look for something better than this. " About Purifying^ We take the text as it stands (substantially the same whether 23 354 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. " Jews " or Jeit;) : "There arose a question from among the dis- ciples of John with some Jews about purifying." Tiiat such a question should arise between these parties was not only natural, but was one which could by no possibility be escaped. The Jews had their "purifyings" before John's mis- sion or birtli. They had a sharply defined character and met with universal acceptance. The true nature of Jewish purifyings was a ceremonial purification ; but it is very doubtful whether the popular mind rested in this as its whole value, or did not fail to see beyond this a higher purification (spiritual) still remaining. In the midst of this condition of things John came preaching an exclusively spiritual purification, one relating to tlie soul and not to the body ; to be effected by repentance and not by water. I sa}' this was an exclusively spiritual i)urification, because the rite which was associated with it was not of the nature of Jewish purifying rites', it purified nothing; it was only a symbol of the spiritual purification. Jewish purifyings, on the contrar}^, had an essential power to effect the purification for wliich they were appointed, namely, to remove ceremonial defilement and estab- lish ceremonial purification. These characteristics seem to be brought to view bj' the language of Josephus (Jew. Ant., xviii, 62). " John exhorted the Jews to cultivate virtue and observing uprightness toward one another, and piety toward God, to come (fiaTTrtfT/jM) for baptizing ; for thus (fidnritrr^') the baptizing would appear acceptable to him, not using it for the remission of sins, but for purity of the body, provided, that the soul has been pre- viously (j:f)o£.y.y.£/.aOap!J.ivrj^) purified by righteousness." In this statement .Iosei)lius announces very clearly the spiritual purification witli its fruits, as preached by John. He seems to imi)ly, that John charged the Jews with using their purifyings to obtain the remission of sins, and tauglit tiieir unacceptableness to God for any such purpose; while he declared that the rite he introduced would be acceptable to God, not for the remission of sins, but as a symbol of i)urity, " when the soul had first been purified (dv/.auinnvri) by righteousness," and not by water. Now, it was precisely this preaching of John which antagonized Jewish ceremonial purification, and which necessitated "a ques- tion aljout purifying " between tliose Jews who accepted John's teaching and those Jews who, rejecting it maintained the suffi- ciency of their old purif^yings. KoJhiptffiLin)^ has greater breadth than the fidrzziff/jjn;^ ceremonial BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. 355 purifying, of the Jew, or the ^drcrt(Tixa fisra'^naz^ spiritual purifica- tion of John; and is therefore, here, properly used, in its generic character, to include both. It is capable, in proper circumstances, of being used when either specific idea is designed to be ex- pressed ; and is, as a matter of fact, so used abundantl3\ This discussion, then, was as the Scriptures declare, most strictly " about purifying." REGENERATION. John 3 : 5. 'AjU^v afifiv Myu aoi, 'Eav [ijj Tig yevvT^dy t^ vSarog koI TLvevfinToc, ov dvvarai e'laeAdelv elg ttjv jiaaiAeiav tov Oeov, " Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Historical Fact. This passage of Scripture has, b^' the interpretation given to it, more profoundly moulded the conception of Christian ritual bap- tism than any or all other passages beside. At a very early period it was quoted as bearing on this rite, and very soon it was accepted as expounding its nature and value. Regeneration was supposed to be the result of the co-action of the water and the Holy Spirit. On this there was a very wide agreement perpetu- ated through more than a thousand years. There was but little attempt to make such a view accord with the teaching of other passages of Scripture ; or to make a ritual regeneration harmonize with their own oftentimes eminently spiritual views of truth and the way of salvation. Interpretation. It is not easy to make a brief statement of baptismal regenera- tion as the faith of these early Christians without doing injustice to their general faith and Christian life. The belief, that the soul is regenerated and sins remitted bi/ a RITE is so whoUj' alien from the entire spirit of tlie Christian system, that it seems impossible that the two could be held 356 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. together. And it is not too much to say, that they cannot, consist- ently, be so held. And they were not by these Christians. There was so much of truth and duty required before this rite could be received, and there was so much truth coincident with it, and subsequent to it, that the error as to the power of the rite was greatl}' lost in encompassing truth. To hold such a radical error in connection with the Christian S3'stem without constant prac- tical embarrassment and the necessity for adjustment, is no more possible, than to hold that the earth is the centre of the solar system without being compelled to call in aid to meet constantly emerging difficulties. Repentance and faith were required before baptism ; so that the}^ were scripturally regenerated before they were baptismally regenerated. And for sins committed after baptism repentance was necessary or the baptismal regeneration lost its efficacy. Truth under such circumstances largely nullified the error. Still, it is most true, that such an error cannot be held under any cir- cumstances without most pernicious results. Dr. Pusey. None can be supposed better qualified to give a just and clear statement as to what is "Baptismal regeneration " than Dr. Pusey. But he says (pp. 21, 39): "While this is easy in some respects, it is not easy in others. The difficulty is twofold: First, from its being a mystery; Secondly, from men being in these daj's inclined to lower that mystery." But these reasons are not adequate ex- planations of the facts. The true cause of the difficulty is in the essential impracticability of adjusting so serious an error with the obvious truths of the Christian system. Dr. Pusey adds: "Nico- demns asked, How can these things be? and most of our questions about Baptismal Regeneration are Nicodemus's questions. We know it in its author, God ; in its instrument, Baptism ; in its end, salvation, union with Christ, sonship to God, resurrection from the dead, and the life of the world to come." If this can be said, in any rational sense, to be the end secured by ritual baptism, then what need of preaching the gospel, or doing anything else, than to go through the world ritually bap- tizing men? Any answer to this question which brings in the necessity for the knowledge of the truth, and prayer, and repent- ance, and faith, is a pure abandonment of the position — " the DR. PUSEY. 357 instrument is Baptism ; and its end is union to Christ, and sal- vation." It is farther said : " One may then define regeneration to be that act whereby God takes us out of our relation to Adam, and makes us actual members of his Sou, and so His sons, and heirs of God through Christ. This is our new birth, an actual birth of God, of water, and of the Spirit, as we were actually born of our natural parents ; herein then also are we justified, or both ac- counted and made righteous, since we are made members of him who is alone righteous ; freed from past sin, whether original or actual ; have a new principle of life imparted to us, since having been made members of Clirist, we have a portion of his life, or of Him who is our life ; herein also we have the hope of the resurrec- tion and of immortality, because we have been made partakers of his resurrection, and have risen again with Him." "Our birth (when the direct means are spoken of) is attributed to the Baptism of water and of the Spirit, and to that onl3\ Had our new birth in one passage only been connected with Baptism and had it in five hundred passages been spoken of in connec- tion with other causes, still the truth in Holy Scripture is not less God's truth because contained in one passage only. . . . There is no hint that Regeneration can be obtained in any way but by Baptism, or if totally lost could be restored. ... A commence- ment of life in Christ after baptism is as little consonant with the general representations of Scripture, as a commencement of phys- ical life long after our natural birth is with the order of his provi- dence. . . . The Christian church uniformly, for fifteen centuries, interpreted these words (John 3:5) of Baptism; on the ground of this text alone they urged the necessity of Baptism ; upon it, mainly, they identified regeneration with Baptism. If, then, this be an error, would our Saviour have used words which (since water was already used in the Jews' and John's baptism) must inevitably and did lead his Church into error? One should think that the words 'of water' (upon which in his immediate converse with Nicodemus the Saviour does not dwell) were added with the very view that his Church should thence learn the truth, which she has transmitted — that ' regeneration ' is the gift of God, in this life, in Baptism only. The misuse of this text has ended in the scarcely disguised indiflerence or contempt of an ordinance of our Saviour." 358 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Analogy of Faith. This statement of the doctrine of " Baptismal Regeneration " places it in bold and Irreconcilable antagonism with the Analogy of the Christian Faith. A claim is made for water, a physical element, as an efficient cause in the remission of sins and in the spiritual regeneration of the sonl. This introduces a foreign element into the otherwise spiritual agencies of the Christian system. And in particular it antagonizes the principle laid down by the Saviour, in this connection, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ;" according to which principle, that which is born of (receives its existence from) any ph^'sical substance, must partake of the characteristics of that substance. But in water there is no quality which could originate the remission of sins or a spiritual regen- eration. And in accordance with this principle, John preached repentance with the promise of the remission of sins; the Saviour commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached among all people ; he himself preached, " Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish ;" Peter preached both reijentance and faith as the essential elements requisite for the remission of sins ; Paul preached " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved ;" and so, " Being born again of incorruptible seed, by the word of God ;" " I have begotten you through the Gospel ;" " Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth." These agencies exhibit dlversitj' with unity. They are spiritual and therefore capable of giving birth to spiritual results ; but they all differ in this respect from water, and therefore by principle of nature, as well as by the Analogy of Faith, it is excluded from the Christian system as causative of spiritual results. Baidism. Dr. Pusey very frequently uses " Baptism " as though it were in the passage. It is not there, and it cannot be put into it ; for the question at issue is as to its right to be there. What the Scriptures sa}^ directly of baptism forbids any sucli interpretation of "water" in this passage as is assigned to it under the claim that it represents ritual baptism. John assigns to water a very subordinate place in the ritual baptism into repentance, saying, " I indeed baptize you with water into repentance, but there BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. 359 cometli one after me mightier than I, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." He places a great gulf between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost. The disciples of Christ baptized symbolly with water, while he did not, but reserved to himself the real baptism by the Holy Spirit. When "the promise of the Spirit had been received," the Lord Jesus Christ baptized by the Spirit, only, at Pentecost, and not with an}^ commingling of loater. Cornelius was baptized by the Spirit, simply, by the Lord Jesus Christ ; and afterward by w^ater, simpl}-, by Peter. The Samaritans were baptized by Philip with water, simply, and afterward, through Peter, received special gift of the Holy Ghost. Simon Magus was baptized with water, and yet he remained un- regenerate, " his heart not right in the sight of God," and Re- pentance was held out to him as the only hope of the forgiveness of sin and the regeneration of his soul. The thief upon the cross was not baptized with water, but did repent, and did believe, and was made regenerate, so that he did " enter into the kingdom of God." Paul said that " he was not sent to baptize with water, but to preach the Gospel," which he never could have said if Baptism with water is the way to remit sin, to regenerate the soul, to ingraft into Christ, and to make sons of God, and not by the preaching of the Gospel. For Paul declares (Acts 26 : 15-18) that he was sent " To open the e3^es of the Gentiles, and to turn them from darkness tb light, and from the power of Satan to God, that the}^ might receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified through faith in Christ." The baptismal power ascribed to water in John 3 : 5, to remit sins and to regen- erate souls, must go down before truths and facts like these. Elements of Interpretation. The true interpretation of a passage is oftentimes hopelessly obscured by its dislocation from the time, and place, and person, and circumstance, out of which it sprang ; and an attempt to ad- just it with times, and places, and persons, and circumstances, which are foreign to its origin. The interpretation of this pas- sage has been thus embarrassed. Its deeply Jewish surroundings have been ignored ; and it has not only been brought into Chris- tianity and its colorings, but is made to utter the profoundest tone sounding throughout all her teachings and controlling doctrinal utterances. Let us, then, restore this passage to its divinely 360 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. established affiliations and see whether mnch, if not all, of em- barrassment in its interpretation will not be removed. 1. These words were spoken in the midst of Judaism. The entire life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ were within the Jewish economy. All of its rites and ceremonies, as divinelj^ ap- pointed, were in legitimate existence. These divinel}^ appointed rites had greatly suffered both from misinterpretation and by human additions ; through which their worship was made vain, " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." In these circumstances, while teachings that look beyond Judaism may be expected, yet it is most evidently true, that the Lord Jesus Christ is singularly reticent as to the future, and slow to lift the veil from the individual peculiarities of the coming dispensation. As might be anticipated, our Lord was largely engaged in meeting issues which were crowding around him, and in so doing establishing principles for all ages. It would then be most remarkable, if in the midst of Judaism, and in a private interview with a Jew steeped in Judaism, the Saviour had, at a bound, passed beyond this peculiar atmosphere, and announced a truth kept hidden from the foundation of the world, and which was to reign with regal supremacy and splendor in another dispensation, to wit: that WATER was the essential means chosen of God to remit sins, to regenerate the soul, to reconcile to Himself, and to introduce into life everlasting ! Such announcement, under such circum- stances, is not what we would look for. It sounds more like the projection of Jewish errors intensified to the last degree, into the new dispensation, rather than a correction of the disposition " to make clean the outside of the cup and the platter." 2. These words were spoken b}^ Him whom John liad forean- nounced as the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. John had, by his ministr^r, introduced an element in the most absolute antagonism with the perverted notions of the value of Jewish rites, as well as with the end for which others had, by superstition, been added to them. This element was a spiritual baptism purifying the soul by repentance, without which water washings, with their ceremo- nial purifications, were worthless. Such teaching could not but awaken attention, beget discussion, and induce opposition. There was a widespread and profound movement among the people ; there was " a discussion between the disciples of John and the Jews about purifying ;" there was a rejection of his spiritual bap- tism and an adherence to their water washings by many, and there BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. 361 was a rejection by John, of others who came without apprehend- ing the true nature of this spiritual baptism, and in their old spirit sought to add another water washing to their already extended list. This standard of spiritual baptism, accompanied and illustrated by symbol water, was lifted up by John in antagonism to the popular water washings, and as the true exposition of those puri- fying rites established in the Jewish economy. And this was done with the declared design to prepare the way for the Coming One whose baptism was to be exclusively by the Holy Spirit, to the rejection not only of human water washings (which effected nothing, but the increase of sin) but, also, of Jewish w^ater rites which did, by divine appointment, effect ceremonial purification ; for the water under the new dispensation was no longer to effect a purification of any kind, but merely to be used as a symbol of that purification effected by a crucified and atoning Redeemer through the Holy Spirit. And now this divine Baptizer, who was foretold and whose coming has been thus prepared, has come, and the text introduces us into his presence, and into that of one other, who is his sole auditor. Who that auditor is, it is impor- tant for us to know. 3. These words of the Baptizer by the Holy Ghost are spoken to a Jew, to a Ruler of the Jews, to a Teacher of the Jews, to a Pharisee of the Jews, to a Jew, therefore, of the intensest type. There is every probability that this Jew had rejected the spiritual baptism of John, as subordinating Jewish rites and teaching that they were of no essential spiritual value. This is probable, be- cause he was not merely a Jew, and a Ruler, and a Teacher, but because he was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were "the straitest sect " of the Jewish religion (Acts 26 : 5) ; they were characterized by the Lord Jesus Christ, himself (Matt. 23:25), as "making clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, while within they were full of extortion and excess ;" he commanded them (v. 26), "to cleanse j^r.s^ that which is within the cup and plattei*, that the outside of them may be clean also." It is certain, that the Pharisees, as a class, did reject this spiritual baptism, of John (Luke 7 : 30) — "The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of John." It is morally certain, that this Jew had not accepted the teaching of John because of adherence to misunderstood divinely appointed Jewish rites, or because of the acceptance of such as had been humanly estab- 362 CHRIsflC BAPTISM. lished ; possibly for both reasons. What, now, to such a Jew would be the teaching of the Lord Jesns Christ ? Would he ignore tliat man's state of mind ? Would he repudiate the teach- ing of John which had prepared the way for his own coming as the Great and exclusively spiritual Baptizer? Would he point to a future dispensation, announcing a truth without an}^ practical bearing upon the case of the earnest inquirer before Him ? Do not such questions answer themselves ? Suppose it to be true, that under Christianity water was to be the means for washing awa}' sin and regenerating the soul, what is that to Nicodemus? He is not under Christianity, nor within the reach of such wonder- working water. It is an anachronism to apply such water of Christianity to the case of this Jew. He wants knowledge for his own case. He wants salvation for his own soul. He wants a passage-way which he can tread and "enter the kingdom of God." If this " water " be that water which is to be impregnated with singular virtues under Christianity, then, it is not the water for the Jew Nicodemus. The exigency of the case requires the dis- missal of any such aspect attributed to this water. Is there a reference to "the water" as used by John? There cannot be : 1. Because those who attach such power to water under Christianity are earnest in their denial of it to the water used by John ; 2. Because no such power belonged, in fact, to the water of the baptism of John. He repudiates it himself. He denies to it any spiritual power. He contrasts it with the spiritual baptism of his coming Ijord. It is a moral impossibility that the Lord Jesus Christ could associate this water with the divine Spirit, as necessary to salvation. There remains for consideration but one other religious use of water to which the language of the Saviour could refer, — the divinely appointed Jewish use. To this every consideration points as alone meeting the de- mands of the case. Nicodemus lived under the Jewish rites with the full obligation to observe them. He did in fact so ob- serve them. He refused to accept John's spiritual teaching which threw so deep a shadow over the rites he had vahied. But his conscience was not at rest'; and no multiplicity of his water washings had brought to him peace. In this state of mind he comes for light to Jesus. And Jesus meets him with the evi- dence that his case is all known to him by the declaration, that he " must be born again," and born again not only by the use BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. 363 of water (which he acknowledged, but which had power only to renew externally and ceremonially, without reaching to the con- science as stated, Heb, 9:9-14, of "divers washings") but by the Spirit; which he did not acknowledge, or which was so over- laid by "water" as to be inoperative, and therefore had led to the rejection of John's baptism, not as it was a symbol baptism with water, but as it was a real spiritual baptism by repentance. The Saviour knowing all hearts, recognizes the mind of Nico- demus resting on "the water of purification" in Judaism, and passes no condemnation on it ; but he accepts it at its true value, a necessary Jewish observance to enter the kingdom of God, and adds : however right and valuable and necessarj^ tliis may be to you, there is another necessity^ more absolute^ which you have re- jected in rejecting the baptism of John — the iSd-rctr/j.a iisravolaq eiq a■/] tmn is uncertain. It can be joined only with Xovrpov too urJaro-:. It is in sense equiva- lent to Iv lheo;j.aTt, intimating that baptism is no mere bath, but a bath in the word, i. e., one by which man is born again of water and the Spirit. ^^'P-7,>m is here, as in Ileb. 1 : .'5, 11:3, a designation of the Divine power and efficacy, in general, which, from its nature, must be a spiritual one. But in Christianity the Spirit manifests itself only in the Word of Truth, which is in Christ. "As Christ purifies and cleanseth the Church, so likewise a faithful iiusband wishes to deliver his wife from every moral stain." WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD. 371 Ellicott, in loco : " That he might sanctify it. Sanctification of the Church attendant on the remission of sins in baptism, Sanctification and purification are dependent on the atoning death of Christ. " Having purified it. More naturally antecedent to dpaffrj. but contemporaneous act tenable on grammatical grounds. Bij the laver of the water. The reference to baptism is clear and distinct, and the meaning of Xourpov indisputable, as instrumental object. " la the word. There is great difficulty in determining the exact meaning and grammatical connection of these words. The meaning is prol)ably the Gospel ; the word of God preached and taught before baptism. The connection is probably with the whole expression., xa6. kourp. mo ud. According to this view ^v pTj/xan has neither a purel}' instrumental, nor, certainly, a simple modal force, but specifies the necessary' accompaniment., that in which the bap- tismal purification is vouchsafed and without which it is not granted. That he might present. As in 2 Cor. 11:2, the presen- tation of the bride to the bridegroom ; Christ permits neither at- tendants nor paranymphs to present the Bride : He alone presents, He receives," Carson, p. 212: "The bath of baptism is onl}'^ the figure of that which is. done by the word. It is expressly said that the washing of water is by the word. Tlie word is the means by whicli the believer is washed in the blood of Christ. The believer is washed by the word, even although, through ignorance or want of opportunity, he has never been washed in water." Unsatisfactory. None of these views, so far as they make the water of ritual baptism a cause of spiritual purification or place it, in any sense, in living relation with it, are satisfactory. The exposition of Calvin is wisely discriminating. That view which makes ritual baptism a pure opus operatum^ cleansing from sin and regenerating the soul, is satisfactory in so far as its sentiment is plainl}'^ stated and its boundaries are sharply defined ; but it cannot be received as a satisfactor}' exposition of any passage of Scripture, whose general scope and particular statements it contradicts. That view which makes ritual baptism a cause, but not the sole and direct cause, of spiritual purification, does not afford the satisfac- tion of being either definite or intelligible. 372 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. There is a want of accord among its friends as to the co-union of the physical and spiritual element, as well as to the spiritual value of their joint operation. The doctrine is defective as not covering such cases as receive the rite confessedly without spirit- ual benefit, and such other cases as confessedly receive full spiritual benefit without receiving the rite. It also antagonizes that very teaching of the Saviour out of which it claims to grow, namely, " that which is born of the flesh is Jiesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The principle pervading this statement is, " Like begets like ;" a principle incorporated in Creation at the beginning and maintained until now. Phyaical agencies beget kindred physical results ; and Spiritual agencies beget kindred spiritual results. A miracle only can educe spirit- ual results from physical causes. The Saviour's words establish instead of announcing the overthrow of this law. But the friends of this doctrine (ie!c^are it to he a miracle: " Baptism is so much the more extolled in that it was the end of so man}' miracles ; and the daily miracle which he ivorketh in the Baptismal fountain of our Christian Church receives the more glory, in that the first opening of that ' fountain for sin and uncleanness ' was so solemnized; and the dail}^ gift 'of the new birth of the water and the Spirit' in our Gentile church is greater than that miracu- lous shedding of the Holy Ghost which ushered it in and secured it to us " (Dr. Pusey, Holy Baptism, p. 180 Others raa}^ reject the miracle character of this co-action of water and the Spirit ; but the}* never have made their views in- telligible, self-consistent, accordant with facts, or harmonious with the Scriptures. Water regeneration is nothing or it is a miracle. That view which would make a direct reference to the water of the rite as a " sign " of the higher and sole purification wrought by the Holy Spirit, is in itself possible ; but whether there would be any such reference as that, in this passage, to a symbol which does not effect any purification (not physical any inox'e than spirit- ual) is very questionable. Suggestion. All interpreters agree that the purification Iiinges on iv prj/mrt. Tliere is a very general agreement in placing this phrase in close rehil ion with xaOufjiffa^ hiozpw zoo udaroi;. There is, also, an ex- preysion of decided einbarrassmeut in determining the precise character of this relation. It may be that the embarrassment in WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD. 373 acljustiug the relation between these phrases arises from tlie char- acter which is attributed to the former, as representing the water of ritual baptism and purification by it. The phrase " washing of water," by its own force, denotes a washing which is effected by water. There is no agency in nature which can effect a more perfect washing of an unclean object. The " washing of water " is capable of use to express the perfect- ness of the cleansing etfected by any other agency differing in nature from water, yet purifying in its influence. That is to say, the loashing which is effected by water becomes the common and supreme standard among men for purity. Thus Job (9 : 30) says : Snow-water washing will make " never so clean," and stand any test of purity, except that of the pjureness of God. Here moral purity, the result of holy living, is likened to that purity of hands which is the result of snow-water washing. The phrase " having cleansed or cleansing by the washing of WATER " may express either the cleansing in fact by water, or it may refer to water-cleansing simply as the basis of a comparison with some other cleansing effected by an agency diverse from water, in order to express the completeness of its power to cleanse. Is not this its use in the passage before us ? And is not the relation of iv f^yj/mzi to this phrase (as declaring the diverse cleans- ing agenc}^) made clear? The Lord Jesus Christ will sanctify his church (his Bride), cleansing it (as) with the washing of water by the ivord through which the Holy Spirit cleanses the souls of his redeemed. By such reference to the perfect cleansing by water physically, the perfect cleansing " by the word " spiritually is exhibited with both strength and beauty. And the basis of such reference (the physically cleansing power of water) is pre- cisely the same as that of the symbol use of water in baptism ; but inasmuch as the water in baptism does not cleanse in fact, it cannot be the basis of the reference here. I know of no reason from the phraseology which precludes such interpretation. It is in the fullest harmony with tlie teaching of Scripture in general, and with the tenor of this passage in particular. It relieves of a world of embarrassment which ever has and must gather around any interpretation which takes ritual baptism as its exponent. If any should wish for more special regard to be had to the article before "water," it maybe regarded as indicating the water used in Bridal washing, to which, by general admission, reference is made. " The water " furnished for such purpose would (like 374 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. the " snow-water " of Job) be so pure as to render the object washed " never so clean." The sentiment of the passage is — The Lord Jesus Christ in preparing the Church for presentation to Himself, " as a Bride adorned for her Husband," will cleanse it from all moral impurity by his word and Spirit, as perfectly as any object can be cleansed from physical impurity by the washing of water, so that the Church can say with David (Ps. 51 : 7), " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." Thus washed it will be " a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or au}^ sucli thing ; but holy and without blemish." A quite parallel passage may be found in Ezek. 16:8, . . . "I sware unto thee and entered into covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becaniest mine. Then washed I thee with water (^llou<7d(7£ h udarc)^ and cleansed (aTrinXuva) thee from thy blood, and anointed thee with oil (h iXaiw)^ and I clothed thee with broidered work ; I decked thee also with ornaments ; . . . thy beauty was perfect through my comeliness^ which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God." Here " washing with water " is used not to express a thing done by God ; but a thing practiced by men is made the basis to illustrate a kindred result effected by God, whereb}^ he puts " his own comeliness," in spotless purit\f, upon his Church. The " washing," and the " broidered work," and the " ornaments," were alike the imparted divine " comeli- ness." This washing (Xoow) is no more represented as being in the water, than is the anointing as being in the oil. There is no cleansing by water-washing in fact, any more than there is an anointing with oil ; but these things constitute a?i allusive basis to expound kindred things accomplished by God through other agencies. The Church is sanctified by the Wm-d, and thereby purified as perfectly as the washing by water (the most perfect of all purify- ing physical agencies) can purify the oVjject washed by it. This appears to be a just paraphrase of the passage. There is no im- mediate reference to ritual baptism. The point of junction be- tween this passage and ritual baptism is a common basis in the nature of water (pureness) and in the effect of water-washing (puj'ity). Out of these characteristics the use of water in ritual baptism and the language of this passage are equally and inde- pendently developed. VARIOUS VIEWS. 