// ppgen baptism-src.txt
// KD Weeks, Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
// 20150421184254baird
// first edit: 8/18/2016
// ppgen: 3.56a
.dt THE GREAT BAPTIZER, A Bible History of Baptism
.de a:link { text-decoration: none; }
.de div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver; margin:1em 5% 0 5%; text-align: justify;}
.de div.footnotes { background-color:#E3E4FA; border: dashed 1px; margin-bottom: 5em; padding: 2em;}
.de .epubonly {visibility: hidden; display: none; }
.de @media handheld { .epubonly { visibility: visible; display: inline; } }
.de .htmlonly {visibility: visible; display: inline;}
.de @media handheld { .htmlonly { visibility: hidden; display: none; } }
.gk
.sr h |\(loutra\)|(loutra)|
.sr t |\(loutra\)|(_loutra_)|
.sr h |\(hagioi\)\.|(hagioi.)|
.sr t |\(hagioi\)\.|(_hagioi_).|
.sr h |text-align: left; text-indent: -1em;|text-align: justify; text-indent: -1em;|
// create markup
.dm start_note
.fs 95%
.sp 1
.dm-
.dm end_note
.fs 100%
.dm-
// Begin Poetry
.dm start_poem
.fs 95%
.sp 1
.nf b
.dm-
// End Poetry
.dm end_poem
.nf-
.fs 100%
.dm-
.dm corr_noid $1 $2
.if h
$2
.if-
.dm-
.dm corr $1 $2 $3
.if t
$3
.if-
.if h
$3$3
.if-
.dm-
.dm cref $1
.if t
$1
.if-
.if h
#$1:corr$1#
.if-
.dm-
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note:
.if t
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.
The footnotes have been re-sequenced for uniqueness across the
text, and positioned to follow the paragraph in which they are
referenced.
.if-
.if h
The footnotes have been re-sequenced for uniqueness across the
text, and moved to the end of the text. Links are provided for
convenience of navigation
.if-
.if h
.dv class='htmlonly'
Errors, when reasonably attributable to the printer, have been corrected.
The corrections appear as text.
The original text will be shown when the mouse is over the word. Please
see the transcriber’s #note:endnote# at the end of this text for details.
.dv-
.dv class='epubonly'
Errors, when reasonably attributable to the printer, have been corrected.
The corrections are hyperlinked to an explanatory entry in a transcriber’s
#note:endnote#. That note also includes the approach taken for
addressing these issues.
.dv-
.if-
.dv- // end transcriber’s note
.bn 001.png
.h1
THE GREAT BAPTIZER. | A | Bible History of Baptism.
.pi
.nf c
BY
SAMUEL J. BAIRD, D. D.
.nf-
.sp 6
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”—Matt. iii, 17.
“This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come
to pass, in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh.”—Acts ii, 16, 17.
.hr 10%
.sp 8
.nf c
PHILADELPHIA:
JAMES H. BAIRD.
1882.
.nf-
.bn 002.png
.nf c
Copyright
SAMUEL J. BAIRD,
1882.
.nf-
.bn 003.png
.pn 3
.sp 4
.h2
PREFACE.
.sp 2
Not only does the ordinance of baptism hold a
position of pre-eminent honor, as being the door
of entrance to all the privileges of the visible church,
but it has been distinguished with a place of paramount
importance and conspicuity in the transactions of the
two grandest occasions in the history of that church,—in
sealing the covenant at Sinai, by which Israel became
the church of God, and the grace of Pentecost,
by which the doors of that church were thrown open
to the world. Proportionally interesting and significant
is the ordinance, in itself, as symbolizing the most
lofty, attractive and precious conceptions of the gospel,
and unfolding a history of the plan of God in proportions
of unspeakable interest, grandeur and glory.
And yet, heretofore, the discussion of the subject has
been little more than a disputation, alike uninteresting,
inconclusive and unprofitable, concerning the word
baptizo.
The present treatise is an attempt to lift the subject
out of the low rut in which it has thus traversed,
and to render its investigation the means of enlightening
the minds and filling the hearts of God’s people
with those conceptions, at once exalted and profound,
and those high hopes and bright anticipations of the
future which the ordinance was designed and so happily
fitted to induce and stimulate.
Eighteen years ago,—in a catechetical treatise on
“The Church of God, its Constitution and Order,”
.bn 004.png
.pn +1
from the press of the Presbyterian Board of Publication,—the
author enunciated the essential principles
which are developed in this volume. In 1870, they
were further illustrated in a tract on “The Bible
History of Baptism,” which was issued by the Presbyterian
Committee of Publication, in Richmond, Va.
The reception accorded to these treatises has encouraged
me to undertake the more elaborate disquisitions of
the present work. The questions are sometimes such
as require a critical study of the inspired originals of
the holy Scriptures; and occasional illustrations are
drawn from classic and other kindred sources. It has
been my study so to conduct these investigations that
while they should not be unworthy the attention of
scholars, they may be intelligible to readers who are
conversant with no other than our common English
tongue, the richest and noblest ever spoken by man.
The circumstances and manner of the introduction
of the rite of immersion into the post-apostolic church
presented a rich and inviting field of further investigation.
But the volume has already exceeded the
intended limit; the Biblical question is in itself complete,
and its authority is conclusive. To it, therefore,
the present inquiry is confined.
The fruit of much and assiduous investigation and
thoughtful study is now reverently dedicated to the
glory of the baptizing office of the Lord Jesus. May
he speedily arise and display it in new and transcendent
energy; pouring upon his blood-bought church the
Spirit of grace and consecration, of knowledge and
aggressive zeal, of unity and power; baptizing the
nations with his Spirit, and filling the world with the
joy of his salvation and the light of his glory.
Covington, Ky., Feb. 8, 1882.
.bn 005.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
CONTENTS.
.ta h:60 rb:10
INTRODUCTION, | Page 15
Book I.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
Part I.
BAPTISM AT SINAI.
Section I. Baptism originated in the Old Testament.—It was familiar\
to the Jews when Christ came. There were “divers\
baptisms” imposed at Sinai, | #21#
Section II. No Immersions in the Old Testament.—None in the\
ritual. None in the figurative language, | #23#
Section III. The Old Testament Sacraments.—1. Sacrifice. 2.\
Circumcision. 3. The Passover. 4. Baptism, | #24#
Section IV. The Baptism of Israel at Sinai.--Scene at the mount.\
The covenant proposed and accepted. A great revival. Baptism\
of the converts. The feast of the covenant, | #25#
Section V. The Blood of Sprinkling.—It was a type of Christ’s\
atonement, | #30#
Section VI. The Living water.—A type of the Spirit. Living\
and salt water. The river of Eden. That of the Revelation\
and of the prophets. The Dead Sea. Rain and fountains.\
Their symbolic functions, | #31#
Part II.
THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
Section VII. The Abrahamic Covenant.—It was the betrothal,—not\
the marriage. Its terms spiritual, everlasting, exclusive.\
The Seed Christ. It adumbrated the covenant of grace. No\
salvation but on its terms, | #37#
Section VIII. The Sinai Covenant.—Its Conditions.—Moses’\
commission. 1. “If ye will obey.” 2. “And keep my covenant,” | #42#
Section IX. The Sinai Covenant.—Its Promises.—1. A peculiar\
treasure. 2. “All the earth is mine.” 3. A priest kingdom.\
4. A holy nation. 5. Palestine, | #45#
.bn 006.png
.pn +1
Section X. The Visible Church Established.—The Church defined.\
Its name. Its fundamental law. Membership. Family\
and eldership. Ordinances of testimony. The relation of\
the ritual law, | #49#
Section XI. The Terms of Membership.—Professed faith and\
obedience. The same to Israel and Gentiles. Separating\
the unworthy, | #56#
Section XII. Circumcision and Baptism.—The former sealed\
the Abrahamic covenant. The latter alone sealed the ecclesiastical\
covenant of Sinai, | #58#
Part III.
ADMINISTERED BAPTISMS=SPRINKLINGS.
Section XIII. Unclean Seven Days.—The meaning. Childbirth.\
Issues. Contact with the dead. Leprosy. Characterized by\
(1) inward corruption; (2) seven days continuance; (3) contagiousness;\
(4) requiring sacrifice and sprinkling, | #60#
Section XIV.—Baptism of a Healed Leper.—Seven sprinklings.\
The self-washings. Meaning of the rites, | #66#
Section XV. Baptism of the Defiled by the Dead.—The ordinary\
seal of the covenant. The ashes. Manner of the\
baptism, | #68#
Section XVI. Baptism from Issues.—The law seemingly incongruous.\
The water of nidda, | #69#
Section XVII. Baptism of Proselytes.—Talmudic traditions.\
Question between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. The\
Levitical mode exemplified in the daughters of Midian, | #76#
Section XVIII. Baptism of Infants.—The principle of infant\
membership recognized. Evidence of the baptism of Hebrew\
children. Example of the infant Jesus, | #82#
Section XIX. Baptism of the Levites.—Sprinkled with “water\
of purifying,” | #85#
Section XX. These all were one Baptism. The rites were essentially\
the same. Slight differences explained, | #86#
Section XXI. The Symbol of Rain.—Descent from heaven.\
Life and fruitfulness imparted. Testimonies of the prophets.\
Carson’s doctrine, | #88#
Section XXII. It meant, Life to the Dead.—Men dead by nature.\
The Spirit shed down gives life to soul and body. Jesus\
at the grave of Lazarus, | #92#
Section XXIII. The Gospel in this Baptism.—(1) The red heifer.\
(2) Without the camp. (3) Blood sprinkled, and blood and\
water. (4) Seven times. (5) Seven days’ defilement. (6)\
The ashes. (7) The water. (8) The sprinkling. (9) The\
.bn 007.png
.pn +1
third day and the seventh. (10) The self-washing. (11) Things\
defiled and sprinkled, | #95#
Section XXIV. These were the “Divers Baptisms,”—The argument\
of Heb. ix, 8, 9. The sprinklings were the theme of\
Paul’s argument. They were his “divers baptisms,” | #103#
Part IV.
RITUAL SELF-WASHINGS.
Section XXV. Unclean until the Even.—From expiatory rites.\
From contact with the unclean. Self-washing, | #108#
Section XXVI. Grades of Self-washing.—1. The hands. 2. The\
hands and feet. 3. The clothes. 4. The clothes and flesh.\
5. Shaving the hair, | #111#
Section XXVII. Mode implied in the meaning.—The self-washings\
meant the active putting off of the sins of the\
flesh, | #115#
Section XXVIII. The words used to designate the Washings.—1.\
Shātaph. 2. Kābas. 3. Rāhatz, | #116#
Section XXIX. Mode of Domestic Ablution.—By water poured\
on. The patriarchs. Mode in Egypt. In the wilderness.\
Story of Susanna. Purgation of a concealed murder. Washing\
the feet at table, | #119#
Section XXX. Facilities requisite.—The water drawn from\
wells by women. No vessels for immersion. The bath of\
Ulysses, | #126#
Section XXXI. The Washings of the Priests.—Symbolism of the\
tabernacle. The laver. Priestly washings. The laver and\
river of Ezekiel. No immersions here, | #128#
Section XXXII. Like these were the Self-washings of the People.—Designations\
and meaning the same. Immersion would have\
been without meaning, | #134#
Section XXXIII. Purifyings of things.—One case of immersion.\
Minor defilements cleansed by this immersion and by\
washings. The major, by sprinkling, | #136#
Part V.
LATER TRACES OF THE SPRINKLED BAPTISMS.