375 THE WASHING OF REGENERATION. , Titus 3 : 5. Kara rbv avrov k/ieov iauaev y/id^^ Sea Aovrpov TraTi.fyyeveaiaq koX avanaiviiaeuq TLvevfiaTog 'Ayiov. " God our Saviour . . . according to his mercy saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Various Views. Dr. Pusey, p. 48 : " The washing of regeneration ayid renewing of the Holy Ghost, i. e., a Baptizing accompanied by, or couvey- ixig a reproduction, a second birth, a restoration of our decayed nature, by the new and fresh life, imparted by the Hol}^ Ghost. The Apostle has been directed both to limit the imparting of the inward grace, by the mention of the outward washing, and to raise our conceptions of the greatness of this second birth, by the addition of the spiritual grace. The gift, moreover, is the gift of God in and by Baptism; everything but God's mere}' is excluded — 'not by works of righteousness which we have done ' — they only who believe will come to the washing of regeneration ; yet not belief alone, but ' God, according to his mercy, saves them by the washing of regeneration ;' by faith are we saved, not b}'' works ; and by Baptism we are saved, not b\^ faith only ; for so God hath said ; not the necessity of preparation, but its effl- cienc}' in itself is excluded ; baptism comes neither as ' grace of congruity,' nor as an outward seal of benefits before conveyed; we are saved neither by faith onl^^, nor by Baptism only ; but faith bringing us to Baptism, and ' by Baptism God saves us.' They are the words of God himself. As our Lord said negatively, without the birth of water and the Spirit, or Baptism, man ' could not see the kingdom of God,' so St. Paul, that 'by it we are saved ; ' saved out of the world, and brought into the ark, if we but abide there and become not reprobates." Dr. Pusey quotes in confirmation the ancient Liturgies, among others the following: " Sanctif}^ this water and this oil, that thej^ may be a bath of regeneration (Amen) to eternal life (Amen) ; for a clothing of immortality (Amen), for the adoption of sons (Amen), for the renovation of the Hol}^ Spirit (Amen), etc. Grant to it power to become life-giving water (Amen), sanctify- 376 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. ing water (Amen), water cleansing sin (Amen), water of the bath of regeneration (Amen), water of the adoption of sons (Amen), ete." (p. 51). Bloompield, 171 loco: Through the washing of regeneration. " All the most enlightened Interpreters have been long agreed that the opinion invariably supported b}^ early Fathers is the true one, namel}^ that baptismal regeneration is here meant. ... I will only add that the disputes upon baptismal and moral regen- eration have too often degenerated into logomachies ; whereas, if the disputants would take care to define tlie terms they emplo}'^, and have the patience to understand each other, the}' would be found to differ far less than they seem to do. [laXtyyeveaiac; some- times, in ancient writers, means moral reformation.'''' Bengel, in loco: " Two things are mentioned : the washing of regeneration^ which is a periphrasis for baptism into Christ ; and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This regeneration and renewing takes away all the death and the old state, under which we so wretchedly lay, and which is described, v. 3 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 17." Calvin, in loco : He hath saved us. " He speaks of faith, and shows that we have already obtained salvation, according to that saying — ' He that beliveth in the Son of God hath passed from death unto life.' '•''By the washing of regeneration. This alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage ex- pounded as relating to baptism ; not that salvation is contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism seals to us the salvation obtained by Christ. Since a part of revelation consists in ])aptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith, Paul properly makes mention of it. The strain of the passage runs thus : God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son. " And of the renewing of the Holij Spirit. Though he men- tioned the sign, that he might exhibit to our view the grace of God, yet, that we may not fix our whole attention on the sign, he immediately sends us to the Spirit, that we may know that we are washed by his power, and not by water. Paul, while he speaks directly of the Spirit, at the same time alludes to baptism. It is therefore the Spirit of God who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures; but because his grace is invisible and hidden a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism. AouTpov. 377 " Through Jesus Christ. It is be alone through whom we are made partakers of the Spirit. The Spirit of regeneration is be- stowed on none but those who are the members of Christ." Ellicott, in loco : " By means of the laver of regeneration. This is the causa medians of the saving grace of Christ; it is a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Less than this cannot be said b}^ any candid Interpreter. The genitive nah/ys'^sTuxq apparently mai'ks the attribute or in- separable accompaniments of the hiurpdv, the possessive genitive. " And renewing of the Holy Spirit, i. e., by the Hol}^ Spirit, the second genitive being that of the agent. The construction of the first genitive a^ay.aivwfTsioq is somewhat doubtful. It may be re- garded as dependent on 8uj. or on kuurpou. The latter seems most simple and satisfactor3^ The exact genitival relation Ttahyye'^sffiaq and dyay.atvdi(T£wi; cannot be very certainly or very confidentl}- de- fined. The genitive is most probably an obscured genitive of the content., representing that which the luurpdv involves, comprises, brings with it, and of which it is the ordinary and appointed ex- ternal vehicle : compare Mark 1 : 4, i^a.nriffjxa jxeravoia':., which, grammatically considered, is somewhat similar." " Which (Holy Spirit) he poured out. The special reference is not to the Pentecostal effusion, nor to the communication to the church at large, but, as the tense and context seem rather to imply, to individuals in baptism. The next clause points out through whose mediation this eff'usion is bestowed." Dr. Carson, p. 211 : " Here baptism is called the bath or laver of regeneration. In the figui-e it is the place of birth. The bap- tized person is represented as born in the ordinance, and is sup- posed to be alread}^ born, or renewed by the Spirit. . . . None are represented in Scripture as born again, except through the belief of the truth. 'Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever' (1 Peter 1 : 23)." Aourpo'^. Bishop Ellicott thinks that the meaning of Xourpov as the in- strumental object, the containing vessel, is not disproved by any cases of usage yet adduced. This is certain, that hiur^jp and not Xourpov is the favorite word used by the Septuagint and early Christian writers, to express the containing vessel. 378 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Josepliiis (de Bel. VII, 6, 3) uses hiurpuv not to express "the containing vessel," but the water itself, to be used for bathing, — " hot and cold water mixed make a very pleasant (Xnurpo'^) bath." President Beecher, p. 208, adduces evidence of the like char- acter from Pori)hyry (in libel, de antro Nympharum) in which water brought from springs in a vessel carried by a boy, was used for purification, and was called Xou-pov^ or Xnurpa \>oii.t(jia<;.'' The case is that of the prtetor Ariantheus, converted b3' his wife, and also baptized by her on his djiug hed." This usage seems to exclude not only " the containing vessel," but, as well, the water itself (as a simple bath), and to reach over to the effect pro- duced by the use; a loashitTg (purification) of regeneration. The containing vessel has disappeared ; the form of a bath has equally disap[>eared ; and the effect in the soul, as Basil believed (induced by sprinkling or pouring), only remains. A ceremonial sprinkling or pouring will effect a complete ceremonial washing = purifica- tion. Basil interpreted this text as a spiritual and not as a mere ritual water washing. In accordance with this usage is that in Sirach 34 : 30, " Baptized (= purified) from a dead body and touching it again, what is he profited by (XourpiL) his cleansing." Also, Clem. Alex., "Be pure not by washing (Xourpw) but by thinking (f^w) (I, 1352)." This evidence appears to be conclu- sive against the limitation of hmrpth to " the containing vessel." Cremer (Xonm^ Xnuzpdv) says, the verb and noun arc used for re- ligious washings, purifications ; quoting Soph. Ant., 1186 XMUfravrsi; 'ayvd'^ Xdurpov washing a pure washing. The idea of washing (expressed by Xo'xv and other verbs) in a purely spiritual sense, in religious applications, is common in the Scriptures: Ps. 26:6: "I will wash (vi4>()iiai) my hands in in- nocencey This is a different washing from that of Pilate when "he washed his hands in ivater.''^ Ps. 51 : 2: "Wash (rdi>vo\') me thoroughly from mine iniquity." Iniquities are not washed away AnurpSv. 879 by water. Is. 1 : 16 : " Wash 3'ou {kohaaaOe) ; make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes ; cease to do evil; learn to do well; . . . though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Washing in " snow-water " will not accomplish such cleansing. Is. 4 : 4 : " When the Lord shall have washed away {ly.nluvel) the filth of the daughters of Zion . . . by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." "Judg- ment " and '" burning " do not wash physically. Acts 22 : 16 : " Wash away (^anoXovaat) thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord." Prayer will wash away sin ; umfer will not. 1 Cor. 6:11: " But ye are washed {a-ehwaaffOs)^ but ye are sancti- fied, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." The onl}^ thing we need to be washed from, under Christianity, is sin ; and the only means by which this can be done, is the blood of the Lord Jesus ; and the only Agent who can so wash, is " the Spirit of our God." Rev. 1:5: " Unto him that loved us and washed us {Xouffovri) from our sins by his blood." This is not water washing. Rev. 1 : 14: "And have washed (cTrAuvav) their robes and made them white by the blood of the Lamb ;" " Fine linen is the righteousness of Saints" (Rev. 19: 8); and the righteousness of Saints is Jesus, " the Lord our righteousness ;" his people " put Him on " and are arrayed in robes made white by the blood of the Lamb. This is not water washing. With such abounding use of "washing," wholly removed from the sphere of physical agencies and physical results, there is surely nothing to constrain us (if there be anything to warrant us) in finding physical elements in the washing spoken of in the passage under consideration. There are none. The Genitive. Bishop Ellicott thinks that there are special diflSculties in de- termining the character of the genitives -KaXiYYeverriac^ avay.at'^wiyswq^ but prefers their being connected together and placed in common relation with hturpoh^ and expository of it. If this be done would it not be proper to make the entire phrase, the washing and its characteristics, directly dependent upon, Ihsufj.aTo^ "Ayiou ? The sentiment being — Salvation through the washing effected by the Holy Ghost, the distinguishing features of which are — a re- generate nature and a renewed mind = the cleansed condition 380 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of the soul. If this phrase be broken, and considered in two dis- tinct yet intimately related parts, must not -ahyyevzaia^ and TIvso/JMroq "Ayioo be made the governing words, and the sentiment be, — He saved us by a regenerative washing and a Divine reno- vation ? We are saved by a washing such as regeneration effects, and a renovation such as the Holy Ghost effects. The regenera- tion being no less the work of the Holy Ghost than the renova- tion ; just as we are " washed " from sm, and " sanctified " and "justified," all "by the Spirit of our God ;" and just as we are "saved by the Spirit through antitype baptism" (which is his work) and not through water, by which "the filth of the flesh " only, can be put away. This very eminent Commentator also thinks, that ftd-!zriTui) washed by their own blood. And Origen speaks of being washed (hti) by our own blood. Calvin (Harm. Pent., p. 186) truly says: "The washing of the hands and feet denoted that all partn of the body were infected with uncleanness, and it is ver}'^ suitable to say, by synecdoche, that all impurit^^ is purged away by the washing of the hands and feet.'''' He also has the fullest vindication for sa)'- ing (p. 210) "Moses, before he consecrates the priests, washes them hy the sprinkling of water." 3. As this /lear^sprinkling and &ocZ(/-washing expresses an in- ternal and external purification, as comprising a complete puri- fication (based on Jewish phraseology and made applicable to Christian truth), it throws light on other Scripture less clear. It confirms the interpretation given of the language addressed to the Jew, Nicodemus, — " born of ivater and of the Sjnrit^^^ as expressing the necessity for external and internal = complete purification. It also illustrates and vindicates that broader Scriptural use of " washing " (separated from the ifiere physical element) to which we have had occasion to refer, denoting spirit- ual cleansing. These passages— John 3 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5 : 26 ; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22 — are the principal passages which are sup- posed to allude to ritual baptism and to teach : 1. That water, a physical element, is divinely appointed and is essential to wash away sin and to regenerate the soul; 2. That the terms used {kooLD. hiuTfiov) teach, that the mode of using this ritual water is by covering the bod}^ in the water by dipping; which is so essen- tial that none of God's redeemed ones failing to observe such mode can rightly receive the Sacraments or constitute a chui-ch of the Lord Jesus Christ. If these texts be interpreted in sub- jection to Patristic sentiment and practice, much can be said in appai'ent favor of both these views ; but if the interpretation be made by a just exegesis, under the teaching and usage of Holy Scripture, then, neither view will find the least support. CHRISTIC BAPTISM: THE BAPTISM OF THE COMMISSION— WHAT IS IT? ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO THE COMMISSION. John 20 : 21-23. " Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent [cLTTecTalKEv) me, even so send I you. "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost : " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose- soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The Apostolical Commission. Alford (in loco) : " He confirms and grounds their Apostleship on the present glorification of himself, whose Apostleship (Heb. 3:1) on earth was now ended, but was to be continued by this sending forth of them." To whatever immediate occasion or date these words may be assigned, they do unquestionably contain the Apostolical Com- mission, together with a statement of some of the endowments and powers entering into it. The word iSar^riZu) does not appear ; but its very absence may be more instructive than its presence. The occasion and the time when these words were spoken may have been other than such as is indicated by the relations in which they stand recorded. There is no necessary connection from the form or the substance of vv. 19, 20, with the matter in vv. 21-23. The close of v. 20 is a natural close to the transaction to which it refers ; and the repetition, "Peace be unto you," in v. 21, is unnatural as con- sidered in relation to an immediately preceding utterance (v. 19) of like character. As John makes no other mention of the Commission, it is the more probable that this passage does either directly declare it or substantially embrace its elements. There is no uniformity of words among the Evangelists in recording the final Commission 25 ( 386 ) 386 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. of the Apostles, although there is an agreement as to the essen- tials which enter into it. 1. It is easy to see the harmony between this " Peace be unto you," and the " Lo ! I am with you " of Matthew ; 2. In tlie " as m}^ Father hath sent me, even so send I you," there is more than mission and authority expressed ; there is included, as well, the end of that mission and its bearing, through the Lord Jesus Christ, on the Father, and the Godhead represented by the Father, with whom this mission and its end originated. It stands related therefore to that other statement of Matthew, that those who are discipled to the Lord Jesus Christ are to be " baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of tiie Hoi}'- Ghost;" 3. "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," whether designed to express the bestowal of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, or to announce the first fruits and pledge of that " promise of the Father," is in either case the bestowal of the pre-eminently essen- tial requisite to the successful execution of the Commission; 4. "Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained" is in equal har- mony with Luke's "preach repentance and remission of sins, in his name, among all nations," and Mark's "Preach the gospel; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned." These ai'e the elements in the Commission as stated b}'^ John. They accord with the like records of the other Evangelists. THE PREACHING OF THE COMMISSION. Luke 24 : 44-50. " And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, whih' T was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were writr ton in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. " Then opened he their understanding, that tliey might understand the Scriptures, " And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Clirist to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: " And that repentance iind remission of sins shoukl be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. THE COMMISSION. 387 " And ye are witnesses of these things. " And behold I send [k^ajvoarDJiu) the promise of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. " And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them." Stier. Stier, YIII, Luke 24 : 44-49: "Luke gives us a corapendious selection of our Lord's words before his ascension, speaking further of it in the Acts of the Apostles. In this epitomizing the whe,n and the ivhere are lost sight of. This not being well under- stood by critics and expositors many particulars are misarranged. Although verse 44 appears to be a continuation of verse 43, yet verse 50 shows us the impossibility of so reading it. It involves too great a hiatus in the record, if we make the ' led them out ' follow immediately on the first evening. We must reject the reading of v. 44 as in strict historical connection. Lange would connect v. 44 with the preceding, and make v. 45 the beginning of what extends through the Forty days. But v. 46 seems to be connected with v. 44 in the strictest manner. The more common division made to begin at v. 49 is altogether forced ; for v. 49 continues the discourse and intimates a strict connection. '•'• Schleiermacher : 'v. 44 begins a summary postscript, which is independent of time and place, and reports only that which was essential in the conversations of the Redeemer. It appends a very summary notice of the departure and ascension of Christ.' '"'' Grotius ; v. 44: 'The sum of the discourses follows, which occurred during the Forty days.' " Ehrard decides also for such a resume, and asks, whether on this evening there had been time to expound the Scriptures, and — to go out to Bethany. " When and where did He thus speak ? Bengel thinks that the whole, including v. 44, was spoken on the day of the ascension. But this would assign too late a period for the opening of the Scriptures to the disciples. Lange refers v. 45 seq. to the Ap- pearance on the mountain in Galilee ; and as spoken explana- torily between vv. 18, 19, of Matt. 28. But we must not consent to separate these verses." 388 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. The Elements of Harmony. Luke (like John) makes no use of the word /SaTrrc'Cw in speaking of the Commission. Whether this fact necessitates the omission of any essential feature in the great work committed to the Apos- tles, we shall be able to determine better after an examination of the use of it as exhibited in the records of Mark and Matthew. The points of accord between this Summary of Luke and that of the other Evangelists as to the Commission is very clear: L Luke represents the Lord Jesus Christ as teaching that his atoning death and triumphant resurrection is the fulfilment of a Divine purpose incorporated in all Scripture — Moses, Prophets, and Psalms, whereby a scheme of redemption for a guilty world might be secured. This truth, less fully developed, is the clear underlying basis of the Commission as stated by Matthew and Mark. 2. Luke is in literal accord with Matthew as to the field covered by the Commission — "all the nations," and differs from Mark — " all the world," only in the lack of pure literalit}^ 3. The subject-matter of the Commission as stated by Luke is, " the preaching of repentance and remission of sins in His name ;" which same duty is condensed by Matthew into the one word, lj.aOr)reutism by faith.''' The Greek Testament is quite adequate to furnish, within itself, evidence that Mark declares not two, but one only condition of salvation ; yet this evidence is, as uniquely as powerfully, sus- tained l)y the Syriac. Dr. Murdock labors under a misconception when he supposes that the baptism of Mark must be, as that of Matthew, "in (into) SALVATION BY BAPTISM — WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 401 the name of the Holy Trinitj'." There is as much, indeed much more, difference between the baptism eiq Xpcardv and the baptism elq TO ovotia too TlaTpbc;^ ... as there is between the baptism ei^ IJSTdvoiav and tlie baptism elq atpzaiv afrnpTiw^j. There is the greatest diversity as to the immediate and independent character of a baptism into repentance and a baptism into the remission op SINS ; and 3^et there is the greatest unity in their common and equal relation to salvation. So, considered independently, there is the greatest diversity between a baptism into Christ, the in- carnate and crucified Redeemer, and a baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the revealed Triune God, as such, neither incarnate nor crucified. But in the scheme of redemption this diversitj^, in particular, embraces an ultimate unity; the baptism of the guilty in^o Christ being ante- cedent and in order to the baptism of the " washed by the blood of the Lamb " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But more of this when we consider the lan- guage of Matthew. Finally: The interpretation which makes this baptism a ritual ordinance is full of embarrassment. (1.) It gives countenance to the Romish doctrine that ritual baptism is essential to salvation ; (2.) To the doctrine, held outside of the Romish church, that if this rite is not absolutely and solel}^ necessary and adequate to salvation, it only comes short of such character ; (.3.) To the doc- trine that the rite does and must, of itself, effect some result accompanying salvation ; (4.) To the doctrine of that class of Baptists who believe that the rite constitutes a condition of sal- vation in the same sense as Repentance and Faith, and especially is necessary in order to the remission of sins; (5.) To the doctrine of that class of Baptists who shrink from saying that a rite is essential to salvation, yet hold up {in terrorem) a dipping into water as essential to a bajjtisni; (6.) It constrains those vvho do not believe that the rite is a condition of salvation, nor, in itself, efficient for spiritual good, but only a ritual symbolization bj" water of the real work of the Holy Ghost in the soul, to assume the task of explaining away what is the apparent and natural interpretation on the admission that the baptism spoken of is a ritual ordinance. On the other hand, under the interpretation that the baptism is into Christ by faith, the work of the Holy Ghost, every embarrassment disappears, and the doctrine is brought into direct and full harmony with the whole scope of Scripture teaching. 26 402 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. DaTTTt^o) used elliptically. How groundless is the idea, that fia7:ri!^w used elliptically or absolutel}' requires the introduction of water to expound the bap- tism will be manifest by glancing at a few cases of such usage taken from Classical writers. " 'Eyu) pou<; l3a-Ti!^6fj.evov to ij.tipdy.iov^ I perceiving that the youth was baptized ;" Plato Eiithydernus, c. vii. A baptism hy sophis- tical questions (into mental bewilderment). There is no water. " ^ E/.7zXrie^ Stuns the Soul, falling suddenly upon it, and baptizes it;" Achilles Tat., I, 3. A baptism by profound emotion {into mental apathy). Here is no place for water. " J{aTa,3a7LTCffd7J(TeTac p.oi to ^y^v [xyj [:Ski~()VTi D-oxipav, My life will be baptized, not seeing Glycera; " Alciphr., Epis. II, 3. A baptism hy varied engagements {into death). There is no water. ^^"TffTspov IfianTcaav ttjv noXtv, Afterward they baptized the city ;" Josephus, Jew. War, lY, 3. A baptism by want of food (into famine). Water can render no aid here. " '0 [ianTt'l.oiisvov iupojv tov aOhov Kijj.wva, Who found the miserable Cimon baptized;" Libanius, Ejnst. 962. A baptism by sorrow {into wretchedness). Water can find no place here. '''■"EtSdTZTKTs oXyjv i/.el Trfy'Aaiav, He baptized there all Asia;" Eimerius, XV, 3. A baptism by battle {into profound disaster). Water is not needed even in this naval-battle baptism. ^'-'OXiyirj w ki3a-zi%tTo, The number left being small were bap- tized ; " Libanius, Emp. Jul., c. 71. This was by excessive duties {into FAILURE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT). Water brings no help. " M-Tj-u} i3zfSaTiTi(TiJ.i'M)v, Not yet baptized ; " Plutarch Banq., Ill, 8. A baptism by wine {iyito drunkenness). Water will not do. It is uunecessar}'^ to multiply cases. They prove two things: 1. Whenever a baptism is stated without an explanatory' adjunct, there is no, of course, calling on water to fill the deficiency ; 2. Faith is as competent an agency for baptizing the soul into Christ, as any agenc}', for an}' baptism, ever used by Jew or Greek. The evidence for a clear and harmonious scriptural interpreta- tion of this passage seems to be complete. INTO THE NAME. 403 THAT BAPTISM WHICH IS ULTIMATE AND ETERNAL INTO THE NAME OF THE ONLY LIVING AND TRUE GOD, FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. Matthew 28 : 19, 20. HopevdevTEg ovv iJ.a6r]TEVGaTe irdvra to. IdvT], paTt-'il^ovTeg avrovg eiq to ovofia rov Ilarpof, Kal tov Tlov, nal tov 'Ajlov HvevfjaroQ, AiSaaKovTSQ avToiig Tj]pelv Tvavra baa ivETEiTiafirjv v/xtv. Kai l6ov, eyu /led' v/xuv El/ill naaaq rag r/fiepag Eug rfjg cvvrE\Eiag tov aluvng, 'A/irjv. " Go ye therefore, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." The Redeemed reconciled and made subject to the Triune God. The passage now about to be considered contains the last words on earth of " God manifest in the flesh," who came into our world "to fulfil all righteousness" by obedience to the Law and by endurance of the penalty of the Law, in order to redeem his" people from all evil (subduing their eninity, removing their guilty renewing them in the divine image, making them willingly subject to the living and true God), and so, " making peace." No passage of Scripture has a higher value than this. No passage of Scripture is richer in instruc^on or has a deeper reach into eternit^^ And no passage of Scripture so develops in simple grandeur the scheme of redemption as embracing all the world, through all the ages, and terminating, where it begun, in the one living and true God. Its marvellous comprehension not only em- braces the redemptive scenes of earth, but encircles the enthroned Redeemer at the right hand of the Father where he reigns pos- sessed of " all power in heaven and on earth " as Head over all things to the Church, even until all enemies being subdued, he ■shall give back this Messiah gift, and "God — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"—" shall be all in all." 404 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. A passage of such unspeakable importance might be supposed to have an interpretation so clear and precise as to meet with universal acceptance. But it is not so. Few passages of Scrip- ture have exhibited a more unsettled and varied interpretation. Such want of accord gives warning of a radical defect somewhere. It is our business to discover, if possible, where it is, and what it is. To this end any interpretation conceived in that spirit of deep reverence which the passage eminently demands, should be wel- comed, and thoughtfully considered. There is an interpretation, which comes commended as being the outgrowth of the radical meaning of ^artri'^ui in its universal usage, and having been applied in an unswervingly uniform ap- plication through all the line of this Inquiry, whose worth may be finally tested by its fitness to elucidate these last, momentous words of our divine Redeemer. But before making its direct application it will be profitable to examine some of the many translations and interpretations which have been offered without meeting with general acceptance. Translation. In the various translations of this passage there is no material difference except as to the words /SaTrrt'^w £iq. There is a very general assent to the translation which makes imOt^reixjars mean to make disciples^ to disciple^ rather than " to teach." Some (Stuart) think, that jSanrc^M may be translated to wash; in its broad re- ligious application, inclmVmg sjirinklhig^ and pouring, as methods for effecting the cleansing. Some (Williams, Beecher, Godwin) would translate to purify ; leaving the method of purifying un- limited. The objection to such translations is not, that the word cannot, or does not, have such meanings; but when it has, it is the result of absorbing a j^h rase which was expressive of such idea ; while liere, the plirase is not absorbed, and consequently the verb must be received in its essential, and not in any acquired mean- ing. Patristic writers use this word superabundantly to express such acquired meaning; but it is verj;- doubtful whether, in its absolute use, it is ever so used in the New Testament. It is more probable, that an ellipsis should always be supplied. Others (Carson, A. Campbell) insist, that the translation should be to dip; while others (Arnold) insist as absolutely that the transla- INTO THE NAME. 405 tion should be to plunge ; and yet others (Fuller) advocate im- merse. The objections to c?^p and to plunge are : 1. These words ex- press severally a definite act, essentially different in nature and power, and therefore one word cannot express two essentially diverse conceptions ; 2. Neither word can possibly express the force of the Greek word because definite action belongs to each, while definite action has no place in the essential nature of the word they claim to represent. The objections to immerse are : 1. It is used, by the friends of dipping into water as baptism, for the equivalent of dip^ which is as far from the truth as darkness is from light ; 2. The actual usage of this word by these writers is deceptive ; sometimes it is used to express the momentary put- ting into and withdrawal of an object, and again, it is used to express an object being within an element without having ever been put into it, or ever taken out of it, which double meaning it is impossible for any one word to express ; 3. If immerse were consistently used as the equivalent of dip there would be neither necessity nor advantage for using it at all; and it would be just as helpless to express the Greek word as the rejected dip ; 4. If immerse should be used at its true value (putting into without limitation of time), it would become worthless on the hands of those who insist ou putting men and women into water, for in such case (as they confess) they would have to drown. The simple remedy is to baptize, as God enjoins, without putting into water. We understand this word here, as in every other like syntactic relation whether among Classic, Jewish, or Inspired writers, as demanding for its object withinness of position, without regard to the manner of introduction and without limitation of time for its withdrawal. There is a very general agreement as to the translation of d-:. Among Baptist writers, Carson, Dagg, Wayland, Judson, as well as Alexander Campbell (in another branch) unite in saying, that this preposition should not be translated ^)^, nor wnto, nor for^ nor in order to^ nor with reference to, but by into. Writers who differ from these as to the administration of the ordinance, such as Prof. Stuart, President Halley, Prof. Wilson, and critical Scholars generally, unite in tbe same translation, i7ito. 406 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Dr. Conant is an exception to this general agreement. He argues against the translation into and insists on that of ^r^, in the sense with reference to. He admits that the literal transla- tion is " into the name," but says : " Into the name is not an English phrase, and, though the literal form of the Greek, does not give the sense." In support of this view he says : " In the name is the proper English expression of ek to wt)fia] as in chapter 18 : 20, are gathered together in my name, and with the same ground idea, but with a different application of it, in chapter 10: 41, in the name of a pro2')het, etc. The idea of reference to is the ground meaning of etc in these cases ; and this with all it includes, is expressed by the English form, in the name.'''' Whatever may be the translation of dq in the passages cited, no light is thereby thrown on the passage before us, because the character of the verbs with which the preposition is in construc- tion differs radically. In the phrase avayw dq or Ss/o/jLat e;?, there is nothing in the verb to give a specific meaning to the preposi- tion ; but in the phrase (ianrilu) ei<; 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 ei<; to indicate the passage of such object out of one condition i^ito another condition, without removal. There is no question as to the propriety of translating ei(; diversely, in di- verse relations; but the question is this: Can ek be translated otherwise than by into when construed with jSaTzrc'^oj, or with any other verb of like character ? Can this preposition in the phrase (I Cor. 15:54) xaT£7:60rj ei-; vi'zoc, have any other meaning than into? Does not the character of the verb (siuallow down) neces- sitate such meaning? And in the phrase (1 Tim. 6 : 9) iSuffO^ouffi ek oXsOfwv, is there not a like necessity for the translation into ? Can a verb which carries its object into an abi/ss, be associated with ei<; in any other sense than into f The same necessity ob- tains in like usage of /JaTrrctw. Dr. Conant does not object to the translation of iSa-rH^u) ek by baptize into, per se, for he uniformly gives such translation whenever this phrase appears in the Classics. Nor does he confine such translation to cases of literal and physi- cal use, but extends it to the tropical and figurative, also. . The Fame translation appears repeatedly in his version of the New Testament. It is only in connection with et? to ovoiia that this INTO THE NAME. 407 prejwsition is translated in (Acts 8 : 16 ; 19:5). But there is no reason in woiju more than in a'^ataOriaiav^ uttvov, or Xpiazuv^ for modi- fying the preposition. It is a mistake to suppose, that the Greek eU TO o'/ofia corresponds with the English "in the name." The Greek form h zuj ovo/ian corresponds both in form and in force with the English phrase. These two Greek forms are not equiva- lent and must not be confounded. When Peter commanded the lame man " tn the name (Iv rw d^'o/j.arc) of Jesus Christ to rise up and walk," the Greek phrase and the English are in entire cor- respondence. So, when Peter (Acts 10 : 48) commanded Corne- lius and friends "m the name {i.v tw 6'/6tj.aTi) of the Lord, to be baptized," there is the same correspondence; "in the name" being dependent on " command," and not on " baptize." The active form oi f^o-ri'^a} does not in the New Testament, nor out of it, take ^i^ after it to indicate the complementary idea of the verb. When, therefore, l^aTtrHlcu is associated with elq to o)/()fjLa it is not to be converted into ^i^ roi o'^S/iazc^ but is to be interpreted in the same manner as every other like construction. As Dr. Conant translates " i3ei3o.7TTctTrj.iv<)v e}? dvmffOrjrriav baptized INTO insensibility^''^ and ^^ iSanzd^dnsvo^ e;? unvov baptized into sleep,^^ and ^'^ fiar,riZ,ou(j(. elq Tiopvecav baptize INTO fornication,^^ and " c^Jar- TcirOriTS £c<; Xpiarov baptized INTO Christ,^^ so, i3ei3aTtTiff[iivoi ei-; to ovofia TOO liupiou 'Irjffoo must be translated baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and j3a7:Tc!^ovTe^ eic to ovoixa too TlaTpd^, . . . must be translated baptizing into the name of the Father. . . . The phrases baptize elq to ovo/ia into the name expressing the ideal element into which the baptized object passes, and baptize iv TO) 6W)iJ.aTt in THE NAME declaring the authority by which the baptism is administei'ed, are fundamentally diverse in concep- tion and must be so exhibited in the translation. Professor Schaff excepts to the translation of Dr. Conant {in the name) and to his vindicatory remark ("baptize into the name, is not English") by appealing to the fact, that the Author- ized Version translates, " baptized into Jesus Christ " (Rom. 6:3); " baptism hito death " (v. 4) ; " baptized into Christ " (Gal. 3 : 2t) ; and asks, " Why not, then, say with equal propriety, ' to bap- tize i»tism, into Moses, into Christ, into his death, into deatii. I>aptism being in or into something must ])e immersion i/ifo water" (//oo///, 2()0 ; London). " The use of ek in tli(! New Testament, has a reference to the action performed by the person baptized. Thus the Jews were immersed in the cloud and sea while they were entering i>?/o Moses. It is not intimated that as many as were baptized into Christ, had not been baptized in water, but that they were baptized in water when they entered iJilo Christ. They were immersed (entering) into Clirist, and such per- sons must have entered 'into his deatli.' ... To the same point must be leferred the into in our Lord's commission. The words do not imply that the persons should be baptized in the vanie of the leather, etc., instead of in tvater ; nor are the words into the name., etc., intended to form the disciples' authority for baptizing the con- verts, for this is ex[)ressed in the imperative verb 70; but it is in- tended to describe those persons wlio are to be baptized. The wliohi meaning is expressed thus: Go.^ make disciples, baptizing in WMter those who enter «///'j the name, or resign themselves to the authority, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Enter into tlie name is even stronger than the expression resign tJiemselues to t/ie avtliority. . . . 'i'he most vital jiarts of Christian duty have, in past time, been baptized in pollution and error, and in rising from this lilthy submersion, it requires equal care, not to retain BAPTIST VIEWS UNSATISFACTORY. 411 an adhesive wrong, and not to reject a Divine riglit " (>S7oiv'/, 500 ; London). "The commission, ' (io ye baptizing' gives no indi- cation that the ordinance was tliereby instituted. It regards tlie ordinance to be administered, as it does tlie gospel to be preaclied, as already known, a thing in existence. John's baptism and Christian ba[)tism are in essentials identical. The time of the institution of baptism is thus fixed at the beginning of John's ministry" {Prof. Pepper, 27; ]iaj)t. Pah. Soc). "There is a phrase which no Christian can misunderstand, and have a just and true idea of his relation to G(jd. I mean our baptismal formula: 'Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the IIol}'^ Ghost.' . . . Our immersion is not merely immersion ; it is irnmer.Hion ' into the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Bare immersion no more exhausts the idea of immersion into Christ, than the door of a temple exhausts the idea of the temple " {Prea. Jiruner, Ofikaloosa Collc(jc.i Disciple Jiapt.). " This is the law of Christian baptism ; the institution and origin of it. John's baptism was not Christ's baptism. John was not sent by the liord Jesus Christ, but by his Father. It should be translated — 'AH auUiorilij'' in heaven and in earth is given to me : go you, therefore, and make di.'iC'ijd.es of all 'naf/ion^, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, leachinr/ them to observe, etc." {Alexander Campbell., Baptism, 220). " The immersion of a professing be- liever, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the only Christian baptism" (Adon. Judfion, Ser- mon, 55). Unsalisfaelory. These views are very unsatisfactory. They are loose, confused, discordant, and untrue ; both as exjjository of this particular pas- sage, and of the general teaching of Scripture. There is a verbal acknowledgment of the vital relation between [ianri'^dv-eq and ei^ TO uvofia, together with a formal translation based on such relation, and, then, in the exposition there is an utter abandonment of such relation, and the establishment of another (with water) utterly diverse in nature, on which the interi)retation of the passage is made to turn. To vindicate this separation of what God has joined together, and to justify this conjunction of what God has put widely ai)art, not one word is offered. It is like everything else under the theory, assumed without proof and in contradic- 412 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. tiou of the most express statements of inspiration, as well as of the uniform sentiment and practice of the friends of the theor}' in all like cases out of the word of God. Dr. Conant stands almost, if not absolutely, alone as exempt from this condemnation. He denies (tacitly not expressly) any living relation between /Sarrt'Covre? and ei<; t6 ovofj-a^ and thus, is at liberty to translate the preposition uncontrolled by the otherwise determining power of the verb, as also, to establish another and essentially diverse relation between the verb and water, ellipti- cally introduced for the purpose. By this means Dr. Conant ex- tricates himself from that absurd entanglement in which his friends involve themselves, by the admission of an organic relation in the phrase fianTi^oweq ei^ to ov<>;j.a on which the}' base their translation, and then, establishing another relation with water out of which they deduce their interpretation. But no attempt to dissolve the unity between this verb and its preposition can ever succeed. It is ingrained in the usage of Heathen, Jewish, and inspired Writers. We may therefore hope that it (together witli its neces- sar}^ translation) will be accepted by Dr. Conant, and that his em- inent scholarship will, as a necessary consequence, reject the double and impossible relation of [iaTzriZto with water. " Ulfilas," in the National Baptist, jnstly troubled by those portentous words — haptizing into the name of the Triune God, pleads for a bap- tizing INTO water ^ in the name of the Trinity, to escape, what the words of inspiration "seem to indicate" — the ideal baptism of Christ's redeemed ones into the fully revealed Deity. But it costs too much to maintain a theory at the expense of discarding the word of God. And when the unhappy theorj' of a dipping into water, as God's baptism, shall have been corrected and forgotten in the lapse of untold ages, then, will " the discipled of all nations" be found " baptized into tue name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost " therein to abide forever, even forever and ever. A correspondent ("J.W.James") of the Christian Standard (Disciple Baptist), is in trouble, as well as " UKilas," about this formula. He asks: "By what authority do we use these words, ' into the name of the Father,' .... when they nowhere appear in the baptisms by the Apostles in the Acts?" The Editor replies : " We have no right, from the mere silence of the historian in Acts, to suppose that the Apostles disregarded their instructions, but rather that the fact of baptism necessarily involved the use of the commanded formula. The fact generally OTHER VIEWS. 413 stated in the Acts is — not that they were not baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but — that they were baptized in or upon the name of Jesus Christ ; the authority and saving power of Christ being tlie leading object in the mind of the narrator." This answer is unsatisfactory: 1. Because it assumes that the Apostles were commanded to baptize (ritualW) " into the name of the Father, . . . ." which is the point at issue ; 2. Because it misinterprets Acts 2 : 38, " Repent and be baptized {upon (stti) the name of Jesus Christ) into the remission of sins," and Acts 10: 48, " He commanded them {in (iv) the name of Jesus Christ), to be baptized," as parallel and equivalent to baptism " into (d?) the name of the ' Father,' "... and, 3. Because he omits to state, that " the narrator " does expressl}^ and explicitly declare, that bap- tism was administered (Acts 8:16; 19: 5) ^Hnto (e^?) the name OP THE Lord Jesus." Now, unless " the name Jesus Christ " (a name obtained only by the incarnation of " the Son " and ex- pressive of that incarnation and of the redemption to be secured through that incarnation) be the same as the Name of the Father (God unincarnate), and of the Son (God essentially, as distinguished from the God-Man, = the Lord Jesus), and of the Holy Ghost (God unincarnate), then, baptism " into the Name of THE Lord Jesus," is not the same as baptism "n?to the Name of THE Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and the Apostles were, either, not commanded to baptize (ritually) into the Name of the Father, .... or they did not conform to such command in baptizing (ritually) into the Name of the Lord Jesus. Other Views. PusEY, Hohj Baptism, 62 : " St. Cyprian felt the ' Name of God ' to be God himself, and connected the indwelling of God with our baptism into his Name. The extreme reverence of the Jews, wiiereby they shrunk from uttering the incommunicable Name is far nearer the right feeling, than the careless wa^' in which modern criticism treats the indications of a mystery lying concealed under that Name. When the Lord directs to ' baptize all nations into THE Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' a very little thoughtfulness would connect it with that Name, ' where- with the Father keeps those whom He hath given to the Son, that they maj' be one as the Father and the Son are one.' The being ' baptized into the Name ' of the Three Persons of the undivided 414 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Triuity, is no mere profession of obedience, sovereign!}', belief, but (if one may so speak) a real approi)riation of the person bap- tized to the Holy Trinit}^, a transfer of him from the dominion of Satan to Them, an insertion of him within Their blessed Name, and a casting the shield (to speak humanly) of that Almighty Name, over him ; that Name, at which devils tremble and are cast out thereby, ' into which a man runneth and is safe.' .... It was not then mere glowing language, when the fathers spoke of the baptized being 'fenced round by the Trinity,' or the like; and in that they press the force of ' being baptized into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' as something real, some- thing efficient, an actual communion with the Blessed Trinit}'^, thej' adhere more to the analogy of faith, and the usage of other Scripture, and the literal meaning of the text, than they who would interpret it of the mere commission given to the minister of baptism, and are withal at a loss to say what, 'to bai)tize into the Name of can literally mean, or how they obtain the sense, which they vaguely attach to it." Barclay, Apology, 402: "The Greek is et? rd ovo/m, that is, into the 7iame ; now the name of the Lord is often taken in Scrip- ture for his virtue and power. Now that the apostles were to bap- tize the nations into this name, virtue, and power, and that they did so, is evident by these testimonies, ' That as many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ;' this must have been a baptizing into the name, i. e., power and virtue, and not a mere formal expression of words adjoined with baptism. . . . Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate, as if the verj' char- acter of Christianity were abolished, to tell them plainly that this Scriptiu'e is not to be understood of baptizing with water, and that this form of ' baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit,' hath no warrant from Matt. 28, etc. If it had been a form prescribed by Christ to his apostles, then surely the}' would have made use of that form in the administering of water baptism to such as they baptized with water; yet there is not a word of this form in any sucli case of baptism. But it is said of some. Acts 8 : K), 19 : 5, ' they were baptized in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus ;' by which it yet more appears, that either the author of this history hath been very defective, who having so often occa- sion to mention tliis, yet omitted so substantial a part of baptism (which were to accuse the Holy (Jhost, l)y whose guidance Luke wrote it), or else that the apostles did in no ways understand that OTHER VIEWS. 415 Christ by his commission did enjoin them to such a form of water baptism, seeing they do not use it." Fairbairn, Hervi. 3Ian., 314: "To be baptized into a person, into Christ, for example, or into his bod}', means, to be through baptism formally admitted into personal fellowship with Him, and participation in the cause or work associated with his name ; that they were baptized into the faith of His person and salvation, or into the profession and hope of all that His name indicates for those who own His authority, and trust in His merits." J. A. Alexander, Comm. Acts 8 : 12, 16: "The other subject of his preaching was the name of Jeaus Christ, i. e., all denoted by these names, one of which means the Saviour of his people, and the other their Messiah, or Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King. Into this name, i. e., into union with Christ, and subjec- tion to him, in all these characters, the Samaritan believers were introduced by the initiatory rite of baptism, v. 16, Into the narhe, i. e., into union with him, and subjection to him, as their Sovereign and their Saviour." Beecher, Bajjfisvi, 206 : " Wh}' is there a commission given to baptize in Matthew and Mark, and none in Luke and John ? The reply is, that a commission to baptize is in fact a commission to purify, that is, a commission to remit sins, and in Luke and John, the disciples do receive a commission to remit sins. ... In short, Christ died as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, and the great business of the apostles was to publish to the world the great doctrine of the remission of sins, through his death, and the terms on which it could be obtained, and to estab- lish the rite by which this purgation from sin should be shadowed forth and commemorated in honor of the Trinity, and especially of that Spirit b}' whom this atonement was made effectual to purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. ' Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, purifying them (that is remitting to them that repent and believe, their sins) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " Prof. Godwin, Christian Baptism, 151, London: "It has been supposed that in Matt. 28: 19 we have the institution of the ordi- nance of Cliristian baptism, and also the form of words to be used in the administration of the rite. John 3 : 22, 4 : 1, clearly show that the rite of Christian baptism existed long before. There is nothing in this commission to make it more probable that they had not before baptized Jews, than that they had not before 416 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. taught Jews. Had this been a form of words for the administra- tion of baptism, the expression would rather have been — Baptiz- ing them, saying, I baptize thee. etc. There is no indication of the use of this form in the Acts of the Apostles. The great object of baptism is denoted by the terms, ' For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' The name of a person, by a Hebrew idiom, indicates the person himself." Calvin, Instit. Ill, 376 : " They err in this, that they derive the first institution of baptism from Matt. 28 : 19, whereas Christ had, from the commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be ad- ministered by his apostles. . . . The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel : to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. He speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the function of teaching. Teach all nations (Comm.). Here Christ makes the Gentiles equal to the Jews. Baptizing them. Partly that their baptism may be a pledge of eternal life before God, and partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men. For we are all baptized by one Spirit (Comm. 1 Cor. 12: 13). We are in- grafted by baptism into Christ's body. . . . Lest any one, how- ever, should imagine that this is effected by the outward sj^mbol, he adds that it is the work of the Holy Spirit." Bengel, Comm. Matt. 28: 19: "The verb !J.a0rjTe6etv, signifies to make disciples ; it includes baptism and leaching ; cf. John 4 : 1, with the present passage, ek rd o'^o;j.a, into the name. This formula of baptism is most solemn and important ; in fact it em- braces the sum of all piety. . . . The Jews as being already in covenant with God {the Father) by circumcision were to be bap- tized in the name (ini rw ovo/xan) of Christ, and to receive the gift of /he Holy Spirit: the Gentiles, as being wholly aliens from God, Avere to be baptized ' into the name {elq -u» vvoria) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' (Acts 2 : 38)." Olshausen, Comm. Matt. 28: 19: "Baptism was not now in- stituted for the first time, but was appointed by Christ for every one who should afterwards enter the church, and at the same time filled with power from on high. Some have misunderstood this passage, as if the meaning of the words had been Jirst in- struct, and tlien baptize. But the two participles ^aTzri^ovrsi; and iit8d(Ty.ovTtq are precisely what constitute the ;w.Orj-eu£iv. In the apostolic practice instruction never preceded baptism. Baptism followed upon the mere confession that Jesus was the Christ. OTHER VIEWS. 417 Afterward he participated in the progressive courses of instruc- tion which prevailed in the church. All the nations. The whole human race is the object of Christ's reconciling agency. . . . The meaning of the words iSa-Kri^siv acq to ovo/ia to baptize into the name, is best learned from baptism into the 7iame of Paul, into Moses. Baptizing into any one, signifies baptism as involving a binding obligation ; a rite whereby one is pledged ; and the sublime object to which baptism binds, consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. ' Name ' signifies the very essence of God himself. The Divine power is wedded to the human soul, which thus becomes itself the parent of a higher heavenly consciousness. . . . The question, ' Whether the Lord intended to establish a fixed formula of bap- tism ?' would not have arisen, had the other portions of the New Testament shown that the disciples, in administering baptism, employed these words. But, instead of this, we find that, as often as baptism is mentioned, it is performed only etc or im to ovufia, iv Tuj ovo/ian ' l-qavu, or Xpcffrou.^^ Stier, VIII, M.att. 28 : 18-20, "A sound exegesis demands that we rightly translate imd-^Ts.6/jji'," is a case in which ££'? is as wholly disconnected from the meaning of /3a7rT:t«>, as is iv in the previous phrases, and indicates the place to which Jesus came after departing from Nazareth. The proof of this is clear : "He came down to meet me e;'? rdv Uopddv-qv'''' (3 Kings 2:8); "The Lord hath sent me slq rdv Uopddvrjv'''' (2 Kings 2:6); "And they came eiq ^lopda)^riv^''^ in none of these cases does the preposi- tion express the passing into the Jordan, but merely declares the place toward which the movement tended and at which it termin- ated. It is a mistake to suppose that this preposition takes its form from and is expository of /5a-ntv£ t'«v, £.'■- /lerava iav^ £:? u elq is the same, namely, placing the object of the verb under the controlling influence of VIEWS OF OTHERS, NOT BAPTISTS. 435 the regimen of the preposition. The dipping of the head (of a person standing in the water) into the water, whetheV once or thrice, was not the baptism, but a means in order to the baptism, which was " into the Name," etc. This is shown, among other reasons, by the Nestorian ritual, which says, " and dips (tabal) him in water, and lays his hand upon his head, and says, such a one is baptized ('amad) 'in tlie name of the Father, etc.'" Here tabal, according to its definite meaning, expresses tJi.e act done in the dipping into water, while (/amad) expresses the condition eftected by the act, namely, '' into " (within all the influence which belongs to) the name of the Father, Son, and Hol}^ Ghost. Baptist Manual, Bapt. Pub. Soc: " We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost," Matt. 28: 19. Objection: A momentary "immersion in water" is a dipping for which there is no command in Scripture. An " immersion in water," without limit of time, is a baptism, and as Dr. Judson says, drowns men. -A raersion into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without limitation of time, is a baptism which places the soul under the controlling influence of the Triune God, ivithout withdrawal. An "• immersion in water into the name of the Father," etc., is unintelligible. Are there two immersions, one " in loader," and another " into the Name,'''' etc. ? If so, which is the baptism ? Is the "immersion in water" causative of the "immersion into the Deity "? or what is the relation ? If this immersion in water has relation, as is said, to the Trinity, how has it relation, as this "article of faith" farther says, to "our faith \\\ tlie crucified, and buried, and risen Saviour?" There is a vast difference between an immersion which relates to the Trinity, and one that relates to the crucifixion, and burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The crucifixion, and burial, and resurrection of the Trinity (I) is no doctrine of the Bible. If Christian baptism is " an immersion in water into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," then. Christian baptism cannot be an immersion in water bearing upon the cross, the tomb^ and the rolling away of its stone. The two things are incongruous and impossible. Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptist, fi.SO : " Have you ever adverted to the import of the participle in the Commission, ' Disciple, or convert the nations, immersing them ? ' I need not tell you that this is the exact translation. Let me ask you then, 436 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. does not the active participle, always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing com- manded is to be performed? Cleanse the floor, washing it ; cleanse the floor, sweeping it; convert the nations, baptizing them; are exactly the same forms of speech. No person, I presume, will controvert this. If so, then, no man could be called a disciple . . . until he was immersed." Objection : If it be not murder in the first degree to quote " Convert the nations, immersing them," as the command and means taught by Matt. 28:19, then, there never was murder committed in this fallen world. The doctrine of the active par- ticiple " always " with the imperative mood indicating the means for fulfilling the command, has been disproved by the Baptist scholar Morell of Scotland, as well as by Prof. Wilson of Ireland. Many heresies have been laid at the door of Campbellism, but none, perhaps, greater than that which the President of Bethany has laid there himself in teaching, that " the nations are to be converted by immersing them." The nations, once, were im- mersed, but there is no record of their conversion thereb}', any more than by the preaching of Noah. There is, however, a very distinct account of their being drowned, which confirms the case of Dr. Judson's immersion drowning, as indeed will every case of bona fide immersion in water of a human being. Interpreters, not Baptist. Stuart, 43: " The noun wopu is, no doubt, expletive. Baptized eI-Z to wofia Tzarpoq, etc., is the same as baptized e:? rm Tzarspa, etc. Accordingly we find dvo;xa omitted in Rom. 6 : 3, 1 Cor. 10:2, Gal. 3 : 27 ; it is used in Acts 8:16, 19:5; 1 Cor. 1 : 13, 15. The sense of the whole formula is more difficult to be understood. Most commentators, after Vitringa (Obs. Sac; iii, 22), explain sl<; as meaning into the acknowledgment of; with an implication of affi- ance, subjection, discipleship, etc. But the formula in 1 Cor. 12: 13, seems not to accord with such an explanation. Here ek plainly means participation, ^. e., by baptism we come to belong to one bod}-. In like manner, we may say, by baptism we come to belong (in a si)ecial and peculiar sense, no doubt) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; to Moses, 1 Cor. 10:2; to Paul, 1 Cor. 1:13. In this wa}' all the passages ma}' be construed alike, and the sense in all will be good. The idea is, for substance, that by INTERPRETERS, NOT BAPTISTS. 437 baptism we become consecrated to any person or thing, appro- priated (as it were) to any person or thing, so as to belong to him or it, in a manner peculiar and involving a special relation and consequent special duties and obligations." Remark: This view of a noble man and scholar (at whose feet it was m}' privilege to sit as a pupil) is, I think, substantially true, yet lacking in precision and confidence for two reasons : 1. The ground on which (in ph^'sical applications) [JanriZo) et? must be interpreted was not clearly in view ; 2. The idea of a ritual baptism entering into the statement confuses and precludes a cleanly cut interpretation of the simple and explicit statement of the Holy Spirit. Halley, 414 : " But admitting, as I do, that jSaTtriUiv construed with ££?, is, to immerse into, let us apply this remark in expound- ing the Commission of our Lord. " If to baptize is to immerse, in this passage, then, according to the usual construction of the words, the name of the Holy Trinity is the thing into which the nations are to be immersed. If the words be taken literally, here is, certainly, no command to im- merse into water. " To immerse eic to ovo/ia, into the name of the person whose re- ligion is professed, is the religious rite of making proselytes, as to immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the appropriate act of the Apostles and of ministers of the Gospel. The construction of the passage brings the immersion of the passage, so far as it exists, not into the element of baptizing into water, but into the object of baptizing, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holj' Ghost. So, Paul inquires of the disciples of Apollos, ei^ ri -jSan- rtffOrjTs; into what were ye baptized ? And the answer is not, into cold water, but, into John's baptism. Let it be observed, on the other hand, that we have not the phrase, to baptize into water, to baptize into the Hoi}' Ghost ; but to baptize with water, and to baptize with the Holy Ghost ; these being construed as the in- struments with which the baptism was performed, not the sub- stances into which the persons were baptized." Remark : This interpretation is in harmony with the elegant and accurate scholarship which is characteristic of President Halley, The onl}' disturbing element in it, is the sujDposed neces- sity for including and harmonizing the language with a ritual observance, which has no place in the statement. 438 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Godwin, 151-162 : "There is nothing in this Commission to show that the phrase here used, is a form of words for the ad- ministration of baptism. The great object of baptism and not the language used at the ol)servance of baptism by water, is de- noted by the terms. The one incomprehensible and invisible God, who manifests himself in the person of his Son and by the Spirit which abides in believers, is the object of this Christian baptism. The words of our Lord mean 'purifying them for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Si)irit.' This passage is not quoted as enjoin- ing the rite of baptism, until the introduction of the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration, which led to the supposition that every ba[)tism mentioned in Scripture was the one Baptism with water. " The expression to immerse into God is objected to because the figure is unnatural and unscriptural. It will hardl}' be supposed that this command included nothing but what the Apostles, them- selves, were able to effect. By their own power they could not make one true disciple of Christ, any more than they could heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, expel demons, and raise the dead. The context, the occasion, and parallel passages, prove that the purification of all nations for which the Apostles received this great Commission, was not a ceremonial purification by water, but a moral purification by the Gospel and the Spirit of Christ." Remark: Professor Godwin very justly eliminates, largely if not wholly, a ritual baptism from the direct command of this pas- sage. Purification is in the baptism ; but rather as a prerequisite for it (obtained through discipleship to Christ) than as a conse- quence of "baj)tism into the name," etc.; it is not derivable (as here used) from the word ftaTzri'^w. Baptism into the Deity (re- jecting all ritualism from the thought) cannot be " unnatural," seeing that it is so abundantly used, as in the phrases — baptism into Moses, baptism into Joshua, baptism into Paul, baptism into Christ; nor can it be " unscriptui-al " seeing that, in Christ, in the Spirit, in God, are phrases which abound in Scripture, and ex- hiljit the condition in ivhich the soul abides, having entered into, or having been baptized into Christ, into the Spirit, into God. Beeciieu, 20G: "The Fathers regard the commissioii to remit sins in Luke and John, as a commission to baptize, as reall}' as that in Matthew and Mark. They regarded it merel}' as another mode of expressing the same idea. In short, Christ died as the Lan)b of God to take away the sins of the world, and the great business of the Apostles was to publish to the world, the great INTERPRETERS, NOT BAPTISTS. 