Section XXXIV. Old Testament Allusions.—The rite everywhere,\
from Moses to Zechariah, | #139#
Section XXXV. Rabbinic Traditions.—One heifer from Moses\
to Ezra. Eight thence to the end, | #142#
Section XXXVI. Festival of the Outpouring of Water.—Feast\
.bn 008.png
.pn +1
of tabernacles. The outpouring. The festivity. Its meaning, | #143#
Section XXXVII. Hellenistic Greek.—Alexander’s favor to\
the Jews. Alexandria. Hellenistic Greek. Its literature.\
Baptizo. Dr. Conant’s definitions. Baptisma and baptismoi, | #151#
Section XXXVIII. Baptism of Naaman. Tābal=baptizo.—The\
law of leprosy. Office of Elijah and Elisha. Naaman was\
sprinkled seven times, according to the law, | #157#
Section XXXIX. “Baptized from the Dead.”—Ecclus. xxxi,\
30. The water of separation here called baptism. “Baptized\
for the dead.”—1 Cor. xv, 29, | #169#
Section XL. Judith’s Baptism.—Story of Judith. Her baptism.\
Mohammedan washing before prayer, | #172#
Section XLI. The Water of Separation in Philo and Josephus.—Philo\
on the subject. Josephus’ description, | #175#
Section XLII. Imitations by the Greeks and Romans.—Diffusive\
influence of Israel. The stain of crime, and purgation for it,\
novelties in Greece. Purifying always by sprinkled water.\
Ovid and Virgil. The Greek mysteries, | #178#
Section XLIII. Baptism in Egypt and among the Aztecs.—The\
libation vase of Osor-Ur. Aztec infant baptism, | #189#
Section XLIV. Levitical Baptism in the Fathers.—Tertullian\
on the idolatrous imitations. Other fathers on the water of\
separation. They recognize it as baptism, | #192#
Part VI.
STATE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
Section XLV. Points established by the foregoing Evidence.—Twenty-one\
points of evidence enumerated, | #196#
Book II.
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.
Part VII.
INTRODUCTORY.
Section XLVI. State of the Question.—1. Baptism by sprinkling,—fifteen\
centuries old,—the Jewish Scriptures full of\
it,—the Jewish mind molded by it. 2. Immersion,—new,—incongruous,—unmeaning.\
Carson’s double symbolism, | #201#
.bn 009.png
.pn +1
Part VIII.
THE PURIFYINGS OF THE JEWS.
Section XLVII. Accounts in the Gospels.—Purifying before\
the feasts. The marriage in Cana. Washings and baptisms, | #208#
Section XLVIII. Washing Hands before Meals.—Origin of the\
rite. The marriage feast, | #210#
Section XLIX. Baptism on return from Market.—Market defined.\
Jesus at the Pharisee’s table, | #214#
Section L. A Various Reading.—Baptizōntai and rantizōntai.\
Care taken in transcribing the New Testament. These two\
readings, | #216#
Section LI. Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture.—Their prototypes\
in the Levitical purifyings of things, | #219#
Part IX.
JOHN’s$1BAPTISM.
Section LII. History of John’s Mission.—The accounts of it.\
John the herald of the Angel of the Sinai covenant, | #221#
Section LIII. Israel at the time of John’s Coming.—No longer\
idolatrous, but apostate. Prophetic warnings. They were\
excommunicate from the covenant, | #225#
Section LIV. Nature of John’s Baptism.—Elijah the champion\
of the covenant, to the ten tribes. John the same to the\
Jews. His baptism renewed the Sinai seal, | #228#
Section LV. Extent of John’s Baptism.—Testimony of the evangelists.\
Other evidence. A great revival, | #232#
Section LVI. John did not Immerse.—The circumstances forbade\
it. It would have been unmeaning, | #237#
Section LVII. John sprinkled with unmingled Water.—Why the\
prophecies speak of water only. “The kingdom” John’s\
theme. Hence, water only. It was sprinkled. Some may\
have stood in the water, | #241#
Part X.
CHRIST’s$1BAPTISMS AND ANOINTING.
Section LVIII. His Baptism by John.—Various explanations.\
It was part of his obedience. It sealed him Surety of the\
covenant, and certified to him triumph in his resurrection, | #247#
Section LIX. His Anointing.—The Spirit given him, at his\
.bn 010.png
.pn +1
birth,—at his baptism,—and at his coronation. Meaning\
and purpose of his anointing, | #254#
Section LX. “The Baptism that I am Baptized with.”—Matt.\
xx, 20-22. The kingdom was to be after the resurrection;\
and upon condition of being worthy. “The regeneration”\
was typified by the Levitical baptisms. The baptism was his\
resurrection. Luke xii, 50, | #257#
Part XI.
CHRIST THE GREAT BAPTIZER.