439 doctrine of the remission of sins through his death, and the terms on which it could be obtained, and to establish the rite by which this purgation from sin might be shadowed forth and com- memorated in honor of the Trinity, and especially of that Spirit by whom this atonement was made effectual to purge the con- science from dead works, to serve the living God." Remark: President Beecher is entirely correct in saying, the Fathers used the words baptize and baptism as the equivalents of the phrases to remit sins, the remission of sins. This usage was derived, by abbreviation, from the Scripture phrases — " baptized ^ into Christ," baptism into the remission of sins, which phrases express a condition of purification, and hence the word " baptize," when used as the representative of such phrases, secures to itself the meaning of the entire phrase. But when the entire phrase is used the single word "baptize" cannot have such meaning; but it must be (distributed through the phrase, and) be received as expressing the resultant change of condition in the object effected by the interaction (upon it) of "baptize" and " Christ" or "the remission of sins." This condition of purification is the result of baptism into Christ, the atoning Lamb of God, and not of baptism into the Trinity, which is quite another matter. When or where, in Scripture, is a crucified Redeemer and the Trinity made equivalents or interchanged ? Bloomfield, Grit. Comm. : "The Commission embraces three particulars — ixaOTjreueiv, fiuTZTiXetv, and 8idd'inciple anywhere revealed in the in- terpretation of the phrase ,3anriZsiv eU. Until this is secured all interpretations must be fluctuating. When this shall have been determined, we will have a fixed element bj^ which to test inter- pretations authoritatively, and not before. Neander, 197 : " We certainly cannot prove that, when Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, He intended to establish a particu- lar formula of baptism. . . . He wished to show the dependence of the whole life on the one God, who had revealed himself through his Son, as the Father of fallen man, and who imparts his Spirit to sanctify man, whom his Son has redeemed ; as well as to point to the true worship of God, as He had revealed himself through his Son, in a heart sanctified by the Divine life, which is shed forth from him." Remark : The discrimination suggested by Neander between the peculiar work of the Son in redemption, and the Trinity, as the true God to vjhom worship is due, is of the first importance to the right interpretation of this passage. Certainly there is the most radical differeiice in the relations of men to Christ as a Re- deemer, and to the Triune God as the object of worship. ScHAAF, History, 566 : " The full formula of baptism as pre- scribed by Christ (Matt. 28 : 19) is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; signif3'ing the sinking of the subject into the revealed being of the Triune God, a coming into living communion with him, so as to be thenceforth consecrated to him, to live to him, and serve him, and to experience his blessed re- deeming and sanctifying power. In practice, however, we find the Apostles alwaj's using the abbreviated form, ' into the name,' or ' in the name of Jesus Christ,' or ' of the Lord Jesus,' or simply ' into Christ.' Of course this included the other, binding the sub- ject to I'eceive the whole doctrine of Christ, and consequently what he had taught concerning the Father and the Hol}^ Ghost." Remark: Prof. Schaaf teaches, 1. The Apostles never used as a formula in ritual baptism the words of this passage ; 2. The words [iaTTziZovTeq slq to ovop.a must be treated as an organic phrase presenting to 'ivoim as the ideal element into which the subject, under the power of (ianri'^u), "sinks," and is thus introduced into a new condition z::::^ of communion, consecration, life, service, re- demption, and sanctification, without limitation of time ; all of 442 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. which is the right opposite of a dipping (whether into water, or into TO ovotj.a)^ and is that which this baptism, and ever^^ other baptism of the New Testament, imperatively demands. * Tills interpretation may be ehicidated, but it can liardly be essentially improved. Of course ''sinks " is not to be understood as the ex[)ression of the definite meaning of iSaTzzi^w. But it does (in common with very many other words) express one form of action l)y which the demand of this verb (for inness of condition, without limitation of time, and without restriction in the form of the act) may be properly met. Dipping is not one of the forms of action which may meet the demanded condition of the verb, because it is essentially contradictory to one of the vital elements in this Greek word, namely, without limitation of time. A dipping being sharply limited to momentariness, is necessarily excluded from the class of words which like " sink " (not being limited in the time of continuance) can effect a baptism. While the soul can "sink" into the name of the Deity without withdrawal, and so be " baptized " into the Triune God, a living man cannot "sink" (without withdrawal) into wafer', and so be "baptized," without destruction of life ; and therefore it is that there is no such thing in the New Testament as a baptism in or into water ; but a real baptism by the Holy Ghost " into repentance," " into the remission of sins," " into Christ," and a ritual baptism with or by water symbolizing the condition of purity induced in the soul l)y such real baptisms. If the dippjing into water, practiced by the friends of the theory, and called baptisms, were regarded as a valueless accident in the use of the water (the essential thing being in the (piality of the element) then, while a very unwise way of using the water, and wholly without Scripture authority, it might still be accepted as a possible use of the element ; but when the act of dipping is made the baptism, there is the most absolute nullification of the command (ia-zi^ovzsq elq ro ovoim, and such a dipping must, in so far forth, be absolutely rejected as not being any baptism at all, much less Christian baptism. Alford (John 3 : 6), like Schaaf, uses "sink" as without limitation of time, and thereby securing inness of condition resulting in the penetrating, [)ervading, and controlling influence of the encompassing element over the sunk object, comuuiiiic.ating to it its own quality. " The spirit of man is in the natural l)irth dead, sunk in tre^juisses and sins, and in a state of wrath." If dip be substituted for "sink," the sentiment PROPOSED INTERPRETATION. 443 is reversed, and the " state " of death and pollution is subverted. So, to substitute dip for baptize in the word of God is an abso- lute reversal and subversion of its teachings. Proposed Interpi^etation. General Structure. The ruling element in the passage is the command — MaOrjTeuffare : the relation of ^aTzriX.(>vTtq elq TO i'Mijia to this command is that of an included and dependent result : the relation of 5u5a first in Antioch," which clearly implies that they were made disciples by " teaching " as commanded by Christ, and that they were made and popularly recognized as disciples of CinusT. The truth is of practical importance, because it shows that this discipling cannot depend upon or be expounded by " baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" for disciples to C/».ri.s<, obviously, can never be constituted by such a baptism ; and while a ritual baptism into the name of the Father, etc., would constitute all so baptized disciples of the Triune God, yet there are no such "disciples" recognized or recognizable under the teaching of the Scriptures. They who become related to the Triune God, become related to Him as redeemed and reconciled subjects and worship- pers, and not as discii)les. While, therefore, we recognize a vital and indissoluble relation between this discipling and this baptiz- ing, we must as distinctly recognize a diversity which precludes the baptizing from being either causative or expository of the specific character of the discipleship. 2. A second question arises : What enters into discipling to DISCIPLE. 445 Christ? Among these elements are, 1. Repentance for sin; 2. Faith in order to the remission of sin ; 3. Obedience as evidence of repentance and faith ; 4. Ritual baptism, symbol of the remission of sin. We have seen from Acts 11 : 26, that " teaching " (ScSd^ai) enters into discipleship; and we learn the same, impliedly, from Joiin 4: 1, 2, and farther, that ritual baptism was an accompani- ment of and consequent upon making disciples to Christ. John did not make or baptize disciples for himself, but for the Coming One. Paul indignantly rejects the idea, that be made disciples for himself, or " baptized into his own name," or apart from Christ crucified. But the Lord Jesus Christ did make disciples for him- self; and the}- were in his presence (John 4 : 1, 2), and bj^ his authority after his ascension (Acts 10 : 48), baptized ritually as his disciples. There is no other ritual baptism of disciples in the New Testament but " into the Name of the Lord Jesus." We must recognize, therefore, aVitual baptism of disciples into Christ, as essentially contained in the command to " disciple," which bap- tism is another and diverse from the additionally enjoined " bap- tizing into the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which is a real baptism witliout an}' attending rite. Discipling to Christ is that real baptism "into Christ" (so fre- quently spoken of in the Scriptures) which is effected by the truth blessed by the Holy Ghost, and makes such disciples partakers of all the fruits of Christ's redemption ; among which is this all- comprehending and never-ending baptism (= complete subjection and moral assimilation) into the living and true God. This real baptism into Christ is attended with a rite in which the cleansing of the soul from sin, by the blood of Christ received through faith, is symbolized by pure water. The sinner m aM his guilt may be, must be " baptized into Christ " (the Lamb of God that taketh away sin) ; but no sinner IN HIS QUILT can be " baptized into the name of the Father,' and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" nor is there any qualify in the Godhead, as such, qualifying it to purge the sins of the guilty ; therefore^ the necessity for the Second Person of the Godhead to become incarnate, in order that as "Jesus," he might "save his people from their sins;" and so fit them for baptism (=^ subjec- tion, assimilation, and gracious fellowship) into the Godhead in its holiness. The baptism (real) of sinners " into Christ " is an antecedent sine qua non, and an efficient cause of the baptism of sinners (not in their guilt, but) redeeiMed and purged and re- 446 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. CONCILED into the absolute Deity. The ritual baptism of Christi- anit}' with its s3'mbol water, belongs obviouslj- to the former bap- tism, and not to the latter. And yet the Church, for many ages, has verbally separated the ritual symbol from the causative bap- tism ^Hnto Christ," and attached it to the resultant baptism " into the name of tlie Father, and of tlie Son, and of tlie Holy Ghost." These baptisms have an inseparable connection ; and yet, the}' have as essential a difference as the Son incarnate bleeding on the Cross, and the Trinity unincarnate reigning on the THRONE. All Nations. rirhrrx TO. tO'^-q: The command to disciple all nations by preach- ing and teaching has evolved tlie sentiment, Tliat none others are to be discipled to Christ but those who can understandingly hear the gospel and personal!}' repent and believe. This sentiment cannot be true, 1. Because it destroys the command whicli it pro- fesses to expound. "All nations " is equivalent to the human race. Now, there never was a nation, nor was there ever a period in which the human race did not embrace a vastly numerous ele- ment (essential to the being of a nation and of the race) wdiich was incapable of being discipled to Christ, by the intelligent hear- ing of the gospel and by personal repentance and faith. It fol- lows, therefore, that all nations (= the human race) can never, thus, be discipled to Christ; but the command is so to disciple; therefore it is not true, that preaching and teaching are the only means for discipling to Christ, or making the nations participants in the blessings of his redemption. 2; Preaching and teaching can only be regarded as mentioned as being the obvious and out- standing, but not the exclusive, means for communicating Christ's blessings. Preaching and teaching are not of themselves suffi- cient to disciple the nations — " Paul may plant and A polios may ■water, but God only gives the increase." Those who hold this sentiment do not use merely preaching and teaching for disci- pling to Christ; but use prayer as essential means to give them discipling power. But if God be not limited to preaching, and teaching, as a means for conveying the blessing of Christ, then. He may in answer to prayer or moved by the direct intercession of Christy give that blessing through other channels. That this is true, not only as possible but as fact, is shown by the blessing of Christ bestowed upon the little children brought to him; and ALL NATIONS. 447 also by the Holy Ghost bestowed upon John from his birth hour. As it is true, that countless millions of the nations cannot be brought to Christ by teaching and personal understanding of the truth, so also is it true, that these are not the only means for bringing the nations to Christ, else would he not have taught us to pray — " Th}' kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is done in heaven." The ultimate and only essential agenc}' in bringing the soul to Christ, is the Holy Spirit ; and " the residue of the Spirit is with God." Discipling is not an ultimate end of the gospel, but a means to secure the blessings of redemption in Christ. But even this is not the ultimate end of the gospel ; the work of Christ is not done until as Mediator and Advocate he reconciles to the Father those washed by his blood, making them subject to his authority and restoring the relation (disrupted by sin) which must rightfully subsist between the creature and the Creator. Salvation is in Christ. Preaching and teaching are not ex- haustive channel-ways for its outflowings; else, all infants dying in infancy must be excluded, not merely by their sin but by their infancy, from redemption. And inasmuch as infants are a grand, integral part of the nations, the elimination of which is destructive to the idea of a nation (natus), to exclude infants from the command "to disciple the nations" is to annul that command. But this command must stand ; there/ore, " disciple" must represent either a principal (not exclusive) means only, or it must have a breadth of meaning which will embrace every essential element entering into the being of "the nations " (= the human race) to wit, little children. 2. This sentiment is not true, because it overturns the divine economy under which the human race exists and b}^ which it ever has been and still is governed. The human race has been divinely established not on the basis of an absolute individual personalitj^, but under a Famil^^ consti- tution. By this constitution we have the primal twain-unity of man and woman in the divine relation of marriage, issuino-in off- spring after their likeness " bone of their bone, flesh of tlieir flesh," creating a Family unity in its most limited aspect, which develops under the divine law of marriage, through the multipli- cation of such Family unities, into tribal unit}', national unity, and race unity. This Family unity, in its narrowest beginning to its broadest development, is under law ; not law which elimi- 448 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. nates each individual from each other and lays its claims upon each as an isolated personality whose responsibilities begin and end within his own self-consciousness ; but as a part of a whole, and when self-consciousness begins it finds itself included within law most absolute and in fullest operation. The individual exists within and under all the responsibilities of this Family unit3^ This economy which unites parent and child in a unity (phj'^sical and moral) is invested with amazing powers, responsibilities, and issues. As it is established by God, so it has been inflexiblj' observed by Him in all his dealings with the human race, whether in pliysics or in morals, in law or in grace. Now, this economy is utterly subverted by the sentiment which declares that the Lord Jesus Christ has established a kingdom among men from which the divine corner-stone of human exist- ence. Family unity, is stricken away, and a naked individualism is substituted for it. But it is profoundly incredible that God would abandon his chosen economj^ and substitute for it another radically diverse ; and, more, it is manifestly not true in fact. This economy still exists in providence, still reigns under the moral law, and the Lord Jesus Christ " did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil,'' therefore " he was made of a woman," thus incorporated in the Family race unity, " made under the law," from his birth-hour, " to redeem them that are under the law," provided, they live long enough personally to understand preaching and teaching! So, Dr. Carson (p. 173) says: "The Gospel has to do with those that hear it. It is good news ; but to infants it is not news at all. They know nothing of it. The Gospel has nothing to do with infants. Consequentl}', by the Gospel no infant can be saved. . . . Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not b}' the Gospel." And, so (p. 215), in capitals, "Infants are not SxYvkd by the New Covenant." Dr. Carson is honest and bold. He is honestly bold when he declares that he will " order Gabriel to school " should he venture to differ from hiin in Greek criticism ; but there is sometiiing astounding in the courage which dares to dash a human theory against the divine economy of all ages. But it may be, that some potsherds are thus best broken. We reject that sentiment which rejects God's economy toward our race. We claim, under that economj^, the right and the duty of parents (shadowed by Gos^jcI promises — " the promise is to you and your children "), to ask for their speechless, new-born BAPTIZING INTO THE NAME. 449 cliildren, a place in the bleeding bosom of Jesus. And such parents need not fear his turning them away, saying — " Infants have nothing to do with the Gospel ; it is not good news to them ; it is no news at all; they are not saved by the new covenant; although they be ' bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh,' yet, such unity does not bring them under the Gospel with you ; you cannot, by any promise within the Gospel, pray to me to bless your children ; when they get old enough to understand preach- ing then they will be brought within the range of the Gospel and you can pray for them, that they may be saved by the Gospel." This may have been the Gospel of those who forl)ade little .chil- dren to be brought to Jesus ; but we have his indignant rejection of it as another gospel and not his. We will not have it. 3. The sentiment which eliminates the infant children of the human race from a common redemption with their parents (dis- solving the divine unity between parents and children under which the hurtian race exists), is, on its face, absurd. The com- mand to " disciple all nations," does not subvert the economy under which "all nations" exist. Baptizing into the Name. BanrO^ovTs^ aurohq dq to ovofj.a : The manifold diversities in the interpretation of these words and the entire lack of any one com- manding acceptance above its fellows, while the prevalent trans- lation "in the name" and its common understanding "by the authority of" has scarcely an advocate among scholars, seems to demand as a necessarj' conclusion, that there must be some essen- tial error in the understanding of the words, or of their relations to each other. If these points are rightly settled on just and rec- ognized principles, an interpretation should be developed such as must command general if not universal assent. Let us renew- edly examine these points and see whether such an interpretation can be reached. Ba7TTi!^w: 1. This word primarily makes demand for the intus- position of its object within a fluid element, by any competent act, moving indiflTerentl}^ the object or the element, without limi- tation of time as to the continuance in such intusposition, thus bringing the object into anew and thoroughly changed condition. 2. This word introduces its object verbally into an ideal element suggestive of a thorough change of condition in conformity with 29 450 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. the characteristic of the ideal element. 3. This word is used absolutely to express a thorou^^h change of condition, the specific character of which is well understood by long and familiar use. Tiie most important element in this word is intuHposition with UNLIMITED CONTINUANCK. While there are some objects which, by reason of their nature or that of the element into which they ai'e introduced, ma}' be materially influenced by a brief intusposition, such objects are few, especially when d3"eing liquids are excepted from the ele- ments to be used, as is true in this case, they being committed to /3a-Tw. It is obvious, that any object which is capable of being influ- enced by a given element, will be so influenced most profoundly by being enveloped in it for an unlimited time. And there are but few objects indeed, which are not susceptible of such influ- ence by some one or another element. For this reason baptizing into an element was practiced in order to secure the influence of the element by the communication of its quality to the baptized object. Thus. human beings were baptized into water, in order to secure its destructive influence over life ; a medical prescription was baptized into milk, in order to secure its emollient influence ; the hand was baptized into blood, in order to secure its coloring influence for writing; and hot iron was baptized into water, in order to secure its heat-quenching influence. 4. While there are some elements which impart their character- istic qualities onl}' when the object is enveloped within them for an indefinite period, there are others which will do this equally well witliout envelopment at all. Tlius, water will quench heat equally well whether the heated object be enveloped in it, or the water be poured upon it. There are other elements which will not impart their characteristic quality by envelopment, but will do so, in otlier appropriate ways, witliout enveloj)meut. Thus, wine will not impart its intoxicating quality to a man by envelop- ment within it, but will do so to a man who will drink it ; and a druf/ will not impart its quality b}' envelopment within it, but it will do so when taken into the stomach; so also, soi)histical questions and countless other things impart their characteristic qualities, through appropriate channels, without envelopment. This result being identical in character (controlling influence by imparted «p>ality) with that effected by (uivelopmeut, it would be natural aud accordant with language development, to apply the BAPTIZING INTO THE NAME. 451 same word to all cases where the same generic result was effected (although by various methods) to designate such result, without regard to the method. And this, as a matter of fact, has been done and indicated by a change of S3'ntax ; the Dative (indicating the agency and controlling quality imparted) being substituted for d? and its regimen. Thus we have hot iron baptized (quenched) hy water {uliaTt) ; a man baptized (made drunk) by wine (or^o) ; a man baptized (stupefied) by a drug ((pappAxw) • a youth bap- tized (bewildered) by questions, by study, etc., etc. This usage of the Dative is more common than that of- ec'c and the Accusa- tive. 5. There is another class of elements, not physical, into which an olyect cannot pass, but, in fact, the association of i3anri%ut siq with which indicates the impartation of their qualities to the ob- ject of the verb. Thus we have a baptism (sk dvaccrOrjfTia'^) into INSENSIBILITY; (e;? umov) tnto SLEEP ; (e]<; nop'^eca'^) into FORNICA- TION. This form of expression denotes (by a suggestive refer- ence to physical elements) the subjection of the object to the controlling influence, respectively, of "insensibility," "sleep," " fornication," thereby thoroughly changing its condition. This form for expressing a baptism, and this class of elements not susceptible of intusposition, is the onl}' form and character of element to be met with in the baptisms of the New Testament. Thus we have a baptism (d? iierd-Mnav) into repentance ; (s;"? afstrtv aiiapricbv) into the remission of sins; {dz rd woim toT> Kopiuo "" Ir^rniu) into the name of the Lord Jesus; (ei? Xpiazw 'l-qaauv) into Jesus Christ; {elq Xpiardv) into Christ; {ft- rov dw^arov amou) into his death ; {elq, h awim) into one body ; (si? Muxry^v) into Moses ; {e\q ro 6v()[j.a llauXiiu) into the name of Paul ; {e]q rd ovo/j-a too llarpoq xai Ttiij Ttou xai TOO "Ayiou [Jveu/j.aTO':) into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Hol}'^ Ghost. All such baptisms do and can only indicate, a thoroughly changed condition of the soul con- formed TO THE characteristic QUALITY OF THE IDEAL ELEMENT. Tills is an unvarying truth. In such of these baptisms as are associated with a S3'mbol rite, as £?c /leTd'/ocav^ s^e; atpemv atj-apncLv^ e\i; rov JpcfTTuv (varied forms for expressing the " one baptism " cleansing the soul from sin), the efficient agency (ev Ihsu/iarc ""Ayiuj) effecting the real baptism, and the symbol agency (Iv udurc. uSarc) shadowing the nature of the baptism so effected, are stated in the Dative ; thus giving the last degree of precision which the statement of any baptism can possess. 452 CHRISTIC BAPTISM. Into. Elq : This preposition in organic relation with ftaircriXo} can onl}'' (from the nature of the verb as established) be translated into. It cannot be divorced from the verb in order to express a telic sense. This would require a second preposition, thus: "Gedaliah was baptized by wine {ek) into insensibility {dq) for^ unto, in order to, his murder." "Sinners are baptized (sk) into Christ (elq) for, iinto, in order to, the remission of sins." " Eupolis was baptized (si<;) into the sea {d'z),for, %mto, in order to, his being drowned." The verb in such form of expression can no more fulfil its function, deprived of its preposition, than the arm can act with its hand cut off. The Name. To ovofia : " The Name," applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not severally and distinctively but jointly and in common, is indicative of union and communion in all that enters into " the Name," and especially of that supi-eme Sovereignty which belongs to the peculiar, divine Three-One existence of the Godhead in relation to all created beings. A baptism into the Father distinctively, would differ from a baptism into the Son distinctivel}^ and both such distinctive baptisms would differ from a baptism into the Holy Ghost dis- tinctively, while each would differ from a baptism " into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the H0I3' Ghost," because a baptism into the several persons of the Trinity vvould indicate subjection to the control of that which was distinctive of each Person, while a baptism " into the Name," etc., is indicative of subjection to the controlling influence of that which is common to their essential Deity. The value of the several elements which enter into the phrase being determined, we are enabled to determine the value of the entire phrase. Baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. liar.ri'^ovrE!; aoruhq e\<; to ovofia rou TlaTpb':, xai too Tiou, xat zoo 'Ayiou IhdtiLarix;: This is an organic phrase whose parts cannot be sepa- rated without destruction to the sentiment. T6 ovofxa is through BAPTIZING THEM INTO THE NAME, ETC. 453 eiq in organic relation with l3a7tTi!^ovT£<;, onthe one hand, and with TOL> Tlarpoq^ y.oiX zau Ylou^ xa\ too " Ayioo UvsviiaToq collectively, as a unity by nature, on the other hand. The meaning of the phrase, according to the interpretation of every like phrase whether within or without the Scriptures, is, the subjection and reconciliation of the redeemed by Christ to the Triune God, from whom they had revolted and been alienated by sin. The relation of this wonderful baptism to the baptism into Christ (which is only another form for expressing discipleship, as Paul rejecting Corinthian disciples, asks : " Were ye baptized into the name of Paul ") is of like general character with the I'e- lation of the baptism (ek ae xaxiylonev — He did not deluge Noah." Basil M., Ill, 453 : " KaTaxXuZ,6iJ.evov rrj ApsTpia rou oivnu — Deluged by wine without measure." Clemens, Rom. I, 1464: '■^ MdXXov di ujq adru). X-r^poixn jSuOcffOivra — Or, as they madly say, he was drowned (abyssed)." 478 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. Marci EreraitcTe, 1020: ^^ Ei^ rm jSuOov ty/Z ayvolai:; y.araTzir^Tiuy.tv — Fallen into the abyss of ignorance." Oiigen, II, 1511: "The tempest (^/.arzTJivri^t) has ingulfed me." Matt. 18: 6: "And {yMTanovnaOr^ ingulfed in the depth of the sea." Kara/.h')%o>^ l^u6c!^(o^ xarano'^rt'Ciu^ like fiaizriZo)^ demand intusposition" for their objects without limitation of time (do not take out what they put in), and therefore, all such objects are of necessity ex- posed to the full influence of the investing element. Such verbs are adapted to expi'ess the development of influence, of an analo- gous character, when such development does not take place by the same form of influence; that is to say, they drop entirely the idea of a physical covering or only suggestively allude to it. Thus we see, that influence of the most powerful character is necessarily included in the case of Noah's cataclysm. Noah and his family were not " deluged ;" therefore did not experience the drowning influence of water. The rest of the human race were "deluged," and by necessity of such intusposition, were drowned. Now, this resultant effect (complete influence, not the intuspo- sition causative of the influence) is expressed by Basil through y.aTay.}.hZw in declaring the controlling influence of wine. He neither means to sa}', that the wine bibber is within a deluge of waters, nor within a deluge of wine ; but he uses a word (which while not expressing influence in primary use, yet necessarily in- volves the highest influence) to express in secondary use the highest influence of wine, which is developed not by intusposition but by drinking; which does not drown but makes drunk. Noah was not covered over {y.aTa/lu%u}) in the deluge ; but, alas, Noah was made drunk (xaraxXo^to) Ity wine. Who will question a di- versity of meaning in this twofold usage of the same word? In the first case we have inness with influence; and in the second case we have the influence (peculiar to wine when drunk) without the inness ; which could not develop the intoxicating influence of wine. Clemens Komanus uses [iuOiZot^ in like manner, jiriniarily, to express the covering in water (which in the case of a human being is necessarily attended with a destructive influence), while Mark the Hermit uses its root ideally (et-r rdv fiuSm), not to ex- press witliinness but to suggest the profoundest influence of " ignorance." Origen uses zara-nyrj^w, which primarily covers in the sea with- IDEAL ELEMENT AND OTHER WORDS. 479 out limit of time, to express not a covered condition in the sea, but the influence of overwhehning distress. The Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 18:6) uses this same zara-ovri'Cw to bring out the hopeless destruction which is inseparable from this word, apply- ing it to the soul and the remediless influence of sin. The general primar}' meaning of /Sa-rc'^w (covering without limitation of act or time) is the same as that of -/.azavlo^u)^ [iod>Xu)^ y.ara-Kiivri'liu ; and, in the case of each, controlling influence is in- separable from such condition, and is directly expressed in second- ary use. Ideal Element and other Words. As there is no characteristic of ,?arrrjt«> so important as that of inness without limitation of time, so there is no usage of this woi'd of such vital importance to this Inquiry as that which connects it with an ideal element, for the purpose of expressing controlling influence, while indicating by the form the origin of such meaning. It is important, therefore, to show that this usage is not singular, but common; that it is not obscure, but clear in meaning; that it is not difficult of interpretation, but facile and of universal con- sent. Let us, then, before entering upon that of /Jct-rj'^w, look at the facts of Patristic usage in connection with other words. Clem. Rom. {op. dub.) 472 : " The disciples and hearers of an untaught and ignorant teacher overwhelmed by the darkness of ignorance (i7i interitum demergentur) will be demersed into de- struction." S. Clementis {op. dub.) II, 332 : " Lest by much sudden joy she should come (sk k'/.a-aacy (ppzvih'j) into distraction op mind." Tertullian I, 629 : " While the heathen (in voluptatibus im- mergunt) immerse themselves in pleasures." Tertullian I, 663 : " The worshipper of idols is an adulterer of the truth ; (in stupro mergitur) he is mersed in adultery." II, 1060 : " Peccati in gurgite mersis — mersed in the abyss op sin." 1063: "In dementia raersos — mersed in folly." Tertullian III, 234 : " Darkness having been scattered (de tenebrarum profundo in lucem sapientise et veritatis emergerem) I emerged out of the depth of darkness into the light of wisdom and TRUTH." Clemens Alex. I, 417 : " Reason should preside lest the feast {izapansaooaa dc, ixidrjv) should glide into DRUNKENNESS." 480 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. Clem. Alex. I, 493 : " The oppression of sleep is like to death {oTzocptpoiii'^T} ££? a'^aiaOriaiav) carrying us clown into insensibility." Clem. Alex. II, 417 : " Commanding the sinner {avatpsltrOat xai /lerartOeffOai t/. davdrou eiq l^wijv) to be raised up out of death and transposed info life." AuGUSTiN IX, 186: "In quodlibet profundum maloi'um et in quamlibet horribilem voraginem peccatorum irruat. Into what- soever DEPTH OF evils and into whatsoever horrible abyss of sins he may rush." Jerome VI, 1349 : " Qui in extremis peccatorum foecibus habi- tant et in scelerum suorum ima demersi. Who live m the ex- treme dregs of sins and demersed' into the lowest depths of their crimes." These passages are sufficient to illustrate the familiar employ- ment by Patristic writers of an ideal element with verbally ex- pressed withinness, in order to denote controlling influence. The ground of such usage evidently is : The insejjarable connection of the highest influence which a fluid can exert over an object, with its position within such fluid, for an unlimited time. Such cases are the following : Tertullian 11,1071: " Hostes demersit in undis. He de- mersed (=, drowned) his enemies in the waters." Origen II, 844 : " Mergatur in mare. Is mersed (= drowned) into the sea, flowing (in amaritudinem) into bitterness." The sweet water of a river flowing into the briny sea has its sweetness drowned in the bitter waters into which it flows. Hilary I, 353 : " Ut in profundum demergantur oratur — eff"ec- tum cum illos diluvio submersos consumpsit profundum. He prays that they may be demersed (r= drowned) into the deep — which was done when the deep destroyed them submerged (= drowned) in the flood." AuGUSTiN V (prior) 382: " TJnde tota navis mergatur. The whole ship is mersed (= swallowed up) by a leak." Origen II, 875 : " Ire in gehennam, mitti in ignem aeternum, expelli in tenebras exteriores. To go into hell, to be sent into everlasting fire, to be driven into outer darkness." The complete influence of "hell," "fire," "darkness," is expressed by going INTO them for an unlimited time. Nothing is more obvious than the essential connection between position within a physical ele- ment and the completest influence ; and nothing is more certain than tluiL Patristic writers do use such intusposition not merely USED WITH AN IDEAL ELEMENT. 481 for the intusposition, but for the injluence resulting therefrom. In like manner they do abundantly use a verbal form expressive of intusposition, in order to express the controlling injluence of the characteristic quality of such ideal element over its object. BoKTiZu) is so used with an Ideal Element. The use of ^anriZu) is entirely harmonious, and largely identical, with that of numerous other words employed to express controlling influence through actual or ideal withinness. This has been already shown in connection with ships and men sinking into the sea; the ideal use is exemplified in the following quotation : Clemens Alex. II, 1212: " 'E/. (TuxppoffuvTjq e.'c nopvecav (ianriZouai They baptize out of chastity into fornication, teaching to indulge in pleasures and passions." Any attempt to take this passage out of the same category with those already considered (as establishing controlling influence through withinness) will rouse up in opposition not only the established usage of Patristic writei's, but also a principle in nature, z". e., that withinness is causative of influence; and the prima facie demand of eiq in association with ^x, as well as the essential requirement of /5a:rT£'Cw. The only interpretation of this passage which admits of defence, is that which makes vicious TEACHING to baptize its disciples = to cause them to pass out of a condition of chastity into a condition of fornication. To pass " into fornication " (baptize never takes out what it puts in) can- not possibly express anything short of or less than full subjection to the characteristic of this vice. This passage settles the all- important point that ftanri^u) may (like scores of other words) he directly connected with an ideal element^ and thereby express THE CONTROLLING INFLUENCE OF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCH ELEMENT OVER THE OBJECT wMch (verbally) is carried into it, and NOT TAKEN OUT OF IT. If any further proof of this vital point were necessaiy, it could be readily furnished from this same writer. See the following : I, 416 : " Reason should preside at the feast lest it glide (ei<; niO-qv) into drunkenness." Will any one question that ek iMiOrjv is the ideal element into which (and therefore under the influence of which) the convivial- ists are passing ? 31 482 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. I, 493 : "The oppression of sleep is like to death which carries us down (elc avat<70rjz ; To aXXoiodr^vai rbv jjanrd^orisvov xard ze vouv^ xai koyov^ y.ai Ttpd^iv^ xdi yeviaOai ixeTvo xard ttjv 8o0elz oTi (Tuvi?.a,3ev^ SO also the true Christian not by hearing from his parents, of those who baptized him, nor by any other means, but by his own heart, he ought to have the assurance that he had received the holy baptism, and that he was deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit. . . . This hidden grace and operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart no one upon earth ever receives except those who have been truly baptized into the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; concerning this our riches the Lord says : ' The kingdom of heaven is like to treasure hid in a field,' that is, the Holy Spirit which is hidden in us in the day of the divine baptism. . . . These things are adduced that the Christian may know that he has received the hoi}' baptism, and that he is a true Christian. . . . The mark of a Christian is no external thing." Tills Greek declares that the Christian [idnTiatm is, 1. A result effected ; 2. That this result is within the soul ; 3. That it is an abiding result ; 4. That it is spiritual in its nature ; 5. That it is DIVERSE NAMES OF BAPTISM. 497 assimilant to the power ijroducing it ; 6. That it is a matter of self-consciousness. All which is absurd as applied to a water-dipping. Diverse Names of Baptism. Chrysostom II (parsprior)^ 225 : "It is necessary to say some- thing as to what (rd l3d:TTC(Tfj.a) the Baptism is. But, if you please, we will first speak of the designation of this mystical (xaOap/jMu) cleansing. For its name is not one, but many and diverse. For this purification is called (1) The washing of regeneration : ' For He saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.' It is also called (2) Illumination ; Paul saj's, ' Remember the former days in which ye were illumined.' It is also called (3) Baptism ; ' For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' It is called (4) Burial ; ' For we are buried together with him by baptism into his death.' It is called (5) Circumcision ; ' In whom we are circumcised by the circum- cision made without hands, by the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh.' It is called (6) Cross ; 'For our old man was crucified that the body of sin might be destroj'cd.' " These diverse names employed by Chrysostom to designate to ^dnTiff/ia^ Christian baptism, are all spiritual or express a spiritual result: 1. "The washing of regeneration" is a washing by the power of the Holy Ghost which issued in tJ fidTTTCff/j-a = a regen- erate and renewed condition of the soul; 2. "Illumination" is the condition of the soul spiritually enlightened ; 3. "Baptism" is the condition of the soul assimilated to Christ; 4. "Burial" is the spiritual unity with Christ in his death carried on to coburial in his sepulchre; 5. "Circumcision" is the application of the name of the type to its spiritual antitype, the excision of sin from the soul; 6. "Cross" is the application of the name of the instru- ment by which Christ was baptized into death, and the eflfect of that death in destroying the life of sin in the souls of his people. These diverse titles are intelligible as expository of an " effect, product, result, state" accomplished in the soul; as expository of "dipping and nothing but dipping" they are worse than Babel echoings. One of these titles Chrysostom, himself, explains ; he says, " Many other names might be mentioned, but lest we consume all the time on the titles of this grace, let us return to the first title 32 498 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. and explain that. . . . That washing which is through the baths (^To Xourpov TO 8ia rajv i3aXav£iojv) cleansing the filth of the body is common to all men. There is a Jewish washing {knurpov ' louda'ixdv) which is much better than this, but much inferior to that of grace. . . . Jewish washing cleansed impurity which was cere- monial, not real, but the washing of grace (ro Xoorpov r?;? Xdpauq) not only cleanses ceremonial but real impuritj'', which infects both bod}' and soul. It cleanses not only from touching dead bodies, but from dead works. 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 {si<; rr^v xnkunjSTjOpav) into the pool of the waters, he would arise from the divine waters purer than the rays of the sun. . . . What can be more wonder- ful than this, when righteousness may be obtained without labor, or toil, or good works? ... If a brief letter of a king can set free those who are guilty of ten thousand crimes and exalt others to the highest honor, much more ma}' the Holy Spirit of God, possessed of all power, free from all wickedness, bestow abundant righteousness, and fill with all boldness. And as a spark falling into the midst of the sea, is immediately quenched, and becomes invisible (xaranovnaOtiq) swallowed up by the multitude of the waters, so also all human wickedness when it falls into the pool of the divine waters, is, more quickly and more easily, than that spark (xaTanovTi^erai) swallowed up and becomes invisible. And why, if the washing (to hiurpov) takes away all sins from us, is it not called the washing of the remission of sins, or the washing of purification, but the washing of regeneration ? Because it not only remits to us sins, and not only cleanses us from faults, but it does so as if we were horn again.'^ Aourpov. The important position occupied by hiurpov in this passage and so frequently recurring in like important relations all through the Patristic writings, makes a clear and correct meaning of this word specially important. Words of tliis termination do not receive as simple and single a nu'iiiiing from Grammarians as words of some other termi- nations. Crosby includes under this termination: 1. Place; 2. Instrument; 3. Other means; Bultman makes it significant of "the names of instruments and other objects belonging to an Aoorpov. 499 action ;" Kuhner, " Substantives which denote an instrument or a means of accomplishing some object." Liddell and Scott define — 1. A bath, bathing-place ; 2. Water for bathing or washing; 3. The equivalent of drink-offerings, libations; 4. Bathing; Bobinson, "In N. T. a washing, ablution; spoken of religious ablutions or baptisms ;" Sept. for '^'^^1 ; which Gesenius defines " a washing. Cant. 4:2; 6 : 6." Cremer says, " Answering to the Biblical use of hwsiv it denotes baptism. Eph. 5 : 26 ; Tit. 3:5; where we must bear in mind the close connec- tion between regeneration and purification. In Classical Greek Xourpd in like manner denote propitiatory offerings and offerino-s for purification. Soph. El., 84, 434." Bp. EUicott (Eph. 5 : 26) thinks "the meaning of kourpov as a laver is indisputable. The peculiar force of the termination (in- strumental object) may be distinctly' traced, in all cases yet adduced." The evidence in support of this position is not satisfactory. A laver is not the instrumental object for washing. A plouo-h (apoTpov) is the instrumental object by which ploughing is effected; a currycomb {^nazpio) is the instrumental object bv which currying is effected ; teaching-money (ilidaxTpav) is the instrumental object by which payment for teaching is effected; and ransom-money (Xinpov) is tlie instrumental object by which ransoming is effected ; but a laver (?.) is not the instrumental object by which a ivashing is effected. A "laver" stands in an essentially different relation to washing from that in which a plough stands to ploughing, or a currycomb to currying, or teach- ing-money to teaching, or ransom-money to ransoming; a " laver" does no washing. The Septuagint gives h,uTrjp as the term for " laver," but the New Testament does not use the word ; no doubt because no such instrument was known in New Testament bap- tism. We have, also (outside of the Scriptures), kuuTijptov for the vessel containing the water, and not kourpov. The instrumental object (including the means) in washing is the water ; as the plough ploughs, and as the ransom-money ransoms, so the water washes. The water which makes up the bath is designated by Homer as Osp/jA kotrpd ; and Josephus, de Bel. VII, 6, 3, calls the water from the hot and cold springs near Machferus, a ver}' pleasant kourpov. It would be remarkable if in usage a word used to designate the water used for washing, did not pass on to designate the washing itself. What else can such classic 500 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. phrases as Xouffai riva Xoorpov and Patristic phrases as XobaaaQat Touro TO Xourpov (Justin M., 516) mean, but to wash a washing'? And when this word passes out of mere physics into a religious sphere, it would be natural for it to assume the broader idea of purification where there was no physical washing ; which Liddell, Scott, and Cremer appear to recognize as a fact in heathen rites. Cremer saj^s : '•'' kobeiv is the term used b}' the Septuagint to denote the theocratic washings on account of sin. And while ^aTtrO^etv was used for the N. T, washing in order to purification Xousiv, Xoorpov^ serve in some passages to give prominence to the full import of /SaTrrtCety which had become a term, tech., or to de- note purification generally, Heb. 10:22; Rev. 1:5; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5. See, also, Ecclesiasticus 31:25: 'What profits (t) purification is called (XouTpov ■KaXiyye.'effiaq) the washing of regeneration." This title of Christian Baptism, "the mystical purification," can hardly be a physical laver, or physical water constituting the material for a bath, nor yet washing, as a process ; the only appropriate inter- pretation seems to be the purification resultant from washing. And this purification is shown to be spiritual in its nature by reason of the qualifying TzaXtyyeveaiaq — it is a regenerative purifica- tion ; also, because what is here called by Chrysostom XouTpov TzaXtyyeusmaq is called by Origen (II, 850) [idTznaim rtaXiyy^vsaia^^ which, also, he calls "the second circumcision, purging the soul," showing its spiritual nature. This is farther confirmed by Justin Martyr (500, 504) : " Isaiah did not send you to the bath {fiaXavdov) there to wash away {dnoXowaidvouq) murder and other sins, which all the water of the sea is not able (xaOapiffat) to cleanse ; but, as AoOTpOV. 501 is reasonable, this was of old time (to autrripiov Xovrpov) that saving washing which he announced to the repenting, no longer seeking purification (xaOaptl^ofiivouq) by the blood of goats and sheep, but by faith through the blood of Christ and his death. . . . There- fore (oca. TOO kooTpoo r^? /j.sravoh':) through the washing of repent- ance and of the knowledge of God, we have believed and declare that that (iSdnrcffiia) which Isaiah foretold is the only baptism which is able (/.aOapiaai) to cleanse the repenting ; this is that water of life. But ye have formed cisterns for yourselves which are broken and worthless. For what profit is there of that bap- tism which (idw/i.^w>«. Our hearts (.»«"- rtfffisxn) Sprinkled (v, 19 by the blood of Jesus) and our bodies washed with pure water, let us draw near." There is no reason AouTpdv. 505 why this washing of the body as originally applied to the " He- brews " should not be a physical cleansing. Such was the uni- versal requirement made of the Hebrews ; but we must not con- found differences because of some common relation. This ph37sical washing of the Hebrew is made the basis for inculcating a spirit- ual washing of the Christian. A physical washing was required of the Jew when he would present himself before God ; and to this Paul refers. A ceremonial washing, which was not a physical cleansing, was required of the Jew to remove an ideal, ceremonial, impurity, which might be effected by sprinkling. To this cere- monial use of water enjoined upon the Jew the Saviour refers (John 3 : 5) in his conversation with Nicodemus, addressing him as a Jew and teaching him that not only this cleansing was needed by him as a Jew, but a higher cleansing, even that of the Spirit, was needed by him as a Christian. Paul teaches us in Eph. 5 : 26, that the cleansing of the soul by the word is as perfect as the cleansing of the body by water ; and because the cleansing by " the word," by "regeneration," by " the blood of Jesus," is per- fect, therefore, such cleansing is symbolized by the pure water used in ritual baptism. It is not true, however, that the water in John 3 : 5, Eph, 5 : 26, Rom. 10 : 22, has any direct reference to the water used in baptism. Dr. Carson concludes thus: "I claim, then, the evidence of all those passages in the New Testament which by this word refer to the ordinance of baptism. I make a similar demand with re- gard to the use of the word by the Fathers. Justin Martyr not only always uses the word conformably to this distinction, but speak- ing of the pagan purifications invented by the daemons in imitation of baptism, he showed that they used the washing of the whole body as the most complete purification. Baptism then is immer- sion and nothing but immersion is baptism." This claim is foundationless alike as to the New Testament and the Fathers. The representation made as to the usage of Justin M. is specially inaccurate. This martyr to the truth speaks in the following distinct terms — " 492 : And when the daemons had heard, through the preaching of the prophet, of this (Xtwrpov) washing, they required their worshippers (pavrtl^ecv) to sprinkle themselves." Subsequently he speaks of a washing (^XoueffOac) ; but a washing in religious rites is effected by a sprinkling more frequentl}' than in any other way. Paul speaks of the blood of Jesus being applied by "sprinkling" to the heart. Such sprink- 506 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. ling effects a washing = a thorough cleansing of the bod}' and the soul from sin. It is this " sprinkling " which effects the umahing (/.iiutra'^n) in Rev. 1 : 5. Whatever has a power to wash, cleanse, is a /Murpov ; Xourpd are various in nature, and in the washings, cleansings, which they effect ; and, also, in the manner of their operation. The kourfwv '^o,nfr/.dv effected its bridal washing by the sprinkliug of special waters. The washing (Xoorpno) and llie bap- tism (/JaTrriVrav/ro?) of the victim on the altar of Carrael (Origen IV, 241) effected tlieir ceremonial cleansing hy the pouring of water upon it ; just as the ordinary bath washing [Xuv-pov) of the Greeks was effected. The washing (/.nurpdv) of the blood of Jesus effects its cleansing of the soul from sin by an ideal sprinkling of the heart. It is evident that every /.ou-pdv has a washing power ; and the washing effected is (in kind) like to the washing power. Now, what is tliis but the ,3d7:rc(Tfj.a of Basil, to wit, a thoroughly changed condition, like, in nature, to the baptizing power which has effected the condition ? The usage of Xduoj and Xourpdv by Patristic writers is in entire conformity with this reasoning and its conclusion ; they use these terms not only as capable of interchange with fianriZuj and [idnrinjia^ but as substantial equivalents, having no reference to modal action and in religious applications without reference to a physical cover- ing element. Therefore, all argument from the use of these words, in relation to baptism to prove a water covering, fails. The general usage and sentiment is well set forth by Clemens Alex, {prior) 620: "It is especially necessary to wash {Xabstv) the soul {-/.aOapioj A6yw) by the purifying Word. . . . ' Cleanse {^/.aOdpiaov) first that which is within the cup, that that which is without may also be made clean.' Therefore the best washing (Xourpd'^) cleanses the defile- ment of the soul, and is (-yiu/zarizoV) spiritual ; concerning which washing the prophet clearly says : ' The Lord will cleanse ('ezrr/tii/£i) the defilement of the sons and daugliters of Israel.' And the Word has added the manner of the (xaOdptrewq) cleansing, saying: ' By the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.' But the washing of the body, the fleshly washing, is accomplished (Sid) by water only, as happens often in the country, where there is no (fiaXavehiv) bath." Clement here in (Xourpdv did udaror;)^ like Chrys- ostom in {Xourpdv Old rcoy jSaXavsiwv) distinguishes between Xourpdv the washing and fiaXavsiuv the bath ; the instrumental means {ptd) DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 507 by which "the washing" is effected. Clement, also, distinguishes between the Xourpdv Sid /idvou uSaroq, which is ur/7rti/] ) one and the same, to wit, of blood. These two baptisms (has duos haptismos) he shed forth from the wound of his pierced side. It is this baptism which talies the place of the wasliing of water when it has not been received and restores it when it has been lost." II, 135 : " God foresaw human infirmity and the imperilling of faith {post laiiacrum ^^ baptism) after the washing and established a final protection in martyrdom and {lavacruvi sanguinis) the washing of blood. . . . To martyrs no sin can be imputed since life itself is laid down {in lavacro) in the washing (baptism)." 141 : " The martyrs rest under the altar. . . . ' These are they who have washed their robes and made them white by the blood of the Lamb.' The robe of the soul is the body. Defilements (sordes) are indeed washed away (abluuntur-) by baptism (baptismate), but stains {maculse) are whitened (candiduntur) by martyrdom." Tertullian, like others, believed that while water effected a puri- fying baptisma or lavacrum (the terms are interchanged as equiva- lents), mart3'r blood effected a purifying baptisma or lavacrum, more desirable and more secure, because it had no after-defilement. 1028: " Martyrium j;iliud erit baptismum, Martjaxlora will be another baptism.^^ For he says: Luke 12:50, 'I have, also, an- other baptism.' Whence from the wounded side of the Lord water and blood flowed forth, providing each washing — . . . first washing (prima lavacro) by water, second (secundo) by blood." Here washing =^ baptisma =martyrium. Cyprian III, 1123: "Can the power of baptism (vis haptismi) be greater or better than confession, than martyrdom, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized by his own blood (sanguine suo baptizetur) ? And yet not even this baptism (hoc baptisma) profits the heretic. The baptism of a public confes- sion and of blood (baptisma piiblicas confessionis el sanguinis) cannot profit a heretic unto salvation." 1124: "Catechumens not baptized in the cliurch, but baptized by that most glorious and greatest bai)tism of blood (haplizrntur glor iosissimo el maximo sanguinis baptismo) are not dei)rived of grace. The Lord de- clared (Luke 12 : 50) ' That lie had another baptism to be baptized with ;' and lie declares that those baptized with their own blood (sanguine suo baptizatos) obtain divine grace, when he sa3s to the BLOOD BAPTISMS. 511 thief in his very passion that 'he should be with him in paradise.' 1198 : Our God says : Luke 12 : 50, 'I have another baptism to be baptized with;' Mark 10:38, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?' showing that he must be bap- tized not only by water but by his own blood ... to be baptized by either mode (utroque modo haptizare) secures alike and equally ONE baptism of salvation and honor. When the Lord says, ' I have another baptism to be baptized with,' he does not mean a second baptism as if there were two baptisms, but he shows that baptism of the one kind or the other (alterius speciei) is given to us for salvation. Martyrs receiving the baptism of blood expe- rience no loss through lack of the baptism of water ; and believers receiving the baptism of water experience no loss through lack of the baptism of their own blood." Cyprian II, 654 : " We who have given onl}^ the first baptism (of water) to believers, would prepare every one for that other (of blood) also, teaching that this Baptism is greater in grace, sub- limer in power, richer in honor, a Baptism in which angels bap- tize, a Baptism in which God and his Christ exult, a Baptism which perfects the increase of our faith, a Baptism which unites us, leaving this world, immediately with God. The remission of sins is received by the Baptism of water, the crown of virtues is received by the Baptism of blood." Origen II, 980 : " Our probation does not extend merely to scourging but reaches to the pouring out (profit sionevi) of blood: for Christ whom we follow poured out {effudit) his blood for our redemption, that we may go hence washed {loti) by our own blood. It is the baptism of blood only which makes us more pure than the baptism of water. The Lord says : ' I have a bap- tism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished.' You see tliat he called the pouring out of his blood, baptism {profusionem sanguinis sui^ baptisma) ... by the baptism of water past sins are remitted ; by the baptism of blood future sins are prevented. ... If God should grant unto me that I might be washed {diluerer) hy my own blood, that I might receive this second baptism, enduring death for Christ, I would go safe out of this world." 512 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. Christ's Blood Baptism. Augustine IX, 276 : " Petilianus says: The Saviour, haviug been baptized by John, declaimed that he must be baptized again ; not now b}^ water or Spirit, but by the baptism of blood, by the cross of his passion (sanguinis bapfismo, cruce passionis). . . . Blush, 0 persecutoi's ! ye make martj^rs like to Christ, whom, after the water of true baptism, baptizing-blood sprinkles (sanguis hap- tista perfundit).'^ Jerome IV, 35: "Isaiah 1:16, 'Wash you, make j^ou clean.' Instead of ancient victims, and burnt offerings, and the fat of fed beasts, and the blood of bulls and goats ; and instead of incense, and new moons, and sabbaths, and festivals, and fasts, and kalends, and other solemnities, the religion of the Gospel pleases me; that ye should be baptized by my blood (baptizemini in sanguine meo) by the washing of regeneration (per lavacrum regenerationis) which alone can remit sin." The personal baptism by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ does in its character stand unapproachably alone. That baptism was into penal death by blood substitutionally shed under the de- mands of a broken Law. This blood-shedding satisfied the Law, made an atonement, and hereby became invested with a power to remit sin unto all souls upon which it might, by the Ploly Ghost, be " sprinkled." This baptism presents an infinite difference as it is related to Christ and to his people. He, sinless, sheds his blood unto death for sin, that that blood might secure the power to save sinners from death in sin, as a consequence of their sin. Therefore he declares (Mark 10 : 38), that in his personal baptism of blood ( = fulfilling all righteousness and bearing the penalty of the Law) they could have no share. lie trod the wine-press alone. Of the people there was none with him. And therefore, again, he declares (Mark 10 : 39), that in his personal blood bap- tism (as he is thereby made 'Jesus, Saviour of his people from their sins ') they shall indeed share. This power to remit sin, secured to the atoning blood of the Redeemer (erroneously sup- posed to be communicated to and to become coefficient with the water of baptism, the blood of martyrs, and the tears of penitents) is the key by which Patristic language on the subject of Christian baptism must be resolved. Compare the above statement of Jerome lY, 35, " That ye should be baptized by my blood which alone can remit sin," with Jerome II, 161, "How can the soul Christ's blood baptism. 513 which has not the Holy Spirit be purged from old defilements ? For water does not wash (lavat) the soul, U7iless it is itself first washed {lavatur) by the Spirit, that it may be able spiritually to wash (lavare spiritualiter) others. Moses saj^s : ' The Spirit of the Lord was borne above the waters;' from which it appears that baptism is not without the Holy Spirit. Bethesda, a pool of Judaea, was not able to heal the enfeebled members of the body except through the coming of an Angel ; and do you offer to me THE SOUL washed with simple water (aqua simplici), as from a bath (balneo) ? . . . The baptism of the Church without the Holy Spirit is nothing." It is eminently the Patristic sentiment, that water, blood, tears, baptize ( ^ remit sin) only through a divine power communicated from the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit ; and they do repudiate with scorn a hath (= " simple water ") baptism, or a covering with mere water, blood, or tears, as Christian baptism. The blood of Christ is the agency (the power of God) to remit sin, which power has infinitely less than nothing to do with quantity, or covering, or form of application, and it was only as this divine power was (supposedly) communicated to simple water, martyr blood, penitential tears, that the Fathers of Chris- tianity believed that Christian baptism could be effected. With- out it all the oceans of earth could not baptize a babe; with it sprinkling drops are enough to baptize a world. In proof of this and in conclusion of these Blood baptisms I offer one other quotation. Chrysostom II (parsprioi-), 408 : " Why did Christ suffer with- out the city on a high place and not under some roof? This did not take place without a reason, but that he might purify (xaOdpTj) the nature of the air ; therefore he was offered on a high place, under no roof, but instead of a roof with the heavens stretched above him, that the whole heaven might be purified (^xaOapOtj) by the Lamb offered on a high place. Therefore the heaven was purified, and the earth was purified. For blood from his side dropped (errrr/cs) upon the earth, and its defilement everj'where was cleansed away {l^e/AO-qpsv). . . . Because the whole earth was defiled (azd- Oapviiz) by the smoke, and the savor, and the blood of idol sacri- fices, and of other pollutions, of the heathen, God commanded the Jews to sacrifice and pray in one place. But Christ having come and suflfered without the city he purified the whole earth, 33 514 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. and fitted every place for prayer. . . . The whole earth was made holy (a^'t'a)." No one familiar with the Patristic writings will deny that Chrysostom does here represent the heavens and the earth as BAPTIZED (= purified) hy the uplifted body and the drop^nng blood of the Lamb of God. If all the waters of the Jordan and of the whole earth were " baptized " (as we are told that they were) by the touch of the body of the Lord Jesus, then the whole heavens, into which the body of Jesus was lifted up, were baptized by that body; and if John the Baptist was "baptized" (as we are told that he was) by touching with his hand the head of Jesus, then, the blood-BROPS which fell from that thorn-pierced head had power to BAPTIZE the whole earth; and Chrysostom does teach, that blood-drops from the Cross did baptize a world. These Blood baptisms, alone, are adequate to prove the theory (which makes a water dipping and nothing but a water dipping Christian baptism) to be utterly eraptj^ of truth and a supreme error with which no semblance of sympathy can be found in the Patristic writings. Tears' Baptism. Clemens Alex. II, 649: "He wept bitterly. . . . Having been baptized a second time b}' his tears (roF? ddxpuffi fian-d^o/ievoq ix Ssuripou).'' Athanasius IV, 644: "God has granted to the nature of man three baptisms (rpta ,3a-T{a< 0/ agency. Modal use has no more to do with effecting Christian baptism in the case of water (when there may be one, or thx-ee, or three hun- dred dippings) than in that of tears and blood, where there neither is in fact, nor can be by possibility, any dipping. The BAPTISM is identicall}^ the same in either case. Athanasius teaches us, that the three baptisms — by water, b}'' blood, and by tears — while thej'' are diverse in their agencies, those agencies have a common power to effect one and the same baptism, whose characteristic is, as Athanasius says, " purifica- tion from all sin." BoLTTTCff/ia is applied both to the effect produced and to that which has the power to produce the effect. Therefore water itself is a Baptisma, a loutron, because it effects a baptism, a washing; and so are blood and tears, for the same reason. Tertullian says, the water, and the blood, flowing from the wounded side of the Re- deemer were " two baptisms {duos baptismos).^^ Water is said, " to receive a washing in order that it may effect a washing " = to receive a baptism that it may effect a baptism. The same usage holds good of hjuTpov, and lavacrum. The harlot is said to be baptized into the baptism which is effected b}' " tears." The phrase " into which she was purified " is mixed; fully stated it would be, baptized "into which" bap- tism (= purifying from all sin whatever etc; atpe^cv afxaprcwv) " she was purified." The construction is analogous to "sprinkled " (by the blood of Jesus and so purified) '"''from {aizo) an evil con- science." Peter going out and weeping bitterly I'eceived the same baptism as did the woman that was " a sinner" and washed the Saviour's feet with her tears. It is hard for some persons to learn, even from Athanasius, that sprinkling tear-drops baptize equally with the billowy waves of Jordan. 516 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. In these three quotations we find the Dative without a prepo- sition, the Genitive without a preposition, and the Genitive three times with dta; in every instance expressive of agency. If any dependence is to be put upon those two illustrious Grecians, Clement and Athanasius, water^ blood, and tears hold the same identical relation to Christian baptism, namely, that of agencies and not of receptive elements, and must continue so to do until the theory shall succeed in dipping into their tears " the robber chieftain," " the woman that was a sinner," and " the chief of the holy Apostles." The Patristic baptisma is a spiritual condition and not a physical covering. Fu^e Baptism. Tertullian I, 1212: '"There cometh One who will baptize {tingueret) by the Spirit and fire ' (Luke 3 : 10). Becaiise a true and firm faith is, by water, baptized into salvation {vera et stabilis fides aqua tinguitur in salutem) ; but a feigned and infirm faith is, by fire, baptized into condemnation (simulata autem et infirma, igni tinguitur in judicium).''^ To this passage the following note by Thomas Corbin, a Bene- dictine monk, born A.D. 1694, is attached: '■'' Spiritu et igni. For so John says Luke .3:10: 'I indeed baptize j^ou with water: but one mightier than I cometh, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire (baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni).' John certainly did not exclude water from the baptism of Christ, but he means only this, that his washing (ablutionem) was only simple, that is outward, by simple water [simplici aqua) ; but that wash- ing in the future by the Baptism of Christ, would be exalted to a higher mystery and also to an inner washing (ablutionem.) of the soul, which cannot be without the grace of the Holy Spirit. But many have been exercised as to the meaning of ' by the Holy Spirit and fire,^ and moreover it has furnished occasion to some greatly to err. For there were some of the old heretics who thought that that fire should be understood simply and of our real fire, and therefore that fire, equally with water, should be used in baptism. Clemens Alex, says: 'Some (as Heracleon says) burned the ears of the sealed (baptizatorum).^ And another (Carm. in Marcion. I) relates concerning a fire baptism of the heresiarch Valentin us, that he taught a double baptism, the body taken through the fire — Bis docuit tingi, traducto corp)ore fiamma. FIRE BAPTISM. 