Section LXI. The Kingdom of the Son of man.—“The kingdom\
of heaven.” Destined to man at creation. Satan’s scheme.\
The kingdom in the prophets. John’s proclamation. Christ’s\
triumph and coronation, | #267#
Section LXII. Christ is enthroned as Baptizer.—His commission,—to\
purge the universe. Order of precedence in the\
Godhead. On earth, Jesus was “in the Spirit.” On the\
throne, the Spirit is in and subject to him. “The promise\
of the Father,” | #273#
Section LXIII. Note on the Procession of the Spirit.—History of\
the filioque clause. Objections to it, | #281#
Section LXIV. The Baptism of Fire.—The Holy Ghost, and\
fire, two several things. Fire means wrath. The places\
cited against this view. The contrasted language of the evangelists.\
Grace and wrath inseparably connected. John’s\
theme and imagery are from Malachi. Arguments to identify\
the two baptisms in one. Baptizo. Mode of the baptism\
of fire, | #284#
Section LXV. The Baptism of Pentecost.—The apostles must\
“wait for the promise.” The Spirit poured out, | #297#
Section LXVI. Manner of the Baptism.—Pnoē,—a breath. Pheromenē,—borne\
forward,—impelled. “He breathed on them.”\
It was affusion, signalizing the height where Jesus sits, | #299#
Section LXVII. The New Spirit imparted.—The Spirit no novelty.\
Peter’s explanation. Hitherto, the church’s office\
was conservative. Now the aggressive Spirit of missions\
given, | #304#
Section LXVIII. The Tongues like as of Fire.—Not “cloven,”\
but “distributed.” Like the flame of a lamp. The candlestick.\
The seven stars. “Arise! shine!” | #310#
Section LXIX. The Gift of other Tongues.—Signified the union\
of all people in God’s worship. The phrasing of the historian.\
History of the sign, | #313#
.bn 011.png
.pn +1
Section LXX. The Baptism of Repentance.—The firstfruits.\
John’s “baptism of repentance.” Jesus gives repentance\
and remission. His baptism unites to him and the Father.\
Its manner. The Spirit’s relation to it, | #318#
Section LXXI. Paul’s Doctrine of this Baptism.—Titus iii, 4-7.\
Meaning of loutron. 1 Cor. xii, 12-14. Eph. iv, 4-16. Gal.\
iii, 27-29. Rom. vi, 2-6. Col. ii, 9-11. The doctrine of these\
places, | #323#
Section LXXII. Noah “saved by Water.”—1 Pet. iii, 17-22.\
Peter and Paul. The theme,—the saints persecuted with impunity.\
Noah persecuted, and saved by means of the flood.\
Christ’s people saved by antitype baptism, | #333#
Section LXXIII. Christ’s Baptizing Administration.—It covers\
his whole work on the throne. In the end, triumph complete,\
physical and moral. When he shall have purged earth\
and heaven, then will his baptizing office cease, | #338#
Section LXXIV. Argument from the Real to Ritual Baptism.—The\
real baptism has to do, not with abasement and the\
grave, but with exaltation and power. But immersion looks\
only to the grave. It is incongruous to all the phenomena\
of Pentecost. Immersed in “the sound from heaven,” | #343#
Part XII.
THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT.
Section LXXV. Baptizo and the Resurrection.—Elements of\
the Baptist argument. Dr. Conant on baptizo. It leaves its\
subjects in the water. Dr. Kendrick’s admissions. A second\
meaning in baptizo, | #347#
Section LXXVI. The Prepositions.—En. Eis. Ek. Apo.\
They indicate, not the mode, but the place of the baptisms, | #354#
Section LXXVII. “Much Water there.”—Aenon=The Springs.\
Many waters. Why Jesus and John resorted to waters, | #360#
Section LXXVIII. “Buried with him by Baptism into Death.”—Rom.\
vi, 2-7.—“Buried with him by the baptism into the\
death.” Analysis of the passage. Spiritual baptism alone\
referred to. Immersion incongruous to Paul’s conception, | #364#
Section LXXIX. “Buried with him in Baptism.”—Col. ii, 9-13.\
The doctrine the same as the preceding. Union with the\
Lord Jesus the controlling idea. “Buried with him in (or,\
by) the baptism.” The idea of immersion perplexes the exegesis, | #371#
.bn 012.png
.pn +1
Section LXXX. End of the Baptist Argument.—Baptist scholars\
concede that baptizo does not mean, to dip, only. It can\
not then decide the mode. They admit that it leaves its\
subject in the water. It knows then nothing of the resurrection.\
The prepositions and waters of Enon do not help\
the cause. Paul’s burial “in the baptism,” does not allude\
to the ritual ordinance. In all its parts, the argument\
fails, | #374#
Part XIII.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
Section LXXXI. Contrary to the whole Tenor of the Gospel.—The\
mystery of iniquity early developed. The gospel church\
viewed as the antitype of the Levitical. The Scriptures are\
not so. Treatment of baptism by the evangelists. Paul’s\
testimony, | #377#
Section LXXXII. Born of Water and of the Spirit.—John iii,\
4-8. Metaphor of water. “Water even the Spirit.” John\
had already stated the way of the new birth, | #384#
Section LXXXIII. “The Washing of Water, by the Word.”—The\
bridal bath. No formula of baptism. “Sanctify them\
through thy truth,” | #390#
Part XIV.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.
Section LXXXIV. The Ritual Law is unrepealed.—Christ so\
left it. The apostles were zealous for it. The council of Jerusalem\
exempted the Gentiles only. James and Paul unite\
to show it still in force. Paul’s practice. He obeyed the\
law, but repudiated its righteousness. This view alone harmonizes\
the history, | #393#
Section LXXXV. Why the Gentiles were exempted.—Not because\
the law expired. But, unsuited to a world wide extension.\
Its chief end accomplished. What its survival implied, | #406#
Section LXXXVI. The Christian Passover.—Wine, and blood.\
The passover a type of Christ’s atonement. It is perpetuated\
in the Supper, | #408#
Section LXXXVII. The Hebrew Christian Church.—The synagogue\
system. The sects of Pharisees, Sadducees and Nazarenes.\
The number and diffusion of the Nazarenes. The\
Hebrew church after the destruction of Jerusalem, | #411#
.bn 013.png
.pn +1
Section LXXXVIII. The Gentiles Graffed in.—Mixed churches.\
Gentile churches. “Out of Zion the law.” The Gentiles\
graffed in, | #418#
Part XV.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Section LXXXIX. History of the Rite.—The cotemporaneous\
baptisms of John and Jesus. Both were the same Christian\
baptism. Christ did not institute baptism, but gave it\
to the Gentiles. Rebaptism at Ephesus. Note on rebaptism, | #424#
Section XC. “Baptizing them into the Name.”—1. Into the\
name. En; epi; eis. “Into Christ.” “Into the name of\
Christ.” 2. “The name of the Father and of the Son,\
and of the Holy Ghost.”—“The name of the Lord\
Jesus,” | #431#
Section XCI. “He that Believeth and is Baptized.”—It refers to\
ritual baptism; and is a caution against trust in it. Faith is\
the essential thing, | #437#
Section XCII. The Formula.—Ritualistic view. No formula\
prescribed by Christ, nor used by the apostles, | #438#
Section XCIII. The Administration on Pentecost.—There was a\
baptism with water. Dr. Dale’s objections, | #440#
Section XCIV. The meaning of this Baptism.—It could but symbolize\
the baptism of the Spirit. The two formulas thus\
reconciled, | #446#
Section XCV. The Mode of this Baptism.—Immersion incongruous\
and impossible. They were baptized in groups with\
a hyssop bush, | #448#
Section XCVI. Other Illustrations.—The eunuch. The apostle\
Paul. The house of Cornelius. The jailer. None of these\
look to immersion, | #451#
Section XCVII. “Baptized into Moses.”—Moses and Israel\
were types. Dr. Kendrick contradicts the record. By this\
baptism Israel were brought into a new state of faith and\
obedience, | #457#
Part XVI.
THE FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN.
Section XCVIII. Christ and the Children.—A retrospect. Christ’s\
attitude toward the lambs. Peter’s commission. The Jews\
.bn 014.png
.pn +1
predominant in the church. The Sinai covenant recognized\
the children and made place for the Gentiles, | #461#
Section XCIX. “Now are they Holy.”—Unclean, and holy.\
Israel a holy nation. “The saints.” The Baptist exegesis\
of the language, | #466#
Section C. Household Baptisms.—Not “infant,” but “family\
baptism.” Lydia’s house. The jailer and all his. The\
house of Stephanas. These, in the light of fifteen centuries\
preceding, and of the everlasting covenant, | #471#
Conclusion.
Christ’s real baptism with the Spirit is the criterion of all\
baptismal doctrines and rites. Baptismal regeneration tried\
and rejected. The evidence against immersion cumulative\
and overwhelming, | #476#
.ta-
.bn 015.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
INTRODUCTION.
.sp 2
The history of the ritual ordinances of God’s appointment is full
of painful interest. Passing any reference to the times preceding
the transactions of Sinai,—the institutions then given to Israel
constituted a system of transparent, significance, perfect in the congruous
symmetry and simplicity of the parts and comprehensive
fullness of the whole, as setting forth the whole doctrine of God
concerning man’s sin and salvation. Designed not only for the instruction
of Israel, but for a light to the darkness of the surrounding
Gentile world, its truths were embodied in symbols which spake
to every people of every tongue in their own language. Copied in
imperfect and perverted forms into the rites of Gentile idolatry,—although
distorted, veiled and dislocated from their normal relations,
they shed gleams of twilight into the gloom of spiritual
darkness, and prepared the world for the dawning of the Sun of
Righteousness, when he rose upon the nations. To multitudes of
Israel, those ordinances were efficient means of eminent grace. With
gladness, they saw therein,—as through a glass, darkly, it may be,
but surely,—adumbrations of the salvation, grace and glory of the
Messiah’s kingdom. And, if the fact be considered that at one of
the darkest crises in Israel’s history, when the prophet cried,—“I,
even I am left alone,”—God could assure him,—“Yet have I left
seven thousand,”—we may possibly find occasion to revise our preconceptions
concerning the history of the gospel in Israel. Still,
undoubtedly there were multitudes in every generation of that
people to whom the gospel preached in the ordinances brought no
profit, for lack of faith. In their earlier history, indifference and
neglect, and in the later, a self-righteous zeal for the mere outward
rites and forms, were equally fatal. The splendor of the ritual, and
the superfluous variety and frequency of the observances, were a
poor substitute for faith toward God, and rectitude of heart and life.
The result was that when Christ came, who was the end of all the
rites and ordinances of the law, those who were the most strict and
zealous in their observance were his betrayers and murderers.
When the Lord Jesus ascended the heavens, assumed the throne,
and sent forth the gospel to the Gentiles, it was accompanied by two
simple ordinances, which were eliminated out of those of the Levitical
.bn 016.png
.pn +1
ritual, by the omission of the element of sacrifice. In them was
symbolized and set forth the whole riches of that salvation which
was represented in the more cumbrous forms of the Levitical system.
By the supper, was signified the mystery of his atoning sufferings,
and of the nourishment of his people by faith therein. By
baptism, was shown forth the glory of his exaltation, and the sovereignty
and power with which he sheds from his throne the blessings
of his grace. But very soon, these ordinances, so beautiful and
instructive in their simplicity, were corrupted through the misconceptions
and ignorance of the teachers of the church. The
Mosaic ritual, instead of being recognized, as Paul describes it, as a
pattern or similitude of the things in the heavens, was regarded as a
type of the New Testament church and of the ordinances therein administered.
This one error became the inevitable cause of corruption
and apostasy. Respecting the impending defection, Paul assured
the Thessalonians, that the mystery of iniquity was already at work;
and forewarned the elders of Ephesus of the coming of grievous
wolves to rend the flock, and of apostasies among themselves,
through the lust of an unhallowed ambition.
We have not the means, from the scanty and corrupted records
which remain, of the age immediately following the apostles, of
tracing the process of defection. But when, at length, the church
emerges into the light of history, it is found to have realized a fatal
transformation. The pastors and elders of the apostolic churches,
from being simple preachers of the word, have become priests ministering
at the altar, and offering better sacrifices than those made by
the Aaronic line. For, while the latter offered mere animals, and
the worshippers fed upon mere carnal food, the former, in the sacrament
of the supper, the supposed antitype of those offerings, were
believed to offer the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and the people,
in those elements, imagined themselves to receive and feed upon
that very body and blood. So, too, while the “type baptisms” of the
ancient ritual accomplished a mere purifying of the flesh, the baptism
of water by the hands of the Christian ministry was regarded
as the antitype of these, and considered effectual for accomplishing a
spiritual regeneration, a renewing of the heart of the recipient.