517 Augustine, also (De Hseres. ad Quodvult. baer., 59) relates, that the Seleucian heretics administered baptism (igne) by fire. Whatever may be true of these, it is certain that fire was never used by the Apostles for baptism, and therefore it was never commanded by Christ. Some Catholic Interpreters think more correctl}', that by ' Spirit and fire ' is indicated the baptism of Christ himself, upon whom the Holy Spirit came in the likeness of a dove, and at the same time, as Justin M. relates: 'When Jesus had de- scended to the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan.' But in our baptism an invisible fire is kindled, when the grace of the Holy Spirit glides into our hearts, and, as Ambrose saj^s, con- 3uaics our sins and purges the soul from their defilement. Some understand (metaphorically) that suflTerings and persecutions are indicated by 'fire,' as gold is tried by the furnace of fire. Basil thinks that the fire should be understood of the word of doctrine^ which brings both condemnation and justification. But Tertul- lian expounds it of the day of judgment, of the fire of hell. " The opinion of those who understand it literally of the de- scent of the Holy Spirit iyi the form of fire, not only upon the Apostles, but also upon their disciples, freshly baptized, pleases me : an illustrious example of which is furnished in Acts 11 : 11. The best meaning, plain and literal, of the words of John the Baptist seems to be this : ' I, indeed, with water ' (a sterile element, having in itself no power of grace) ' baptize you.' But ' He shall baptize you ' {not with mere water but) ' with the Holy Spirit ' (impregnating the water of Baptism in order to generate grace, aquam Baptismi ad progenerandam gratiam fcjecundante) ' and fire,' to wit, with the gifts of the Holy Spirit about to come, with fire, by the imposition of hands. And this fiery baptism {baptis- mus igneus) is that which Christ himself foretold in Acts 1 : 5, 8, which was fulfilled ten days afterward when Pentecost was fully come." This note presents the view very commonly held b}'' Patristic writers b}^ one who was in perfect sympathy with their senti- ments. There is no attempt to introduce a covering in fire, or in the Holy Spirit, or in water, as Christian baptism. Such an idea can no more be found in this statement than a plenum can be found in a vacuum. Water ba]Dtism is an external ablution (ab- lutio) ; Spirit baptism is an internal ablution (ablutio) ; Fii'e bap- tism is tlie touch of the ear by hot iron, or the kindling of a 518 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. flame in Jordan, or firelike tongues resting upon the head at Pentecost. The water, the Spirit, and the fire, are all (equally' and alike) agencies changing the spiritual condition and not receiving ele- ments covering the body. There is one error of interpretation presented in this note which pervades and vitiates all Patristic Baptism. I refer to the intro- duction of water into that baptism which John said should be executed by Christ. There is no scriptural authority whatever for conjoining water with that baptism which is distinctively (ii> nve6fj.aTi) effected by Christ. John the Forerunner expressly and with the profoundest emphasis excludes it — '' I ^i' udarc (invested only with that power which belongs to water as a symbol) do symbolly baptize you ; He, i.v Iheunar: (invested with that power which belongs to the Spirit) will really, spiritually, by Divine power, baptize you." In this difference he establishes the incom- parable superiority of " the Coming One." John the Apostle (John 4 : 2) carefully guards against this error by an express separation between the baptizing of the disciples and their Lord. In the promised execution of this baptism (Acts 1 : 5) the Lord himself does, by severe contrast, exclude water from his personal baptizing and does limit it to the Holy Spirit. In the actual execution of this baptism (Acts 2 : 4) not only has water no place, but its absence is emphasized by the presence of a wholly diverse symbol — firelike tongues. In the second, formally an- nounced execution of this baptism (Acts 10 : 44), no symbol what- ever appears. And in the universal execution of this baptism (1 Cor. 12 : 13) whereby the redeemed of all ages are made living members of the body of Christ, the Holy Spirit appears alone baptizing by his sole baptism all who are Christ's' into that one body whose head is Christ. The error which incorporates water in the distinctive baptizing of Christ is the vrpwrov 'FsuSix; of Patristic theology on the subject of baptism, robbing them of the Scripture symbol-baptism by watery by impregnating that water (through the associated Spirit) with a divine power to regenerate souls. The s3'mbol-baptism is thus swallowed up. Correct this error, eliminate water from the baptism of Christ (iv riweu/ia-c), and restore it to its scriptural relation to the real baptism b}^ the Holy Spirit as a symbol, ex- hibiting its purifying nature, and you will give to Patristic theol- ogy (as to the nature and power of Christian baptism) a true FIRE BAPTISM. 519 scriptural character. Their philology as to the usage of i3anz-^aj and i3dT:-t(TiJ.a needs no correction. The theory but dreams when it stakes its life upon the usage of these terms as importing a dipping into water or a water covering. There is, in the ordinary Patristic baptism, a dipping of the head into water, and therefore a momentary covering, but these Greeks knew well that no dipping or momentary covering could be exponential of the meaning or the power in ^anriZoi and jSanrca/j-a, and therefore they never used the one or the other for any such purpose. The exposition of this dipping-covering must be sought elsewhere. I now only repeat, that the Patristic baptisma was not a physical covering but a spiritual condition. In proof of which see further these other fire-baptisms. Basil M., Ill, 1436: "The baptism by fire {rb [id-zifsij.a iv z(o r.up'i) condemns sin and accepts the Righteousness of Christ." So, also, de S. S. ad AmjjhiL, XXXV : " The baptism of fire is the trial which is made in the Judgment." Tertul., Ill, 1202: "When the Holy Spirit had descended upon the disciples that they might be baptized by Him (ut in illo baptizat-entur), tongues as of fire (quasi ignis) were seen sitting upon (insidentes super) each one, that it might be evident that they were baptized by the Holy Spirit and by fire (Spiritu Sancto et in igne), that is, bj'- the Spirit (in Spiritu) which is fire, or like fire. To-day the Spirit is invisible to men ; but in the beginnino- of the mystery of faith and of Spiritual baptism, this same Spirit was clearly seen and sat upon the disciples like fire : likewise he descended upon the Lord like a dove. . . . By which it is evident that souls are cleansed by the Spirit (Spiritu ablui, ' which is fire or like fire') that bodies are washed by water (per aquam lavari), also, that by blood (sanguiyie) we come more speedily', by compend (per compendium),, to the rewards of salvation." Iren^eus, 685 : "But others of them seal (signant baptize (?) ) their disciples, cauterizing the hinder part of the right ear." Origen, II, 517 : " One of the Seraphim touched his lips with a live coal from off the altar and said: ' Behold I have taken away thine iniquities.' This has a mystical meaning, and signifies that every one, according to his sin, who is worthy of purification, has coals of fire applied to his members. The prophet says, ' I have unclean lips,' therefore the coal is only applied to his lips. But I doubt whether we can excuse any member of the body from needing the fire." 519 : " Those like Isaiah are purged by fire 520 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. from the altar, but others are purged by another fire. . . . The fire of the altar is the fire of the Lord. The fire which is not of the altar is not the fire of the Lord, but of the sinner, of which it is said : ' The worm shall not die, and the fire shall not he quenched.' " Ambrose, II, 1227 : '"He that toucheth the dead body of a man shall be unclean.' Numb. 19: 11. . . . We live among the dead. Therefore, the Author of life says, ' Let the dead bury their dead.' . . . Whoever lives among sinners needs to be purified. Therefoi*e when Isaiah said (6:5, 7), 'Woe is me, for I have unclean lips, and dwell among a people of unclean lips.' One of the Sera- phim immediatel}^ descended and touched his lips with a burning coal, that he might cleanse his unclean lips. Baptism is not only one {non unum est baptisma). That is one which the Church administers by water and the Holy Spirit (per aquam et Spiritum sanctum), with which it is necessary that catechumens be bap- tized. And there is another baptism (aliud hajjtisma) of which the Lord Jesus says, Luke 12:10, 'I have a baptism to be bap- tized with that ye know not of,' when, certainly, he had already been baptized in the Jordan ; but this is the baptism of suffering (baptismum passionis), with which, also, every one is cleansed by his own blood. There is, also, a baptism (baptismum) at the en- trance of Paradise which formerly did not exist. But after the sinner was shut out the fiery sword began to be, which God placed (Gen. 3:24); which formerly was not, when sin was not. Sin began and baptism began {Culpa ccepit et haptismuvi coepit), wherebj' they might be purified {purificentur) who desired to return into Paradise. That having returned they may sa}^, 'We have passed over by fire and water' (Ps. 65 : 12). Here by water {per aquam), thei'e by fire {per ignem). By water {per aquam), that sins may be washed away {abluantur), by fire {per ignem), that they may be burned away {exurantur). "Who is it that baptizes with this fire? Not a Presbj'ter, not a Bishop, not John, who says, Matt. 3 : 11, 'I baptize you into repentance {in psenitentiam) ;' not an Angel, not an Archangel, not Principalities, nor Powers ; but He of whom John sa3's, 'He that coraeth after me — He shall baptize you by the Holj- Spirit and fire. He has his fan in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor ; and gather the wheat into his garner ; but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.' It is not concerning this baptism, which is administered by priests of the Church, that the Lord himself testifies, Matt. 13 : 49, 50, ' So shall it be at the FIRE BAPTISM. 521 end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire ;' since this baptism shall take place after the end of the world, the angels liaving been sent forth who shall separate the good and the bad, wlien iniquity shall be burned up by a furnace of fire {per caminum ignis) ; that the righteous may shine as the sun in the kingdom of God. And if any one be holy as Peter, or John, he shall be baptized by this fire (baptizatur hoc igne). Therefore the great Baptist (Baptista Purifier) (for so I name him, as Gabriel named him (Luke 1: 15), 'He shall be great'), shall come, and shall see many standing at the entrance of Para- dise, and shall wave the sword turning every wa}', and sa}' to them on the right, not having heinous sins, ' Enter ye who fear not the fire,' For I foretold you, Isaiah 66 : 15, ' Behold I come as fire ;' and Ezek. 22 : 21, 'I will blow upon you with the fire of mine anger that ye may melt away from lead and iron.' There- fore consuming fire must come and burn up in us the lead of iniquity, the iron of transgression, and make us pure gold. But because he having been purged (pu7'gatus), needs there to be purified {purificari) again, he will there, also, purify us, because the Lord will say : ' Enter into my rest,' so that every one of us having been burned {ualus) by that flaming sword, but not burned up {exuslua)^ having entered into the blessedness of Paradise, may give thanks unto our Lord. This is one fire by which invol- untary sins are burned up, which the Lord Jesus has prepared for his servants, that he may cleanse them from their long sojourn- ing among the dead : that is another fire which he has appointed for tlie devil and his angels, of which he saj's, ' Depart into ever- lasting fire {in ignem in aeternum).'' " Ambrose III, 173-175: "The fire of the temi^le altar is said to have been hidden in a pit by the Jews when about to go into captivity, and on their return when sought for was found to be changed into water. This water when sprinkled by the order of Nehemiah upon the altar {Necmias, sacerdos, aspey^gere super ligna^jussit) burst into flames and consumed the sacrifice." This is said to be a type of Christian baptism. Also the water poured on the sacrifice by Elias {hostiam suam tertio ipse perfudit aqua) and the fire coming down from heaven consuming the sacrifice, is said to be a type of Christian baptism. In vindication of these type-fire baptisms, appeal is made to the fact that Christ baptizes 522 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. by the Holy Spirit and fire ; also, to the actual baptism by the H0I3' Spirit and firelike tongues. Basil IY, 132: " 'He shall bai)tize you by the Holy Spirit and fire.' He calls the trial which shall take place in the judgment {izopoz {id-riaiLo) the baptism of fire, according to the saying of the Apostle, ' The fire shall tr3- the work of every one what it is.' " Epiphanius I, 372: "The disciples of Carpocras affix a seal {l\> zaor/>!) by a red-hot iron to the right lobe of the ear of those deceived by them." Jerome V, 730: '"He placed a fiery sword and Cherubim to guard the way of the tree of life.' This sword guarding Paradise produces double suftering, both burning and cutting. Take an illustration. Physicians say, in order to cure some diseases, both burning and cutting are necessary. To those who suffer from an old cancer they apply the sharpest knife, whitened by heat, that the roots of the cancer may be destroyed by burning, and the putrid flesh removed by cutting, and so the way be prepared for healing remedies. Sin is our cancer for which neither the simple sharpness of the knife, nor the mere burning of the fire, is suffi- cient ; but both are required, so that it may be burned and cut. Hear the Saviour in two passages indicating the need of fire and knife. In one place (Matt. 10) he says, 'I have not come to send peace upon earth but a sword;' and in another (Luke 12), 'I am come to send fire upon the earth.' Therefore the Saviour brings fire and sword, and baptizes {haptizat) those sins which could not be purified by the purification of the H0I3' Spirit {quse non jiotue- runt Spirilus sancli ]jurificatione purgdri).^^ These quotations fairly present the "fire baptisms" of these early writers. And if language is capable of expressing the opinions of men, then the language of these writers does express as their opinion that fire baptisms, as related to Christian bap- tism, are neither dippings nor coverings, but spiritual conditions effected by fire or firelike agencies, applied by touching or strik- ing^ sjrrinkiing or pouring, etc., etc. And what is thus true of fire baptisms, is equally true of tears^ baptisms, and of blood baptisms, as proved both by positive statements and by the im- possibilities of any physical dippings or coverings, and the ab- surdity of their attempted imagination. The same is no less true of water baptisms. This conclusion is not so compulsory and patent as in the other baptisms, because in them there neither were in fact, nor could be by possibility, any dippings or cover- CLINIC BAPTISMS. 523 ings of human beings, while there could be a clipping and thus a momentary covering in water ; and, in fact, there was so in the ordinary administration of water baptisms. But this momentary covering, by dipping or pressing down the head, was neither Christian baptism nor any essential element in it. There is not a Patristic writer who does not repudiate the idea that Christian baptism is a dipping or covering in water. There is not a Patristic writer who does not declare that Christian baptism is a purely spiritual condition. There ,is not a writer (holding distinctively Patristic sentiments) who does not affirm that the water effects no baptism within the range of its own natural powers or qualities^ but effects a, spiritual baptism hy reason of a divine pov:er com- municated to it for this end, which baptism consists in the remis- sion OP SINS and regeneration op the soul. There is no evi- dence whatever to show that these writers regarded the momentary dipping of the head into mere water as an}^ baptism at all, heathen anymore than Christian. There is the most absolute evidence to show that they regarded a baptism as necessarily precluding any designed (momentary) limitation of time. That these positions are true will now be further shown by a reference to Clinic bap- tisms. Clinic Baptisms. The theory has no kind word to say for Clinic baptisms. As "baby sprinkling" is an offence which it abhors, so Clinic sprink- ling is a sham which it detests. In both these respects it is admittedly and rejoicingly out of sympathy with these early Christians, as it is equally, though denyingly, out of sympathy with them in their estimate of water-dipping in relation to Chris- tian baptism. The theorists hold Clinic baptism by sprinkling or pouring to be worthless, because it effects no water-covering, which is, and which only is, they say, the baptism commanded by Christ. The Patrists hold Clinic baptism by sprinkling or pouring to be of matchless worth, because water-covering does not enter (as an element) into that Divine power by which alone water has power Christianly to baptize, never dreaming of any command from Christ to cover in simple ivater as his baptism. The theory antagonizes Patrism (no less than the Bible) at all points, as much in the matter of water-dipping as in water-sprink- ling, whether on " crying babies " or dying Clinics. 524 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. The evidence of this will be found in the following quotations, in which " Compend baptisms " (as another name for Clinic baptisms) will also receive attention. Tertullian 1, 1213: "We do not find that any of the Apostles were baptized in the Lord, except Paul. . . . Some think, not naturall}', that they were adequately baptized when in the ship they were sprinkled (aspersi) by the waves ;_ and that Peter him- self was adequately baptized (mersum) by entering the sea. But as I think, it is one thing to be sprinkled by the violence of the sea, and another thing to be baptized by religious requirement. . . . Whether the Apostles were washed (Jtincli) in any way whatever {quoquo modo) or remained (illoti) unwashed, it is rash to doubt concerning their salvation, for a first call and familiar intercourse with Christ could confer Compend baptism." Tertullian makes no objection to bai^tism by sprinkling ; but he thinks it objectionable to substitute the sprinkling from a sea storm for a religious ordinance, in " whatsoever way " admin- istered. Cyprian, 114V : "Thou hast asked ( — ' Are the sick not washed but sprinkled with the saving water, to be regarded as true Chris- tians ? ' — ) what is my view of those who have obtained the grace of God in sickness and debility, whether, since they have not been washed by the saving water, but sprinkled (aqua salutari non loti sint, sed perfusi), they should be regarded as true Christians. We think that divine benefits can in nothing be diminished or enfeebled, nor can anything less be there where what is said of divine benefits is received with a full and perfect faith of the giver and receiver. For the pollutions of sins are not washed away (aMuuntar) by the saving sacrament, as defilements of the skin and body are washed awaj' by a carnal and secular washing {lavaoro), so that an alkali, and other helps, both tub and pool, are needed, with which a little body may be washed and cleansed (abliii et mundari). The heart (pectuti) of the believer is washed in another way, the soul (mens) of man is cleansed in another way, by the merits of faith. In the saving sacraments, necessity urging and God granting favor, divine compends (divina com- pendia) confer full grace upon believers. Nor should it trouble any one that the sick are seen to be sprinkled or to be poured upon (aspcrgi vel perfundi) when tliey obtain divine grace, when the Holy Scripture says, Ezek, 30 : 25, 20 : ' I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 3^0 shall be cleansed from all your unclean- CLINIC BAPTISMS. 525 ness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you, and will give a new heart to you and a new spirit within j'ou ;' likewise in Numb. 19 : 8, 12, 13 : . . . 'He shall not be clean and that soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the water of sprinkling {aqua asper- sionii^) was not sprinkled upon him.' And again, Numb. 8:5, "T: ' The Lord spake to Moses saying, . . . Thus shalt thou purify them ; thou shalt sprinkle {circumsperges) them with the water of purification.' And again. Numb. 19:9: ' The water of sprink- ling is purification.' Whence it appears that the sprinkling of water (aspersionem aquse) possesses equal value with the saving washing (salutaris lavacri), and when these things are done in the Church, where there is true faith of the receiver and giver, all things may be established, completed, and perfected by the majesty of God and the truth of faith. But that some call those who have obtained the grace of Christ by the salutary water and true faith, not Christians but Clinics, I do not know whence they take the name, unless, perchance, they who have read much and the more secret things of Hippocrates and Soranus, have found these Clinics. For I who am acquainted with a Clinic in the Gospel know that to that paralytic, Ij'ing for long years on his bed, his sickness was no hindrance to his obtaining, in the fullest measure, a heavenly vigor, nor was he, by divine favor, merely raised up from his bed, but with renewed and quickened strength, he took up the bed itself And therefore, this is my opinion, that whoso- ever shall have obtained in the Church lawfully and rightly divine grace, by faith, should be adjudged a true Christian. Or, if any one thinks that they have obtained nothing, because they have only been sprinkled or poured upon with the saving water, but are empty and void, let them not be deceived, so as to be bap- tized if they recover from their sickness. But if they cannot be baptized who have alread}' been sanctified by Ecclesiastical bap- tism (ecclesiastico bapiismo), why should they be reproached for their faith and the favor of the Lord ? . . . They who are bap- tized in sickness (qui eegri baptizantur) receive no less measure of the Holy Spirit, nor are more exposed to the influence of evil spirits. The power of the devil only extends to the saving water, there the devil is overwhelmed and man is set free. . . . Finally, experience shows, that those baptized in sickness (in aegt'itudine baptizati) under pressing necessity, both obtain grace and live worthily in the Church, daily growing in grace. And on the other hand some of those baptized in health (qui sani baptizantur) fall- 526 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. ing into sin are troubled by the return of an unclean spirit, so that it is manifest that the devil cast out by faith in baptism, if faith afterward should fail, returns. Unless it seem right to ad- judge them baptized who have been polluted by profane water out of the Church b}' enemies and antichrists, but these who are baptized in the Church (in Ecclesia haptizantur) maj^ be regarded as having obtained less of favor and divine grace; and so great honor be attributed to heretics, that those coming thence may not be asked whether they have been washed or sprinkled (utrumne loll sint an perfusi)^ whether Clinics or peripatetics, while we de- tract from a true faith, and rob ecclesiastical baptism of its majesty and sanctity." There are points in this passage from Cyprian which claim special attention as throwing clear and valuable light on our In- quir}': 1. The question has not its origin in philology but in theology. It has not fiar.ri'^v) as its pivot on the ground that "this word expresses a divine command, has but one meaning through all Greek literature, and means a modal act to be done, to wit : dip and nothing but dip." So far from this, the word (ian- ri%u) does not appear in the inquiry, and the word which does ap- pear {lavo^ loti sunt) is admitted not to express modal act, that on which the life of the theory turns. If the question had turned on (iar.riXw^ and the Interrogator and Eespondent had believed (as we are told that they did believe) that this word expressed modal act (dip), and embodied a divine command, then the question, "Are sprinkled men dipped men ?" could never have been asked; but neither of these parties believed that God had commanded a modal act, or that /SaTrrt'Cw expressed a modal act, and therefore they substitute for it a word (lavo) in which there is no modal act of command, and philology becomes a vanishing quantity. The question is pureW theological. There is no reference to the mean- ing of a word, to dip or to cover ; but to the divine power of water to change the spiritual condition of the soul. " Can baptizing water, which when used for washing the whole body makes a true Christian, also, make a true Christian when it is sprinkled or poured upon the body?" this was the theological question; 2. The answer is as empty of pliilology and as full of theology as is the question. It declares that baptizing water impregnated with the Spirit washes spiritually, and not as the body is washed with soap, and tub, and pooL It is not the water which washes, but a divine power in the water. The impregnated water not by its CLINIC BAPTISMS. 527 quantity, nor by its manner of use, but by its quality — vis, virtus, duvaiuq — confers the full grace of the Spirit — remits sin, regener- ates the soul, expels daemons, drowns Satan, makes a " true Chris- tian;" 3. The sprinkling of baptizing water has no more power to dip, or to cover than any other water ; and Cyprian does not say that sprinkling dips or covers, for he was not a simpleton, but he does say again and again, that sprinkling baptizes. He applies this word alike to the sick and their mode of baptism and to the well and their mode of baptism — " qui eegri baptizantur — qui sani BAPTiZANTUR." Sprinkling water does Cyprianl}' baptize ; sprink- ling water does under no condition dip ; therefore, Cyprian's baptize is not dip; 4. As Cyprian calls baptism by sprinkling "Compend baptism," and "Ecclesiastical baptism," the theory talks wildly, in the use of words without knowledge, about the unrealness and worthlessness of such baptisms. All such might find it to their advantage to read, on this point, the gentle phil- ippic of President Halley addressed to Dr. Carson, or better still to read the originals, and there learn that Compend baptism always includes the baptism whatever else may be absent, and that Ecclesiastical baptism includes that sine qua nan (the Holy Spirit) without which the presence of all other things is worthless to effect Patristic baptism. This answer of Cyprian declaring that sprinkling or pouring, equally with the washing of the whole bod}', effected Christian baptism was so convincing that a like question, so far as I know, never emerged for a thousand years. In these latter days a very different question (with some verbal similarities) has emerged for the first time since the origin of Christianity, in which by the in- vocation of philology (seen through a glass darkly) to prove that iSa-ri'^u} means " dip and nothing but dip," that it represents a divine command to dip into water, and that early Greek Chris- tian writers believed (?) these things, it is sought to establish the remarkable proposition, that " to sprinkle is not to dip," and therefore one sprinkled with water is not dipped into water, and therefore, living in disobedience to God, and therefore, is not a " true Christian," and therefore, must not come to the table of the Lord. Whenever the friends of this theory shall show out- side of the Bible, that /JaTrrt'Cw means " to dip," or inside of the Bible that it means " to dip into water,'''' or anywhere in the Pa- tristic writings that they believed either o% these propositions, then, they will deserve an attentive audience. But until then 528 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. the theory must be set down as among the latest and the chiefest of " the novelties in our theology " emerging for the first time in the history of Christianity after the lapse of a thousand and a half thousand years. Let it be understood, that the question of fact as to the customary covering of the body in water is not now at issue (any more than in the question propounded to Cyprian), but the ground and the value of that fact. Tertul. Ill, 1203: The passage about to be cited on " Com- pend baptism " is from an anonymous writer on Rebaptism in the same volume with that of the passage from Cyprian, and con- taining a portion of Tertullian's works. After referring to the forgiveness of sins granted by the Lord to the paralytic and to the woman that was "a sinner," he adds: " From all which it is shown, that hearts are purified by faith {fide mundari), but souls are cleansed by the Spirit {Spiritu ahlui) ; but moreover bodies are washed by water {per aquam lavari), also, by blood {sanguine), we come more speedily to the rewards of salvation, by Compend {per Compendium). ^^ Here are four baptisms bij faith {fide) by the Spirit {Spiritu) 6y water {per aquam) and by blood {sanguine), in every one of which (faith. Spirit, water, blood) is declared to be an agency, and the mode of application in some instances (faith. Spirit), a vanishing quantity, and in others (water, blood), indifferent, or as diverse as any two modes could well be. While the Baptism of blood, especially referred to as a " Compend bap- tism," is here and everywhere referred to as the most perfect and glorious of all baptisms, instead of (as the theory would have it) a non est. Basil III, 436 : "Why dost thou delay that baptism {zd ,3dn- Ttffim) may be to thee the gift of a fever? When thou mayest be unable to speak the saving words, or, perhaps, to hear clearly, or to raise thy hands to heaven ; or to stand upon thy feet, or to bend the knees for prayer." . . . Was such a one, unable to speak or hear or stand or kneel, dipped into water? He received "the baptism {to i3d7:Tt(T/j.a), without an appended "Clinic," or " Compend," or " Ecclesiastic." Will this auswer for a baptism by sprinkling, a baptism not phys- ical, a spiritual baptism, effected by spiritual power given to the water? Basil the Great had some knowledge of Greek. He knew the meaning of the Patristic to ^dTZTitrna. AuousTiN VI, 40^: " Catechumens afllicted by disease or casu- alty, so that while they still live are yet unable to ask for bap- CLINIC BAPTISMS. 529 tism (baptismum) or to answer questions, should be baptized {baptize ntur).'^ AuGUSTiN IX, 121: "A man may wickedly hate his enemy, yet, alarmed by the sudden danger of death, he asks for baptism (baptismum), which he receives with so much haste, that the danger hardly admits the necessary asking of a few questions, so that that hatred may be driven from his heart, even if it be known to him who baptizes (baptizanii) him. Certainly these things do not cease to occur both among us and among them (Donatists)." EusEBius II, 621 : "Novatian, relieved by the Exorcists, having fallen into a dangerous disease, and thinking that he was about to die, having been poured upon {-ept-^ueetq) in the bed where he lay, received (eXa^sv) ; if indeed it be proper to sa}' that such a one received {rw towutov d^(pivai). Nor, when he re- covered, did he attain those other things which it is necessary to receive according to the rule of the church, and to be sealed {afpaytfjOvjvai) by the Bishop. And not receiving this how could he receive the Holy Spirit ? . . . Through the favor of the bishop, laying hands upon him, he was made a presbyter, when all the clergy and many of the laity opposed, because it was not lawful that one poured upon {TzzpiyuOivra)^ as he was, upon a sick- bed, should be received into the rank of the clergy." An attempt has been made to discredit this Clinic baptism as unreal in itself and invalid in the judgment of those interested in it at the time. The attempt proceeds on misconception of the case. Parties interested in this transaction did file exceptions to it, but on no ground common with the theory. The first and main exception taken related to the moral character of Novatian. This is expressed by the derogatory phrase — " such a one row Towurmy They believed him to be a bad man, under the in- fluence of the devil both before and after his baptism, and there- fore said, " Being poured upon he received, if such a one could receive.'^'' Receive what ? A dipping ? So the theory must make them speak ; but these men were not idiots, and knowing that he had received water by pouring, they did not express a doubt as to whether he had in a pouring received a dipping. The theory believes, that a bad man dipped into water by one of their ministers receives as perfect a baptism as the greatest saint. These early Christians had no such faith. They did not believe that Simon Magus, however the water was used, " received " anj' more than Novatian. The question with them was not whether a 34 530 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. pouring upon with water or a clipping into water had been " re- ceived;" but whether the Holy Spirit had been "received." This was the sine qua non with their baptism ; and it was just here that a doubt whether " such a one could receive," was expressed. This exception was intensified by another (in the same direction, of bad character) namely : that he had not gone to the bishop after his recover}^, to be "sealed;" when, again, was pressed the point of difficulty — "How could he receive the Holy SpiritV Exception, also, was taken to his being received into the ministry ; not because water had been poured upon and therefore he was not baptized ; but because this had been done "on a sick-bed," and the rule of the Church foi'bade any such from being inducted into the ministry. But why ? Because such were not hajotized ? Such a reason would have been the most absolute self-stultifica- tion of the Church, which declared, through a millenar^^ of years, that she did thus administer a perfect baptism ; but the Chui'Ch objected to the postponement of baptism until death for various reasons and, as a deterring penalty, denied to such access to the ministry. The theory reverses this : men not dipped (only poured upon) are received to all the rights of the ministry but excluded from the rights of private members, at the communion table. No exception was taken to Novatian's baptism because the water was poured upon him. This is evident from the narra- tive and from the fact, that nowhere in the Patristic writings can an objection be found to a Christian baptism grounded on the fact, that the water used in it was by pouring. On the contrary, Cyprian formally defends sprinkling and pouring upon the sick as true and perfect baptism. Some objections to Clinic baptism, not as to form and worth but as to time and circumstance, are thus presented bjr CiiiiYsosTOM II {pars prior), 223: "I not onl}'- declare you happy, but I praise 3ronr wisdom because you have come for bap- tism ((pcuT{(Tfj.aTt), not like more careless men at the last breathings of life, but promptly as wise servants read^' with good will to obey the Lord, submitting the neck of the soul with gentleness and desire to the yoke of Christ. For although the gifts of grace rd TijT /dpcTo': are the same to you and to/hem baptized {ixuarayu)- youfiivotq) at death, yet as to will and preparation the things are not the same. For they receive (the gifts of grace rd rT^t; j^dptroq) in the bed, but you in the bosom of the Church, the common mother of us all ; they grieving and weeping, but you joyous and CLINIC BAPTISMS. 