The same error which thus corrupted the doctrine of the sacraments,
was equally efficient in changing their forms. As they were
held to be the antitypes of the Old Testament rites, it was sought to
develop in them features to correspond with all the details of those
rites, and to give them a dignity, a pomp and ceremonial, proportioned
to their relations as fulfilling the things set forth in the
splendid ritual of Moses and David. The rite of baptism, particularly,
was corrupted by alterations and additions which left scarcely
.bn 017.png
.pn +1
any thing of the primitive institution, save the name. The Levitical
purifyings were especially observed in connection with the
annual feasts at Jerusalem. In like manner, the administration of
baptism was discouraged, except in connection with two of those
feasts,—the passover, and the feast of weeks, or of firstfruits,—transferred
into the Christian church, under the names of Easter,
and Pentecost, or Whitsunday; the latter being named from the
white garments in which the newly baptized were robed. The administration
was connected with an elaborate system of attendant
observances. First, was a course of fastings, genuflections, and
prayers, and the imposition of hands upon the candidate. Then, he
was divested of all but a single under garment, and facing the west,
the realm of darkness, was required, with defiant gesture of the
hand, to renounce Satan and all his works. This was followed by
an exorcism, the minister breathing upon the candidate, for expelling
Satan, and imparting the Holy Spirit; then the making upon him
of the sign of the cross; anointing him with oil, once before and
once after the baptism; the administration of salt, milk and honey,
and three immersions, one at the name of each person of the Trinity.
Such was the connection in which baptism by immersion first appears.
For its reception, the candidate, of whatever sex, was invariably
divested of all clothing, and, after it, was robed in a white
garment, emblematic of the spotless purity now attained. The rite
of baptism by bare sprinkling, however, still survived. And the
question is entitled to a critical attention which it has not yet received,
whether, always or generally, the more elaborate rite consisted in a
submersion of the candidate. Against this supposition, is the practice
of the Abyssinian, Greek, Nestorian and other churches of the east.
In them, the candidate, in preparation for the rite, is placed, or we
may say, immersed, naked, in a font of water, the quantity of which
neither suffices, nor is intended, to cover him. The administrator
then performs the baptism, while pronouncing the formula, by thrice
pouring water on the candidate, once at the mention of each name
of the blessed Godhead.[1] To the same effect, is the evidence of
numerous remains of Christian art, which have been transmitted to
us from the early ages. Among these are several representations of
the baptism of the Lord Jesus by John; one, of that of Constantine
and his wife, by Eusebius; and others. The baptism of Constantine
precisely corresponds with the description above given. The emperor
.bn 018.png
.pn +1
is seated naked in a vessel, which if full would not reach to
his waist; and the bishop is in the act of performing the baptism by
pouring water upon them. In the representations of the baptism
of Jesus, he sometimes appears waist-deep in the Jordan, and sometimes
on the land. But in all cases, the rite is performed by the
baptist pouring water on his head out of a cup or shell. Such is, in
fact, the invariable mode represented in these remains of ancient art.
.fn 1
My authorities are “A voyage to Abyssinia, and travels in the interior of
that country, executed under the orders of the British government, in the years
1809 and 1810, etc., by Henry Salt, Esq., F. R. S., etc., London, 1814;” and the
personal testimonies of several of our missionaries to the east, who have related
to me what they saw.
.fn-
In this connection the analogy of the forms of religious purifying
prevalent throughout the east is worthy of special notice. The
Brahmin, before taking his morning’s meal, repairs to the Ganges,
carrying with him a brazen vessel. By hundreds, or by thousands,
they enter the stream, and while some take up the water in their
vessels, and pour it over their persons, others plunge beneath the
stream, for the purging away of their sins. Then filling the vessels,
they repair to the temple, and pour the water upon the idol, or as a
libation, before it. The Parsee, worshiper of the sun, goes, in the
morning, to river or sea, and entering until the waves are waist
high, with his face toward the east, awaits the rising of the sun,
when, using his joined hands as a dipper, he dashes water over his
person, and makes obeisance to his god. On the other hand, the
Mohammedan, deriving his usage from the earlier Pharisaic ritual,
repairs to the mosque, and from the tank in front, without entering
it, takes up water in his hands with which to bathe face, feet and
hands, before presenting his prayers.
By the corruptions in the Christian church, before exemplified,
the key of knowledge was taken away from the people. The instructive
meaning of the sacraments was obscured and obliterated, by
the idea of their intrinsic efficacy for renewing the heart and atoning
for and purging sin. The preaching of the word was disparaged
and ultimately set aside; the preachers having become propitiating
priests, working regeneration by the baptismal rite, and making
atonement by the sacrifice of the mass. The corruption and tyranny
of the clergy of the middle ages, and the ignorance, slavery and spiritual
darkness which for centuries brooded over the people, were the
inevitable results.
The reformation came, through the recovery by Luther of the
golden doctrine of justification by faith, which had so long been buried
and lost under the accumulated mass of ritualistic error. But
even Luther was unable to shake off the fetters of superstition and
falsehood in which he had been cradled, and to enjoy the full liberty
of the doctrine which he gave to the awakened church. In the dogma
of consubstantiation, he transmitted to his followers the very error
which had corrupted the church for more than a thousand years.
And the result in the churches of his confession has added another
.bn 019.png
.pn +1
to the already abundant evidence of the ever active and irreconcilable
antagonism which exists between the theory of sacramental
grace, and the doctrine,—criterion of a standing or falling church,—of
justification by free grace through faith.
Our space does not admit of a critical tracing of the history of
the sacramental question in the churches of the reformation. On the
one hand, ritualists of every grade, misled by the erring primitive
church, and attributing to the sacraments a saving virtue intrinsic
in them, render indeed high but mistaken honor to the sacred rites;
but fail to enjoy them in their true intent and office, or to view and
honor them in their proper character. On the other hand, our immersionist
brethren, misguided respecting the form of baptism, by
the same erring example, and thus lost to the true and comprehensive
meaning of the ordinance, have failed to apprehend the instruction
which it was designed to impart, and to enjoy the abundant edifying
which it was adapted to minister; and, instead, have found it a potent
agent of separation, and an efficient temptation to the indulgence of
a disproportionate zeal on behalf of mere outward rites and forms.
Nor do those who have escaped these errors always seem to appreciate
the sacraments, in their true design and character, as ever
active and efficient witnesses, testifying to the gospel, through symbols
as intelligible and impressive as the most eloquent speech. The
beauty and rich significance of the supper have, indeed, been in a
measure apprehended, and made available in some just proportion,
to the instruction and edifying of God’s people. But baptism has
not held the place, in the ministrations of the sanctuary and the
mind of the church, which is due to its office and design, to the richness
of meaning of its forms, and to the sublime conceptions and the
lofty aspirations and hopes which it is so wonderfully adapted to
create and cherish. One efficient cause of this, undoubtedly, is, the
reaction induced by the aggressive zeal of immersionists, and the
exercise of a false charity toward their erroneous sentiments; as
though the charity of the gospel, as toward our brethren, consisted
in an acceptance of their errors as equivalents to the truths of God.
While they have justly and irrefragably maintained that nothing can
be Christian baptism which has not at once the form and the meaning
ordained by Christ, we have been weakly disposed to imagine
ourselves patterns of charity, in admitting the validity of immersion,
while denying it to be the form or to have the meaning which
Christ ordained. As if such an ordinance, from the great Head of
the Church, could have in it any thing indifferent, or subject to our
discretion, whether in doctrine or mode! The immediate and inevitable
result is, a low estimate of the ordinance itself; indifference alike
to its form and meaning, and to the place it was designed to fill, and
.bn 020.png
.pn +1
the offices which it was to perform, in the economy of grace. As a
mere door of entrance into the fold of the church, it is administered
and received; with too little regard to its beautiful and comprehensive
symbolism; and, once performed, it is almost lost sight of in the
instructions of the pulpit, and meditations of the people. Should this
representation suggest a doubt, let the reader reflect how often, in
the ordinary ministrations of the sanctuary, he has heard the significance
of baptism dwelt upon, or even alluded to, for illustrating
the great truths of the gospel, on any occasion except that of the
administration of the rite; and how seldom, even then, the richness
of its symbolic import is unfolded,—its relations to Christ’s exaltation
and throne, and to all the functions of his scepter; the meaning
of the element of water, and of the mode of sprinkling; and
the office of the ordinance, as a symbol of the Spirit’s renewing
grace, and a prophecy and seal to the doctrine of the resurrection.
As the initial seal of the covenant, it is discussed and insisted
upon. But of these, its intrinsic and most interesting characteristics,
but little is heard. No wonder, therefore, that the privilege
of its reception is so little appreciated, and its appropriation by
parents on behalf of their children, so often neglected.
The recent researches of Drs. Conant and Dale have exhausted
the philological argument as concerning baptizo. The former, representing
the American (Baptist) Bible Union, and the latter, from
the opposite standpoint, have come to conclusions which, to all the
practical purposes of the discussion, are identical and final. Essentially,
they agree (1) that baptizo never means, to dip, that is, to put
into the water and take out again; but, primarily, to put into or
under the water,—to bring into a state of mersion, or intusposition;
(2) that it also means to bring into a new state or condition, by the
exercise of a pervasive control; as one who is intoxicated is said to
be baptized with wine. The former of these meanings is all that
remains to the Baptist argument from the word. The latter is all
that is desired by those who repudiate immersion. The philological
discussion being thus brought to a practical termination, the occasion
seems opportune for inviting attention to the real issues involved
in the question respecting the form of the ordinance; and to
the various and abundant testimonies of the Scriptures, as to its
origin and office, its mode and meaning, its history and associations.
In the same line of investigation, it is the expectation of the
writer, should time and opportunity concur, to offer to the Christian
public, at some future day, a treatise, similar in plan to that now
presented, on the ordinances and church of God, historically traced
from the apostasy, and the renewal of the covenant in Eden, to the
close of the sacred volume.
.bn 021.png
.pn +1
.nf c
A
BIBLE HISTORY OF BAPTISM.
.nf-
.hr 15%
.h2
Book I. | OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
.hr 15%
.sp 4
.h3
Part I. | BAPTISM AT SINAI.
.sp 2
.h4
Section I.—Baptism Originated in the Old Testament.
At the time of Christ’s coming, baptism was a rite already
familiar to the Jews. The evangelists testify of them
that, “when they come from the market, except they baptize
(ean mē baptisōntai) they eat not. And many other
things there be which they have received to hold, as the
baptisms (baptismous) of cups and pots and brazen vessels
and tables.”—Mark vii, 3, 4. On account of this rule of
tradition, a Pharisee at whose table Jesus was a guest
“marveled that he had not first baptized (ebaptisthē) before
dinner.”—Luke xi, 38. Hence, when John came, a priest,
baptizing, there was no question raised as to the origin, nature,
form, or divine authority of the ordinance which he
administered. The Pharisees, in their challenge of him,
confine themselves to the single demand, by what authority
he ventured to require Israel to come to his baptism,
since he confessed that he was neither Christ nor Elias
nor that prophet. (John i, 25.) Their familiarity with
the rite forbade any question concerning it. Had we no
further light on the subject, we might suppose that this ordinance
.bn 022.png
.pn +1
had no better source than the unauthorized inventions
of Jewish tradition. But the Apostle Paul,[2] an Hebrew
of the Hebrews, taught at the feet of Gamaliel, and
versed in all questions of the law, excludes such an idea.