531 happy ; they groaning but you praising ; they stupefied by great fever, but j^ou filled with great spiritual delight. Consequently, here, all things are harmonious with the gift (t^ Swpsa)^ but there all things are discordant with the gift (t^ diopea) ; for those about to be baptized {!W(7r ayiuyouiiivcov)^ and children, and wife, and friends, and servants, are weeping and lamenting. . . . But I have not yet added the chiefest of the evils ; for in the midst of the lamentations and preparations, oftentimes, the soul, leav- ing the body desolate, has fled away, and when present in man}'^ cases profits nothing. . . . For he who is about to be baptized (^luTt^fTOac) lies like a log or a stone, knowing nothing, hearing nothing, answering nothing, differing nothing from a dead man : of what profit is the baptism (r^? ixotTTayajyiaq) in such insen- sibility ?" It was in view of such a condition of things as here portraj^ed by Chr^'sostom that the Church urged prompt baptism in health and opposed its delaj^ until death ; but believing it necessary to salvation it was administered, in ordinary circumstances, to the sick and the dying in the full conviction of its reality and efficacy as a baptism. Whether the efficacy of the water reached to the souls of the dying who lay " as a log or a stone " was an unsettled point. But from the days of Cj'prian it had been settled that the divinel}^ impregnated water poured or sprinkled on the body, did in the truest and fullest manner initiate, illuminate, baptize, so that the Clinic, equally with the Peripatetic, did receive not a substitute for but identically tlie same baptisma ; the same rd r^? •^dpiToq (elsewhere (226) to kourpbv r^? ^dpiToq), which consisted in a spiritual renovation, =the forgiveness of sins and regeneration of the soul. A ph3'sical baptisma has no place in Patrism. Nor is it true, that a dipping (a designed momentary covering in water) is an}'' more truly a physical [id-Ti(rp.a^ than is a pouring or a sprinkling. The essential element of duration without limita- tion of time, is wanting, and consequently the element of power and controlling influence which inheres in iSanri^io as compared with jSdnro) is wanting, just as much as in pouring or sprinkling. But as ,3d-T(u loses its feebleness and changes its nature amid liquids to which a power to dye, to color, has been imparted (which power may be developed through sprinkling or pouring, or dipping), so /JaTrrt'^w, among liquids (water, tears, blood, etc.) to which is imparted a divine power assumes a new nature, and represents that power as developed b}' dipping (which in simple 532 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. water does not baptize), pouring, or sprinkling, by either of which (according to Patrism) it is equally developed, but, according to the Scriptures, is equally symbolized by either pouring or sprink- ling (dipping being excluded by unbroken silence), while the divine power to effect the ^a-Kxtaiia (always and solelj"^ spiritual) is limited in the most absolute manner to the Holy Spirit. This passage of Chrysostom explains why Clinics were ex- cluded from the ministry. It was not because such were not baptized or not fully baptized ; but because they acted against the teachings of the Church by their dela}', and it became ques- tionable whether it was not the fear of death, rather than repent- ance and faith, which made them seek for baptism. Ambrose IV, 471 : "There are not wanting sick persons who are baptized, almost daily Non desint, qui prope quotidie bap- tizantur segri.'''' This statement of Ambrose shows that baptisms by sprinkling and pouring (not quasi or e gratia ba^^tisms but baptisms regai'ded as real and perfect in nature as baptisms under any form) were administered almost daily century after century. In none of these baptisms was there or could there be a phj'sical water cov- ering, and therefore in such Christian baptisms as a water cover- ing was found the baptism could not be in this feature, otherwise where it had no existence there could be no baptism. These diverse cases to which, equally, the term baptism is applied is alone and is perfectly explained by the truth that the Patristic baptisma was no physical covering, but a spiritual condition effected by water (irrespective of modal use) impregnated with a divine power. Sprinkling Baptisms. As Clinic baptisms were by sprinkling I will adduce other cases of baptism by sprinkling to show that they are not limited to Clinics. Tertullian I, 1204: "But the nations without the knowledge of spiritual things, attribute the same eflicacy to their idols, but with unmarried (viduis empty) waters, they deceive themselves. Thc}^ everywhere purify villas, houses, temples, and whole cities by sprinkling water, and are washed {tinguntur) in the spectacles of Apollo and Eleusis. . . . Here we see the work of the devil emulating the things of God, since he practices even baptism among his own people." SPRINKLING BAPTISMS. 633 These " unmarried, empty, waters " point to the all-controlling element in the interpretation of Patristic baptism, namel}^, the im- partation of a divine quality to the water by which it receives^ POWER to baptize. If Patristic baptism were a water covering, the idea that water needed a new quality in order to have power TO COVER, would be lunacy ; but without such superadded power, they declare, that water cannot Christianly baptize, therefore, if these writers are not lunatics. Patristic baptism is not a water covering. TertuUian announces this new quality as communi- cated to the waters in the following terms : " Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de coelis, et aqnis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vim sanctificandi combibunt. For immediately the Spirit comes from heaven and brooding upon the waters, sanctifies them by Himself, and so having been sanctified they imbibe the power of sanctifying." The same thing is re- ferred to in the following lines quoted in a note : "Sanctus in hunc coelo descendit Spiritus amnem, Coelestique sacras fonte rauritat aquas." If any object to the translation of ^'' tinguntur''^ by washed, purified, they are referred to Ovid, " Ignibus et sparsa tingere corpus aqua." And for a new power being communicated to water, enabling it to exercise such power toward other objects, the same Classic says : " Et incerto fontem medicamine tixit.''^ A dipping has nothing to do with tingo in either of these cases. Tertull. II, 136 : " Where are those whom Menander has sprinkled (^perfudit) ? Or those whom he has mersed into his Styx {in Sty gam suam mersit) ?" The Annotator remarks : " Mersion (mersio), perfusion (per- fusio) or aspersion {aspersio) belong, equally, to Christian bap- tism. The one by rule {ex ordine) for the well ; the other by necessity {ex necessitate) for the sick. ... It should be observed, that it was usual in baptism both to sprinkle and to cover {bap- tismo perfundi solitos simul et mergi). Sprinkling or pouring {perfusio) indicated the washing from sins {lavationeni pecca- torum) ; covering {mersio) death and burial, codeath and coburial, with Christ." Iren^us, 664 : " But some of them say, to conduct to the water {^7:1 TO vdcup) is unnecessary, and mixing together oil and water (with some words, such as we have mentioned), they sprinkle {km^dkkovai) it upon the head of the baptized {reXeioufiivajv).^^ 534 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. These were heretics ; but they were not charged with heresy because they baptized by sprinkling. Ambrose I, 875: "Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean ; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow" (Ps. 51 : 10). " He asks to be cleansed by hyssop according to the Law ; he desires to be washed according to the Gospel. He who wished to be cleansed by typical baptism (typico baptismate) was sprinkled with the blood of the lamb by a bunch of hyssop." Ambrose IV, 829: "He sprinkled the leper seven times, with cedar wood, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and he was rightly cleansed. . . . By the cedar wood the Father, by the hyssop the Son, by the scarlet wool (which has the brightness of fire) the Holy Spirit is represented. He who wished to be rightly cleansed was sprinkled by these three ; because no one can be cleansed from the leprosy of sin by the water of baptism, except by the invocation of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. . . . We are represented by the leper." Hilary I, 338: "Ziphaai in Hebrew signifies what we call sprinkling of the face {oris adspersio). But sprinkling according to the Law was the cleansing from sin (emundatio peccatorum). The sprinkling of blood purifying the people through faith. Of this sprinkling David speaks : ' Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean,' representing the sacrament of the future sprink- ling of the blood of the Lord." Jerome V, 341: "Ezek. 36 : 16, et seq. 'I will pour out or sprinkle {effundam sive aspergam) upon you clean water, and ye shall be cleansed from all j'our defilements. And I will give you a new heart and I will put a right spirit within you.' ... I will pour out the clean water of saving baptism. . . . And it is to be considered, that a new heart and a new spirit may be given by the pouring out and sprinkling of water (jjer effusionem et asper- sionem aquae). . . . And I will no more pour out upon them the waters of saving baptism, but the waters of doctrine and of the word of God." Augustine IX, 202: "In the Epistle which Cyprian wrote to Magnus when asked concerning the Baptism of the dipped and the sprinkled, whether there was an}' difference (de Baptismo tinc- torum et perfusorum^ utrum aliquid interesset) ?" This form of stating the question addressed to Cyprian conclu- sively settles the point, that the mode of using the water as be- tween dipping, or pouring, or sprinkling, was not involved. For POURINa BAPTISM. 535 to ask whether there was any difference between dipping, pouring, sprinliling, is absurd. It is no less conclusively settled, that " Baptismo " as used by Augustine does not mean a dipping. It is beyond all possibility that Augustine should say, " Cyprian was asked whether there was any difference in the dipping of the dipped and the sprinkled." And it is as certainly settled, that " Baptismo " expresses the spiritual effect of the impregnated water in the soul, and whether there is any difference in that effect when such water is used by dipping, or pouring, or sprinkling, is asked. If Patristic writers wrote to be understood, they believed that sprinkling and pouring baptizing water did baptize ; but sprink- ling and pouring no kind of water can dip, therefore the Patristic " baptize " cannot be dip. As there is an essential relation between Sprinkling baptisms and Pouring baptisms I will point out one of this latter class in further proof of the point before us, namely, that baptisms are not physical covei'ings. Pouring Baptism. In 3 Kings 18 : 34 (Sept.) : Elijah commands four water-pots of water to be taken and poured upon (kTrtyrieze) the sacrifice laid upon the newly made altar. This command he I'epeats again and again, and it is done thrice. This water pouring without a water covering is declared by Origen, Basil M., Gregory N., and Am- brose, to be a Baptism, as shown by the following quotations : Origen IV, 241: "But why is it believed that the coming Elias will baptize (ISanrcffeiv), when he did not baptize {i^a-Kriadvruq) what needed cleansing {Xwrpou) upon the wood of the altar, in the time of Ahab, that it might be burned when the Lord revealed himself by fire ? For he commanded the priests to effect this baptism. How, then, is he coming to baptize {iSanri^ecv) who did not then baptize ? Christ does not baptize with water, but his disciples ; but he reserves for himself the baptizing by the Holy Spirit and fire." The facts in this case are so simple, so clear, so unmixed with anything which could admit of " darkening counsel by words with- out knowledge," that it is a matter of universal admission, that here was a case of baptism (so declared by one of the most learned Christian Greeks that ever lived) and in this baptism there was no physical covering, although the baptism was by water. In this transaction there was, also, a kuurpdv ; but there was no 536 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. "bathing-place," no "water for a bath," no "laver," but there was a cleansing from ceremonial impurit}^ for the revelation of the Lord by fire. And it was this cleansing (^kourpdv) which was the baptism {(id-Kriaiia) ; the one word taken as the full equivalent of the other, here and times without number elsewhere, by these early writers. Basil M. Ill, 428: "Elias has shown the power of baptism (t^v }ayhv too fianriaiiaToq) hy burning the sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offerings, not by means of fire, but b}^ means of water. For altliough the nature of fire is opposed to that of water, yet when the water is mystically poured, thrice, upon the altar, the fire begins and kindles a flame, as though it were oil." The specialt}'^ of this passage of Basil as compared with that of Origen is, its bringing out a new quality given to the water enabling it to burn when mystically poured (fj-uffzucuq xars/oOrj) thrice. Does any one doubt that an effect is here ascribed to water be3^ond and inconsistent with its natural power, by reason of a new and diverse quality imparted to it ? But it is just such a quality which is declared to be imparted to baptizing water, giving it a power, alien from its own nature, to baptize (not to cover, this it has by inherent quality, but) to cleanse from, "to burn up" sin in the soul. The "three mystical pourings'^ ally the transaction with the customary " three mystical di2ypings " which efiect the " one Baptism " purifying the soul. A dipping is no more trul}^ a baptism than is a pouring. And the Patrists no more imagined a dipping to be a baptism, or the three dip- pings to be the one Christian baptism, than Origen imagined the three pourings to be the Carmel baptism. The baptisma was a "result, condition, effect," of a power attributed to the water by special divine gift, developed in the one case by pouring and in the other case by dipping ; but in neither case being the dipping or the pouring, nor in anywise dependent upon the one form or the other. The baptizing power was wholly and solely in the im- pregnated water. Gregory Naz. II, 421: "I have three overflowings (UixXijiren;) with which I will purify (/.aOcsfjoxno) the sacrifice, kindling fire by water (oouti), which is most paradoxical ; and casting down the prophets of shame using the poiver of the mystery." Gregory is writing upon baptism, and especially magnifying, to those about to be baptized, the doctrine of the Trinity. In refer- ence to this doctrine and its power he says: "I have three stones POURING BAPTISM. 537 which I will sling against the enemy. I have thi-ee breathings with which I will give life to the dead. I have three overflowings with which (alq) I will purify," etc. The "three stones," the " three breathings," the " three overflowings," are identified with the Trinity, from which they are represented as obtaining a power not inherent in the nature of a stone, or a breathing, or an over- flowing, and by which they are made divine agencies to accomplish what otherwise they were incompetent or unadapted to accom- plish. The stone, the breathing, the overflowing, were not receiving elements into which Goliath, "the dead," the altar, were to pass, but vehicles through which divine power was displayed. The transaction on Carmel is identified by Gregory with Christian baptism, and its water is made an agency, and not a passive covering element. Ambrose I, t27 : "Baptism like a fire consumes sins, for Christ baptizes by fire and the Spirit. You read this type in the Books of the Kings (3 Kings 18:34), where Elias put wood upon the altar, and said that they should throw (mitterent) over it water from water-pots (de hydriis) ; and when the water flowed Elias prayed, and fire came down from heaven. Thou, 0 man ! art upon the altar, who shalt be cleansed (ablueris) by water, whose sin is burned up, that thy life may be renewed. . . . John baptized into repentance (in pcenitentiam),and all Judea gathered together. Christ baptizes by the Spirit (in S2nritu); Christ gives grace, and men reluctantly assemble. Elias showed but a type of baptism (typum baptismaiis) and opened heaven, which had been shut for three years and six months. How much greater blessings belong to the real baptism (veritatis).^^ Ambrose identifies the baptism of Elias, and the baptism of Christ, as type and antitype. It is absurd to sa}'^ that one thing is the type of some other thing, when there is nothing in the declared type correspondent with the essential charactei-istic of the declared antitype. Now, the theor}^ says, that the essential characteristic of Christian baptism (that without which it is no baptism) is the covering in water by dipping; but in the transac- tion on Carmel there is neither covering in water nor a dipping; therefore it is absurd to say that that in which there is nothing, answering to that which is the essence of some other thing, can be the type of that thing. But Ambrose declares that there is a typical relation between these things ; and he further declares that this typical relation is found in the baptism which is common 538 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. to both ; that in both baptisms there was a victim, the bullock upon the altar corresponding with the man laid upon the altar of faith {tu es homo super aUare) ; that the water and fire of Elias correspond with the "Spirit and fire" of Christ; and as the water invested with the power of fire burned up the victim, and stones, and wood, so the water of Christian baptism impregnated with the power of the Holy Spirit does as a fire burn up sin in the soul. The [i(l.T.Ti.aij.(j. on Carmel was no water-covering ; it was a type- cei'emonial purification, having its antitype in the [idnri(7ij.a of Christianity, in which there is no water-covering, but a real spirit- ual purification. Thus Ambrose has his justification, and the theory has its condemnation. There is another altar baptism ver3' analogous to this, in which both sprinkling and pouring appear as the forms under which the baptism is efi"ected. To this we will now briefly refer. Sprinkling and Pouring Baptism. 2 Maccabees 1 : 20-36, " They found no fire but thick water. Then commanded he to take it up by dipping and bring it; and when the sacrifices were laid on,Nehemiah commanded the priests to sprinkle (i-cppavat) with the water (rw uSa-t) both the wood and that which la}' upon it. When this was done, and the time came that the sun shone, which afore was hid in the cloud, there was a great fire kindled, so that every man marvelled. . . . Now, when the sacrifice was consumed, Nehemiah commanded the water that was left to be poured {y.arairxe'iv) upon the great stones. When this was done there was kindled a flame; but it was consumed by the light which shone from the altar. ... It was told the king of Persia that Nehemiah had purified (j^pfffai/) the sacrifices there- with. And Nehemiah called this thing Naphthar, which inter- preted is Purification {y.aOafiKTp.oz).'''' Ambrose III, 174: ''The narrative of the preceding event" (see Levit. 9 : 24), " and especially the sacrifice offered by Nehe- miah, betokens the Holy Spirit and Christian baptism (Christi- anorum baptisma). I think that we cannot be ignorant as to this fire, since we learn that the Lord Jesus baptizes by the Holy Spirit and fire. What, then, means the fire was made water, and the water kindling a fire, except that spiritual grace by fire burns, and by water cleanses our sins ? . " Fire also in the times of Elias descended. . . . He SPRINKLING AND POURING BAPTISM. 539 cleansed the victim (hostiam suam perfudii) thrice with water (aqua), and the water flowed around the altar, and the}^ cry out, and fire fell from the Lord out of heaven and consumed the burnt offering. Thou art that victim (hostia ilia tu es)." Ambrose declares this sprinkling and pouring (not as simple forms of action, but forms of action conveying to the victim and the altar a fluid possessed of a power capable of purifying and consuming by fire the one and the other) to be a type baptism significant of Christian baptism, wherein the Holy Spirit, as fire, communicates to the water a power to burn up sin and to purify the soul. In this transaction, as in that on Carmel, there is no appearance of a dipping or a covering ; the appearance of either is excluded by the declared presence and action of sprinkling and pouring. How, in the presence of these baptized sacrifices and altars, any one can say that to baptize is to dip and nothing but dip, and baptism is a water-covering, is inconceivable. It must be set down as a marvel of marvels among all the marvellous workings of the human intellect. But, on the other hand, we point to these type baptisms as absolute demonstration that the iidxTiffij-a of the Patrists had nothing whatever to do with a ph^^sical covering ; while it did ever express a thorough change of condition, and in connection with Christian baptism (whether in type or antitype) a thorough change of condition by a purifying agencj^, which therefore assimilated the condition of the object to its own char- acteristic. While sprinkling and pouring appear in these baptisms, it must not be supposed that the}^ are necessary to a baptism. A baptism has no exclusive dependence on sprinkling, pouring, or dipping. Because the theory (most erroneously) says, " To baptize is to dip, and to dip is to baptize," its friends conclude and argue (just as erroneously) that others say, to baptize is to sprinkle or to pour, and to sprinkle or to pour is to baptize. Such is not our faith. We do not believe that jSanrOico means either to spriilkle or to pour. But we do believe that these are modes of action (among others) whereby the requirement of (SanriXiu (in its re- ligious applications to which ^durtaixa is limited) is perfectly eflfected. In proof that neither dipping, nor pouring, nor sprinkling, are necessary to a baptism, we will turn our attention to some cases in which neither of them appears. 540 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. Baptisms without Dipping, Pouring, or Sprinkling. Clemens Romanus, 197 : " Thou, therefore, 0 Bishop, wilt anoint, after this manner, the head of the baptized, whether men or women, with the holy oil, as a type of the spiritual baptism (elq ruTTov r<») and to circumcise the true circumcision. . . . This circumcision of the flesh is not necessary for all, but for you only. For we have not received that profitless baptism which is of cisterns {zw'^ Xdxxwv), for it is worthless (ouSiv) compared with this baptism of life. Therefore God has exclaimed, because ye have left Him the living fountain and have hewn out for yourselves broken cisterns {kdx/Muc;) wliich cannot hold water. And you, indeed, who have been circumcised as to the flesh need our circumcision ; but we, having this, have no need of that. . . . 537 : What need, then, have I of circumcision having received witness from God ? What need is there of that baptism (^zec'wu rou fiunTiff/iaro':) for BAPTISMS WITHOUT POURING, DIPPING, ETC. 541 me, who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit (c^^tV nveu/j-an /9s- Justin uses " broken cisterns " (^dxxou<; (ruvrsniiiiivnui;)^ as Isaiah does, to represent all worthless substitutes, for God and his life- giving blessing. Among these substitutes he places fleshly cir- cumcision, which he calls a baptism because it was for typical pu- rification, but being taken for real purification to the rejection of the true (that of the heart), Justin pronounces it (in this aspect) to be a "broken cistern " — a worthless baptism to them and one of which he has no need, being baptized by the Holy Spirit, which is the antitype circumcision. It is unnecessary to say, that while in circumcision baptism there is the most impressive exhibition of the necessity for puri- fication, there is no exhibition of a dipping, or pouring, or sprink- ling. Baptism of water as an element. Tertull. Ill, 1082: "We judge that no one can be baptized (by heretics) out of the Catho- lic Church, baptism being one and existing only in the Catholic Church. For it is written : ' They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and have hewn out for themselves broken cis- terns which cannot hold water.' It is necessary, also, that the water be purified {y.aOapi'^effdai) and sanctified first by the priest, that it may be able by its own baptism (rip \8t(u iSa-riff/iart) to cleanse the sins of the baptized man [too (^ann^o/jjvou a^jOputizou). For the Lord says, through the prophet Ezekiel ; ' And I will sprinkle 3'ou (^mrtffiu) with pure water (xaOapdi udan)^ and will purify 3'ou (xaOapcb)^ and will give you a new heart, and will give a new spirit within you.' And how can a man being himself im- pure {axdOapT(v;) and the Holy Spirit not with him, purify {xada- piaai) and sanctify water ? The Lord saying in Numbers : ' All things which the impure man shall touch shall be impure,' how then, can he by baptizing remit sins to another when he cannot out of the Church remit his own sins ? " This is the doctrine and argument of Cyprian and of the Council of Carthage represented by him, showing that water itself must be baptized before it can baptize, which baptism of water consists neither in its being dipped, nor poured, nor sprin- kled, but in a thorough change of its condition by purification and sanctification, whereby it secures a new power by which it is able to baptize, i. e., to purify and sanctify. This water with a new quality, now becomes odwp xadapuv^ and its new power is developed 542 ^ PATRISTIC BAPTISM. (although not obtained) by sprinkling, and therefore (as Cyprian argues) The Lord says: "I will sprinkle (/Javrj'^w) you y.aOaput S^art' with the purified, baptized and therefore baptizing, jjurify- ing water." This is Patristic doctrine on the subject of baptism (developed in a thousand ways) and it carries the theory away, as b}^ a wliirlwind, beyond their sympathy or recognition. Painting Baptism. Chrysostom {pars prior .^ 2) 235. "Do as painters in painting the likenesses of kings. Before the true color is put on they remove and repaint without restraint, cor- recting errors, and taking away imperfections ; but after they have put on the proper color (rr/v /Jafjjv) they are no longer mas- ters to change and to repaint, lest the beauty of the likeness be injured. Thus do: regard your soul as a likeness. Therefore before the true color of the Si)irit (rryi^ aXi^Orj too Il'^£u/j.ar(i<; l^a^ijv) is laid upon it, blot out your evil practices, whether swearing, or lying, or rioting, or evil speaking, or an}' other unlawful practice, that j'ou may not return to it again after baptism. The washing (to XtivT()w) makes sins disappear, do thou correct the practice, that the colors {zwv ypcjtj.drwv) being laid on, and the royal like- ness shining forth, you may not afterward blot out and mar the beauty given to thee by God." This comparison of baptism to a royal portrait, by Chrysostom, brings out the feature of assimilation which Basil says belongs to baptism. Baptism is riot merely a thorough change of condi- tion, but it is such a change stamped with the characteristic of that which baptizes — effects the change. The reason for this is obvious : iSaTtzi^w is derived from jSa-Krw and derives its character- istics from iSdnriu second, to dye, to color, and not from jSdTzrio first, TO DIP. Now, an object whose color is changed by a dye has not merely its color changed, but changed so as to partake of the same color with that which effects the change. So it is with an oltject whose condition is changed by a baptism. These changes have nothing to do with colors ; that s[)here is preoccu- pied ; but it has to do with a closely related si)here, namely, that of qualities without color. Thus, wine has an intoxicating quality, and it baptizes a man by tlioroughly changing his condi- tion, so that his condition is marked by the wine characteristic, intoxicating quality. Opiates have a soporific quality, and they baptize a man by thoroughly changing his condition, assimilating it to their characteristic, soporific qualit}'. Water has, by nature, a deintoxicating quality, and it baptizes wine by taking away its BAPTISMS WITHOUT POURING, DIPPING, ETC. 543 intoxicating quality, thus thoroughl}^ changing its condition by bringing it into assimilation with its own unintoxicating charac- teristic. But water has not, by nature, a qualit}' which enables it Christianly to baptize, that is, thoroughly to change the con- dition of the soul so as to remit sin, to regenerate, and bring out the " Kingly likeness " of Christ ; but water itself is capable (so Patrists believed) of being baptized (== thoroughly changed in its nature) by a divine power, so that it shall receive the purifying and sanctifying characteristics of that power, and not only so, but shall receive them in such fulness of power as to be able, in turn, to purif)' and sanctify. As this baptizing power is from the Holy Spirit, it follows, that in the baptized, thoroughly changed condition of the soul, a likeness to the divine Baptizer must be developed. It is on this basis, that the Roj'al likeness of Chrys- ostom is grounded. But if baptism be a dipping and a water covering, what then would be the picture in the soul ? The theory falls under every form of trial. The evidence now presented showing that the ^dizTiaim of early Christian writers was not a phj^sical water covering, but a spirit- ual condition of the soul, and sometimes applied to the condition of the water as impregnated with a power making it capable of effecting such baptisma of the soul, is conclusive against the theory; but this evidence is capable of being indefinitely strength- ened b}^ other, independent, lines of argument. Among these is that which goes to show, that what the theory claims to be the receiving element within which the baptized object passes (which withinness constitutes the j3d7:rc(rtj.a) stands in no such relation to the baptism, but is (however used) the agency by which a spiritual l^anTiff/ia is effected. The evidence for this is patent and abounding, and being ad- duced the foundation is taken from under the theory, and it falls out of sight. The presentation of some of this evidence, already of necessity referred to, will now engage our attention. TAATI KAi nNETMATI. WATER AND SPIRIT IN PATRISTIC BAPTISM ARE NOT RECEIVING ELEMENTS BUT CONJOINT AGENCY. Water and Spirit Baptism. Friends of the theory seem to imagine that the admission, that the bodies of the baptized, when in health, were momentaril}' covered in water in ancient times, is a verdict in favor of the theory as affirming that such covering is Christian baptism, and that Patristic writers did so believe and therefore did so practice. We wish therefore distinctly to say, that in adducing evidence to show, that "the Water and the Spirit" appear in Patristic bap- tism as recognized agencies and not as receiving elements, we have no purpose to deny or to question or to shadow this fact ; but on the contrary to give it unhesitating acknowledgment. In doing so, however, we mean to enter a peremptory denial of the conclusion drawn from this fact, that tliis momentary covering in water was believed to be Christian baptism or any baptism what- ever. With this acknowledgment of a historical fact, we ask the ac- knowledgment, in turn, of another, just as patent, historical fact, namely : that those not in health were " almost daily " for more than a thousand years baptized ivithout any ivater covering, by pouring and sprinkling. We do not, however, append to this fact the conclusion — " and these acts were Christian baptism, and were so believed to be, and therefore were practiced." They be- lieved no such thing. We believe no such thing. But they did believe, that baptizing water used by sprinkling or pouring did as absolutely and as literally effect the Baptisma of Christianity as was effected by the momentary covering of the body in water. The theory must confront this fact living through the history of ( 544 ) WATER AND SPIRIT BAPTISM. 545 a millenary of years. In attempting to do battle against it, resort should be had to something more effective than the crj' — " Clinic baptism ! " " Compend baptism ! " " Ecclesiastical baptism ! " Such tactics belong to China. They scatter no opposing ranks outside of the Celestial Empire. Others have learned, if the theory has not, that " Ecclesiastical baptism " is the only valid baptism ; that " Compend baptism " is " a most glorious baptism ; " while old Cyprian tells the sneerer at "Clinic baptism," that he may have studied the mysteries of Clinicism with Hippocrates^ but he has yet to learn from Jesus Christ as he blesses at the Clinic's bedside. We accept the fact of a momentary covering in "ex ordine" baptism, and assume the responsibility of proving, that there was no baptism in said covering ; but that the water so used was em- ployed as an agency to effect a baptism which was spiritual and not physical in its nature. But there is another fact, likewise extending through mor&than ten centuries, which it is desirable for the theory to acknowledge and explain. I refer to the fact that all persons, male and female, through this long period were covered in water divested of all clothing. For such a fact there must be a powerful reason. What was it? I know that some reasons can be presented in connection with a "new birth," a "new life," etc., which are all very inadequate to meet the case. But after some considerable examination I find none so satisfactory as that wliich is grounded in the pieculiar character of the ivater, its wonderful power exercised over the body, and through the body upon the soul, and therefore^ the de- sirableness of its being brought in contact with the naked body, and the whole body. If any better reason can be given I will be pleased to receive it ; but until then I must say, that this naked water covering was a naked water washing, not grounded on the meaning of [ia-ri^u} to dip, but on the character attributed to the water, whose peculiar quality they sought thus to secure in the fullest manner possible. This reason is enforced by another fact, to wit: that evidence disproving "dip" to be the meaning of /JaTrrc'^w has been adduced so conclusive, that no attempt has been made to gainsay it. Therefore, a designed momentary covering of an object in water by dipping cannot be a baptism in any kind of water whatever. This reasoning receives additional strength from the baptizing 35 546 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. water not being simple water, but water impregnated with a qual- ity with which it parts to an object dipped (not baptized) into it, spi'inkled with it, or poured upon hy it. In this respect resem- bling a dyeing liquid into which when an object is dipped (for the sake of securing its dj'eing quality) the dipping is no more the dyeing, than is the sprinkling or the pouring, when the same dye- ing liquid parts with its quality under either of these processes. It would be an inexcusable error to convert ^dnrw second into fidr.ru) first, because the former dyed a fleece through the action of dipping. It is a like error which seeks to convert the Patristic /Sanri^vj into dip^ because the baptizing water parts with its qualit}*" to an object dipped into it, the effect of which qualit}' is declared to be a iSf/.nTKTiia ; and more especially when this water sprinkled or poured is declared to effect the same identical ^3dr,ri(riJ.a. Another point which must be in present recollection in con- sidering this subject is, the Patristic inseparability of the water and the Spirit. The theory claims, that a momentary covering in simple water is Christian baptism. But there is no such water known to Patristic baptism. To saj^ that this makes no difference is to talk as witlessly as to say : It makes no difference whether white linen be dipped into simple water, or into water empurpled by murex. There is difference ; in the one case the color remains unchanged, white ; and in the other case it is wholly changed, the white has become purple. The Patrists strenuously aflirmed, that a dipping into simple water could by no possibility be Chris- tian baptism ; for the soul came out of such a dipping just as it went in, unwashen of sin and unregenerate in soul ; while one dipped into " our water" came out thoroughl}^ changed in con- dition, sins remitted and soul regenerate, or, in other words, bap- tized. The theory is at war with this old baptism at every point. It can find aid and comfort nowhere. Even the dipping which appears in the two systems is as diverse in its origin as can be conceived, and as diverse in the j-id.7:zcff;j.a sought as in the case of spring-water dipping and dye-vat dipping. A man dipped into simple water is neither Patristically nor Classicall}' baptized. A man put within simple water in any way, for an unlimited time, is Classicall}', but not Patristically baptized. A man cannot be Patristically baptized in .simple water by an}' means, whether sprinkling, pouring, dipping, or (what is a very different thing) MEKsiNG through ten thousand years. The reason for this is the same as that which makes it impossible for white linen to be dyed CONJOINED AGENCY. 547 by being sprinkled, poured upon, dipped, or mersed in simple water whether for a moment or forever. Patristic baptism is due to a quality which simple water does not possess and therefore cannot give. Simple water becomes "baptized water" with the power to baptize, by means of a quality divinely communicated to it ; which quality exerts its power, equally and perfectl}', over an object dipped into it, poured upon by it, or sprinkled with it. That this is true, and that thus only can Patristic baptism receive any valuable interpretation, must now be proved. Conjoined Agency. A Benedictine monk commenting on Tertullian (III, 1175) says, with reference to John's statement of Jesus, "He shall bap- tize you with the Holj'^ Spirit and fire." " Certainl3' he did not exclude tcater from the baptism of Christ; but John intends to signify only this, that his cleansing was only simple, that is, ex- ternal, effected by simple water (Suam ahlutionem solum simpli- cem esse, simplici nimirum aqua exterius factam) ; but the cleansing (ablutionem) of Christ by the future Baptism would be elevated to a higher mystery and also to the inner cleansing of the soul, which cannot be effected without the grace of the Hoi}'' Spirit (quse sine gratia Spiritus sancti nequit).''^ This is a correct representation of Patristic views, except that it does not give sufficient spirituality to John's baptism. It is their initial error on the subject of Christian baptism. This error did not consist in believing, that the use of water was to be per- petuated under Christianity ; but that it was to have no distinct use and value as the ministration of men ; its character as simple, symbol water in a distinct ritual use, disappearing l)v a merge- ment in the Holj^ Spirit, by whose influence it became thorouglily impregnated, and thus was made the vehicle through which his divine power was exerted to remit sin and to regenerate the soul. For this destructive mersion of a sj'mbol baptism with simple water by men, in the real baptism of the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no scriptural warrant. John neither says nor implies, that water will enter into that baptism which is to be personally administered by Christ. When that baptism was ad- ministered at Jerusalem and at Caesarea, no water entered into it. When its universal application to his people is spoken of— "We are all baptized b}^ one Spirit into one body" (1 Cor. 12: 548 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. 13), water is wholly eliminated. And when baptism by water is spoken of (John 4 : 2) as done in the presence and b}' the author- ity of Jesus, we are carefull}' guarded against the error of sup- posing that Jesus took an}' personal part in such baptism. Thus we are guarded both positively and negatively against the intro- duction of water into that baptism which was to be personally administered by Christ. He did baptize by the Holy Spirit. He did not baptize b}' water. There is a symbol baptism through simple water by men. There is no baptism through impregnated water by the Lord Jesus Christ. No worthy estimate can be formed of the Christianity of these " Christian Fathers " without remembering, that they did most emphatically deny the power of " simple " water to remit sin and to regenerate the soul, and that their mixed agenc}' of '* water and Spirit'' was, as to its power, nothing but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The imagined conjunction of this divine agency with water administered by men necessarily led to other manifold errors, notwithstanding most sedulous efforts to guard against them, by teaching vital and antagonistic doctrines inculcating the necessity of personal repentance, faith, and godly living. But the adorable Head of the Church most efl'ectually prevented this error from fruiting out in its worst forms by administering his own bap- tism of the Spirit (unmixed with water) from the skies, and gird- ling his people with the prison and the amphitheatre; the sword and the fire ! A few extracts will show the teaching of this conjoint and synchronously operating agency. Tertull. Ill, lost: "Except a man be born again of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). "This is that Spirit which in the be- ginning was borne above the waters. For neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit." Ill, 1132, Council of Carthage : " For ivater only, unless it have the Holy Spirit also, cannot purge sins or sanctify man. Wherefore tlioy must admit the Holy Spirit to l)e there where they say baptism is, or that baptism is not where the Holy Spirit is not : for baptism cannot be where the Holy Spirit is not." Augustine IX, 20G : " It is true that every one who shall enter into the kingdom of God, is first horn again of ivater and the Spirit." VI, 255 : " For his baptism was not like that of John with water only ; but also by the Hoi}' Spirit." That this quality given to simple water by the Spirit has a SPECIAL QUALITY AND POWER GIVEN TO WATERS. 549 generic resemblance to water to which a dyeing quality has been communicated, is shown by the following extract. Ambrose I, 867 : "Have merc}^ upon me, 0 Lord, according to thy loving kindness and according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin " (Ps. 51:1). " David does not desire so much to be washed frequently as to be washed perfectlj^ (in midtum lava). He knew many means of cleansing according to the Law, but none was full and perfect. Therefore he eagerly hastens to that perfect one by which all righteousness is fulfilled, which is the sacrament of bap- tism, as the Lord teaches — ' Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' The divine word cleanses, our confession cleanses, right thinking cleanses, just working cleanses, also, a good con- versation cleanses. Every one cleansed b}' these things more readil}' imbibes and as it were appropriates to himself a splendor of spiritual grace. In a word it is not by one infusion of a Jieece that a precious dye shines forth, but first the fleece is tinged with an inferior color, afterwards by repeated dyeings the natural ap- pearance is effaced and is changed by a different color, and thus a d^^e as of a fuller washing, is secured, so that a truer and better purple empurples the fleece. As therefore in a purple dye there are very many murices, so in the washing of regeneration there is a multitude of mercies that iniquit}^ may be blotted out. There- fore he who is washed thoroughly is cleansed from unrighteous- ness and from sin, and lays aside the habit of sinning which has grown in the inclinations and the will, and loses the quality itself" The most earnest friends of the theory admit that dyeing may be effected by sprinkling or pouring. The Patrists for like rea- son regarding "our water" as generically like a dye; that is to say, simple water with a superadded quality capable of communi- cating the characteristic of that quality in various ways, therefore, believed that baptizing was by sprinkling or pouring, as truly as in any other conceivable way. Sjyecial Quality and Power given to Waters. Tertull. II, 734 : "The madness of the heretic Menander is spit out declaring that death neither pertains to nor can reach his disciples. . . . They who put on his baptism are made immortal, and incorruptible, and immediately partakers of the resurrection. 550 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. We read, indeed, of many kinds of wonderful waters : those of Lyncesta which made drunk, of Colophon which made frantic, of Nonacris tinctured with poison. There was, also, a healing pool of Judtea before Chi'ist. The poet tells of the Stygian pools wash- ing away death ; but if Menander should merse into the Styx (in Stygam mergit) death must intervene to reach the Stj^x, for it is in the infernal regions. But what or where is that felicity of waters which John the Baptizer did not foreadrainister, nor Christ himself make known ? What is this bath of Menander ? It must belong to magic art." Tertullian recognizes the fact that various qualities are found superadded to those qualities which are inherent in simple water, whereby they are capable of exerting an influence which simple water cannot exert. He sa3'^s, that Menander claimed a special quality for his baptizing water. And he claims, that there were special qualities belonging to the water used by John and Christ. But the several qualities of these waters was variously developed, some by drinking, some by stepping into, some by dipping, etc. And in like manner Tertullian and all his associates declare that the peculiar quality which they attributed to their water was vari- ously developed, by dipping, by pouring, and by sprinkling, or they declare nothing. The theory hopelessly breaks down in treating Patristic water as simple water ; as it does, indeed, in every other direction. The quo modo of communicating this quality is shown in the following passages. Quality communicated to Baptizing Water. By the Holy Spirit. Tertull. I, 1203 : "A figure of baptism is presented by the Spirit of God which from the beginning was borne above the waters about to reform the imbued. The holy was borne above the holy ; or that which bore was sanctified b}' that whicli was upborne. Since whatever substance underlies receives the quality of that which overlies, especially does a cor- poreal substance receive a spiritual quality being readily pene- trated and controlled by the subtilty of its nature. So, the nature of the waters having been sanctified by the Hoi}', it receives itself the power to sanctify. . . . All waters therefore have the power to effect the sacrament of sanctification, God being invoked. For immediately the Spirit from heaven comes and is above the QUALITY COMMUNICATED TO BAPTIZING WATER. 551 waters sanctifying them by himself, and so, they being sanctifled, imbibe the jjower of sanctifying. . . . Therefore the waters having received healing virtues (viedicatis) through the intervention of the Angel, both the soul is corporeally purified by the waters and the body is spiritually cleansed by the same. The heathen, ignor- ant of spiritual things, ascribe the same power to their idols, but with unmarried waters (=unimpregnated with healing virtues, viduis aquis), they deceive themselves." 1205 : " If it should seem a strange thing that the holy Angel of God should intermeddle with the waters, we have an illustra- tion in the troubling of the waters of the pool of Bethesda, into which whosoever first went down was healed after the washing. This figure of a corporeal medicine announced a spiritual medi- cine (medicinam) by such form as carnal things always precede, as a figure, spiritual things. The grace of God blessing men has added more to the waters of the Angel; what remedied the imperfections of the body, now heal the soul ; what wrought tem- poral soundness, now effects eternal ; what released once in the year, now profits the people every day ; death being destroyed by the washing away of sins. Man is restored to the likeness of God." DiDYMUS Alexander, 692: "The indivisible and ineffable Trinity foreseeing the frailties of humanity, in creating a fluid substance out of nothing prepared for men the healing of the waters. Accordingly the Holy Spirit by his movement upon the waters, appears from that time to have sanctified them and made them life-giving. For it is evident to every one, that what over- lies imparts of its own quality to that which underlies, and all underlying matter is accustomed to take of the peculiarity of that which overlies. Whence baptism belongs to all water indiscrimi- nately, in necessity, as waters are of one nature and all are sancti- fied. Moses says : ' The Spirit of the Lord was borne above the waters.' . . . The pool of Bethesda is confessedly an image of baptism but not having the very truth ; for an image is for the time, but the truth is forever. Therefore the water in it was moved once a year by an Angel, and one onfy, he that stepped first down, was healed of bodily disease but not of spiritual. But true (abOsvTty.dv) baptism, after the appearing of the Son ancfof the Holy Spirit, every day, or every hour, or, to speak most truly, continually, frees forever all who step down from all sin. The 552 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. Angel who troubled the water was the Forerunner of the Holy Spirit." Jerome II, 161: "How is the soul which has not the Holy Spirit purged from old defilements ? For water does not wash (lavat) the soul unless it is first washed (lavatur) by the Holy Spirit that it may be able spiritually to wash others. ' The Spirit of the Lord, says Moses, was borne above the waters.' From which it appears that baptism is not without the Holy Spirit. Bethesda, a pool of Judaea, could not heal diseased bodies except through the coming of an Angel, and do you offer to me a soul washed by simple water (simplici aqua) as from a bath ?" The baptism of Tertullian, as well as that of Didymus and of Jerome, was a soul-washing through a special power medicating the waters, and they rejected with disdain the idea that " simple water " in the hands of an idolater or of a bath-keeper could bap- tize ; not because of those who used it, but because they used " simple " and not divinely " medicated " waters. How long would it take the theory to get the imprimatur of such men to its dip- ping into " simple water "? This medicated quality, by which and not by a dipping, bap- tism is effected, is, also, attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptizing quality received through Christ. Ignatius, 660 : "Jesus Christ was born and baptized that he might purify (xaOa- pifftj) the water by his passion." Tertull. II, 615: "Christ having been baptized, that is sanc- tifying {sanctificanle) the waters by his baptism." Ambrose III, 627: " Pei-haps some one may say, 'Why did he who was holy wish to be baptized ? ' Hear, then : Christ was therefore baptized, not that he might be sanctified by the waters, but that he might sanctify the waters, and by his own parity purify the stream which he touches ; for the consecration of Christ is a greater consecration of the element. For when the Saviour is washed {abluitur) the whole water is cleansed (mundatur) for our baptism, and the fountain is purified {purificalur), that the grace of the washing may be supplied to the people coming after." Marc^e Eremit^e, 927 : " He indeed needed no washing, for it is written of him, ' He did no sin ; ' and where there is no sin there can bo no remission. The waters for our washing were sanctified and purged b}' him." EpiPiiANius II, 880: "Christ baptized by John came to the QUALITY COMMUNICATED TO BAPTIZING WATER. 553 waters, not needing washing (Xoot/xiu)^ to give rather than to re- ceive ; giving them power for those who were to be perfected." The proof is absolute that "simple water" could not patristi- cally baptize (could it not cover? "what is baptism in one case is baptism in another" Carson), and that it might be qualified so to do, a special quality was divinel}'^ conferred upon it, enabling it, in tui-n, to confer like quality. This office of efficient agency, not " to dip," not " to cover," but, to purify, to sanctify, to I'emit sin, and to regenerate, these waters, thus qualified, did, according to Patristic faith, abun- dantly exercise. In evidence of which see these further quota- tions : TjiRTULL. IT, 720 : " When he comes to the faith formed anew {reformata) by the second birth hy means of water and power from on high {ex aqua et superna virtute).^^ Clemens Alex. I, 279: " If Christ was perfect, why was the perfect one baptized ? To fulfil the human profession. He is perfected by the washing only (tw Xourpu) iiovwi) and the coming of the Spirit. This same thing happens to us of whom the Lord was an exemplification. Being baptized we are illuminated ; being illuminated we are made sons; being made sons we are per- fected ; being perfected we are made immortal. He says : ' I have said ye are Gods ; and all of you sons of the Most High.' This is variously designated as grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing {kooTpov). It is called washing (JMurpdv) because we are cleansed from our sins." Origen I, 601: "We must remember that we have sinned and that the remission of sins cannot be received without bap- tism ; and that according to the evangelical laws we cannot be baptized again into the remission of sins hy water and Spirit (vSart y.at Uvsu/j-art /SaTrrjffa^r^a;)." Cyril, 425 : " Rejoice, O Heavens, and be glad, 0 Earth, because of those who are about to be sprinkled (pa'^rCCsffOac) with hyssop and to be purified (/.aOapt^strOac) by the spiritual (rw var^rw) hj'ssop, by the power of Him who drank at his passion from the hyssop and the reed. . . . Prepare pure vessels and sincere faith of the soul for the reception of the Holy Spirit. Begin to wash your garments through repentance, that being called to the bride- chamber ye may be found pure. . . . That the souls of you all may be found not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; I do not sa}' before the receiving of the grace, for how could this 554 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. be, since j'ou are called for the remission of sins, but that the o-race beinc given, an uncondemning conscience may be found concurrent with the grace." 429 : " Do not regard this washing as by SIMPLE water, but as by the spiritual gy^ace given with the water (zYi 7:'^zu;i.u-al /«/>'"£ ps'a ziib udari)'-). . . . For as sacrifices upon the altars are by nature pure, but become polluted by the invoca- tion of idols, so, on the contrary, the simple water (to Actov odutp) receiving the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires the power of sanctification (5uva,'j.tv dyiorrj- roq). For, since man is twofold, constituted of soul and body, purification also is twofold, that which is incorporeal by that which is incorporeal, but that which is physical by that which is physical. The water indeed purifies the body, but the Spirit seals the soul, that having been sprinkled {ippavTKJutvot) as to the heart by the Spirit and washed as to the body with pure water {v.aOapui uduTc), we may come unto God. Therefore being about to go down into the water do not regard the bareness of the water (rw (/ic?M rou So«7o?), but expect salvation from the power {ivspyzia) of the Holy Spirit, for without both it is impossible to be perfected {TshiwOTi'j(i.i). It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ has the power of the case ; he says, ' Except a man be born again,' and adds, ' by water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God.' Nor has one perfect grace who being baptized by the ■water (rw udari.) has not received the Holy Spirit; nor if any one distinguished by good works should fail to receive the seal by water {pi udaroq) will he enter into the kingdom of heaven. This dec- laration is bold, but it is not mine ; it is Jesus who declares it. Here is the proof: Cornelius a just man deemed woi'thy of the vision of angels, whose prayers and alms were as a monument before God in heaven, on whom with his fellow-believers the Spirit was poured out (ine'/oOrj), after the grace of the Spirit, ' Peter commanded them, in the name of Jesus Christ, to be baptized.' In order that, the soul having been regenerated through faith (dcd T^c r/ffT£w-:), the body also might receive grace through the water ('Jta TOO uoa-oq). But if any one wishes to know why grace is given through water {dta udaroq) and not through some other ele- ment, reading the Scriptures he will find out. For water is some great thing, the best of the four great elements of the world; and before the six days' work ' the Spirit of God moved upon the water.' . . . The laver within the tabernacle was the symbol of baptism {(jnp.^okov too jianrtfrnaroq).'^ QUALITY COMMUNICATED TO BAPTIZING WATER. 555 Augustine YI, 255: "Christ's baptism was not like that of John with water only^ hut also by the Holy Spirit; so that whoso- ever believes in Christ might be regenerated by that Spirit (de ilia Spiritu) by whom {de quo) Christ was begotten (generatus).^^ YI, 1209: "You ought not to estimate these waters by the sight but b^' the mind. . . . God sanctified through which ... by virtue of his power, secret sins which are not seen are washed away. The Holy Spirit works in that water, so that those who before baptism were guilty of many sins, and would have burned with the devil in eternal fire, merit, after baptism, to enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is evidence enough to show that Patristic baptism cannot be effected without the joint presence and coaction of water and the Holy Spirit ; and, consequently, that that baptism was some- thing else than simple dipping into simple water which constitutes the solitaire gem of the theory. This truth, however, may be enforced by a few passages which make special mention of the power on which baptism depends, and without which no amount of water and no mode of using water could efiect this baptism. The Baptizing Power, Moral and Divine. Tertull. II, 375 : " Christ cleanses the stains of the seven capital sins — idolatr}'^, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud. Wherefore Naaman washed in the Jordan seven times, as if each one separately and that at the same time he might receive expia- tion of the whole seven, for the power (vis) and fulness of one washing belongs to Christ alone." The "vis" ascribed to baptizing water is essentially diverse from that accompanying the Jordan water. No physical quality or power can cleanse the soul of " the seven capital sins." EusEBius II, 1212: "When Constantine thought that the end of his life had come, and that this was the time for the purification Qcaddpasioq) of all sins of his life, and believing that these would be thoroushl}'^ cleansed from the soul hy the power (duvd/iec) of the mystical words and the saving washing, he expressed his desire for the rite 'for the salvation of God,' and 'for the seal of immor- tality.' " Gregory Naz. II, 396 : " The image of the Emperor stamped in wax from a ring of iron or gold is the same, so is the power of baptism ((ianrifT/xaroq dijvarj.t-:) the same, whether administered by presbyter or bishop, for the grace is of the Spirit." II, 421 : "I have three ovei-pourings upon the wood with which 656 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. I will purify the sacrifice, kindling a fire by water, that most won- derful thing ! and will overthrow the prophets of idolatry, using the poiuer {(iuvdiu:;) of the mystery." Epiphanius II, 880 : " Christ coming to the waters, giving rather than receiving, illumining them, inventing them with power (ivduva/iwv) for the sake of those afterward to be perfected, . . . that they might receive poioer (tyjv duva/M) proceeding from him." This investiture of the waters with the power (duvaixcc;^ vis, virtus, qualifas) to baptize = to remit sin and to regenerate, has a like generic character with the investiture of the Apostles with " power " (dr'>varj.c(;) by the Holy Spirit for the Apostolic office. The nature of the power in the two cases differs ; but the inves- titure with a power thoroughly changing the condition of the recipient, with the ability to exercise that power to change the condition of others, is common to both, and in both cases the power conferred is said to ba^jtize alike the waters and the Apos- tles. The " power " {duvajxiz) conferred upon the Apostles and their baptism by the Holy Ghost through the conferring of such power is thus presented by C3a-il. Cyril, 985 : " The Holy Spirit descended that he might endue with power, and that he might baptize the Apostles {Iva ivdoarj dovujjM {y-'i^) Iva jSaTTTifTrj tdIx; a~(i(>r6h)u^ ). For the Lord says, 'Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit not man}' days hence.' The grace {yjffn^) is not limited, but the power {duvaixtq) is complete. For as one covered and baptized (^hSwwv y.a) ,SamiX.6iievuq) in the waters is surrounded on all sides by the waters, so also they were completely baptized by the Spirit. But the water is poured around (jtepr/j'irai) externally, while the Spirit completely baptizes the soul internally. And why wonder? Take a physical illustration, trivial and simple, but useful to less cultivated persons. If fire penetrating through the density of ii'on renders the whole fire, and that which was cold becomes hot, and that which was black becomes bright ; if fire being matter works so readil}', entering within material iron, why do you wonder if the Holy Spirit enters within the inmost parts of the soul? . . . 'And filled all the house wliero tliey were sitting.' The house was made the receptacle of tlie spiritual water. Tlie disciples sat within, and the whole house was filled ; they were therefore completely baptized according to the promise. They were invested {ivedoaUrjaav) both soul and body QUALITY COMMUNICATED TO BAPTIZING WATER. 557 with divine and saving vesture (k'i^du/rtv). 'And cloven tongues as of fire sat on each of thera, and they were all filled of the Holy Spirit.' They received fire, not burning, but saving fire, destroy- ing indeed the thorns of sins, but illumining the soul." 1. In this passage "to endue with power," and "to baptize," are equivalent expressions. The editor says he has introduced " and " between them — " that he might endue with power," and " that he might baptize." Whether with or without this connec- tive the phrases are equivalent and mutually expository. They ai'e so used in Scriptui-e — " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost " (Acts 1 : 5) ; " Ye shall receive power {Suvaiuv) from the Holy Ghost" (v. 8). It was the "power" (duvafj.'.<;) given to the waters which baptized them ; it was the " power " {duva/M<;) given to the Apostles which baptized them. Herein is renewed evidence that a thorough change of condition, assimilating to the charac- teristic of the power effecting such change, is a baptism. 2. The double illustration b^-^ an object perfectly encompassed in water, and a mass of iron penetrated and pervaded by fire, thoroughly changing the condition of the iron, and assimilating it to that of fire, converting coldness into hotness, blackness into brightness, sustains the results of this Inquiry into the nature of a baptism in the most absolute manner. It is also a perfect exemplification of the definition given by Basil. An object wholly within water, without limitation of mode in effecting such condi- tion, or of time in abiding in such condition, has been insisted upon throughout this Inquiry as a physical baptism. Such is the bap- tism spoken of by Cyril. Such a condition is not a momentary dipping. A dipping is precluded by its very nature of momeuta- riness from being a baptism. A dipping into baptizing water may eflTect a baptism by reason of the nature of the water; but the dipping, in such case, is no more the baptism, than the dipping white linen into Tyrian purple is the resultant purple dye. Cyril had no idea of resting his illustration in the simple encompassing of an object with water for an indefinite period ; that would by no means answer his purpose. He wants influence. Nothing can more fully develop influence than the enfolding of an object within the influential agency. And the consequent penetrating, per- vading, and controlling influence, thoroughly changing the condi- tion of an object, becomes the basis of the secondary use of ^anziZw in Classic writers, and is its exclusive use in religious applications among all writers, Jewish, Inspii'ed, and Patristic. Therefore it 558 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. is that a mass of iron not covered over in fire, but fully under its influence, however that influence may have been brought to bear upon it, and made through all its substance fiery, hot, and bright, is baptized by fire. So, Cyril says, the soul is baptized by the Holy Spirit, not by an external surrounding, but by penetrating, pervading, and controlling the soul in its inner being. 3. The idea of tlie house being filled with "spiritual water," and the Apostles being baptized in it because they were sitting in the house, is, of course, neither founded in Scripture nor in fact. But if it were the theory would be ruined; for in, such a baptism there would be lacking both the form of the act and the momen- tariness essential to the act. But again; such encompassing bap- tism would not suit Cyril's purpose any more than it would suit the teaching of the Scriptures. If the Apostles had remained sitting in the house encompassed by "spiritual water" until this hour, they would no more have received the scriptural baptism of the Spirit than if they had been sitting on the house-top, and no drop of " spiritual water " had ever come down from heaven. The Apostles were not baptized by the Holy Ghost until his in- fluence entered within their souls and left there his own divine light and grace as tokens of his " power." Neither here nor anywhere else do the Scriptures know anything of an outward encompassing baptism. And in this respect Patristic baptism is identical with that of the Scriptures. That baptism is a baptism of " power," the power of a divine influence, and the momentary encompassing of the naked body with the water in which this power was supposed to reside, was merel}- a mode for developing that power in "ex ordine" baptism, but was neither the baptism, nor in any wise essential to the baptism, as everj^ page of Patristic writings through a thousand years clearly shows. A few passages showing the development of this <5'Jva,aj? as an agency will now be presented. The dwx/j.'.^ of baptizing loater as an agency. Gregory Naz. 111,403: "The grace of baptism (XikTpoIo ;^«/j;?) is one of the helps given to men. For, as the children of the Hebrews escaped death by the christic blood {aliian yinaTw) which purified the door- posts when the first born of the Egyptians perished in one night, so, also to me is this baptism (