He declares that in the first tabernacle “were offered both
gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the
service perfect as pertaining to the conscience; which stood
only in meats and drinks and (diaphorois baptismois) divers
baptisms—carnal ordinances imposed on them until the
time of reformation.”—Heb. ix, 9, 10. The conjunction
“and” (“divers baptisms and carnal ordinances”) is wanting
in the best Greek manuscripts; is rejected by the critical
editors, and is undoubtedly spurious. The phrase
“carnal ordinances” is not an additional item in the enumeration,
but a comprehensive description of “the meats
and drinks and divers baptisms” of the law. Paul thus
speaks of them by way of contrast with the spiritual grace
and righteousness of the Lord Jesus. A critical examination
of this passage will be made hereafter. For the present,
we note two points as attested by the apostle:
1. Among the Levitical ordinances there were not one
but divers baptisms.
2. These were not merely allowable rites, but were “imposed”
on Israel as part of the institutions ordained of God
at Sinai.
.fn 2
I assume what I believe to be demonstrable, that Paul was
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
.fn-
It may be proper to add that they were baptisms of
persons, and not of things. They were rites which were designed
to purify the flesh of the worshiper. (vs. 9, 13, 14.)
These baptisms were, therefore, well known to Israel,
from the days of Moses. This explains the fact that, in
the New Testament, we find no instruction as to the form
of the ordinance. It was an ancient rite, described in the
books of Moses and familiar to the Jews when Christ came.
No description, therefore, was requisite. We are then to
.bn 023.png
.pn +1
look to the Old Testament to ascertain the form and manner
of baptism.
.sp 2
.h4
Section II.—No Immersions in the Old Testament.
Says Dr. Carson: “We deny that the phrase ‘divers
baptisms’ includes the sprinklings. The phrase alludes to
the immersion of the different things that by the law were
to be immersed.”[3] Had this learned writer pointed out the
things that were to be immersed, and the places in the law
where this was required, it would have saved us some
trouble. In default of such information, our first inquiry
in turning to the Old Testament will be for that form of
observance. We take up the books of Moses, and examine
his instructions as to all the prominent institutions of
divine service. But among these we find no immersion of
the person. We enter into minuter detail, and study every
rule and prescription of the entire system as enjoined on
priests, Levites, and people, respectively. But still there
is no trace of an ordinance for the immersion of the person
or any part of it. We extend our field of inquiry, and
search the entire volume of the Old Testament. But the
result remains the same. From the first chapter of Genesis
to the last of Malachi, there is not to be found a record
nor an intimation of such an ordinance imposed on Israel
or observed by them at any time. Not only is this
true as to baptismal immersion performed by an official
administrator upon a recipient subject. It is equally
true as to any conceivable form or mode of immersion,
self-performed or administered. There is no trace of it.
But here is Paul’s testimony that there were “divers baptisms
imposed.” By baptisms, then, Paul certainly did not
mean immersions.
.fn 3
“Carson on Baptism” (published by C. C. P. Crosby:
New York, 1832), p. 117.
.fn-
The impregnable position thus reached is further fortified
by the fact that, in all the variety and exuberance of
.bn 024.png
.pn +1
figurative language used in the Bible to illustrate the
method of God’s grace, no recourse is ever had to the figure
of immersion. All agree that the sacraments are significant
ordinances. If, then, the significance of baptism
at all depends on the immersion of the person in water, we
would justly expect to find frequent use of the figure of
immersion, as representing the spiritual realities of which
baptism is the symbol. But we search the Scriptures in
vain for that figure so employed. It never once occurs.
.sp 2
.h4
Section III.—The Old Testament Sacraments.
As there are no immersions in the Old Testament,
we must look for the divers baptisms under some other
form. Assuming that in this rite there must be a sacramental
use of water, we will first examine the ancient sacraments.
On a careful analysis of the ordinances comprehended
in the Levitical system, we find among them four
which strictly conform to the definition of a sacrament, and
which are the only sacraments described or referred to in
the Old Testament.
1. Sacrifice.—The first of these in origin and prominence
was sacrifice. Originating in Eden, and incorporated in
the Levitical system, it had all the characteristics of a sacrament.
In it the life blood of clean animals was shed and
sprinkled, and their bodies burned upon the altar. Thus
were represented the shedding of Christ’s blood, and his
offering of atonement to the justice of God. But here is no
water. It is not the baptism for which we seek.
2. Circumcision.—The second of the Old Testament sacraments
was circumcision, whereby God sealed to Abraham
and his seed the covenant of blessings to them and
all nations through the blood of the promised Seed. Here,
again, no one will pretend to identify the ordinance with
the baptisms of Paul.
3. The Passover.—The third of the Old Testament sacraments,
the first of the Levitical dispensation, was the
.bn 025.png
.pn +1
feast of the passover. In it, the paschal lamb was slain,
its blood sprinkled on the lintels and door posts of the
houses, and the flesh roasted and eaten with unleavened
bread and bitter herbs. At Sinai, this ordinance was modified
by requiring the feast to be observed at the sanctuary,
the blood being sprinkled on the altar, and the fat burned
thereon. And, to the other elements appointed in Egypt,
the general provisions of the Mosaic law added wine. All
peace offerings, free will offerings, and offerings at the solemn
feasts, of which the passover was one, were to be accompanied
with wine, and were eaten by the offerers, except
certain parts, that were burned on the altar. (See
Num. xv, 5, 7, 10; xxviii, 7, 14.) This ordinance, eliminated
of its sacrificial elements, is perpetuated in the
Lord’s supper. In it was no water. It was not the rite
for which we seek.
4. Baptism.—There remains but one more of the Mosaic
sacraments. It was instituted at Sinai. In it, water
was essential, and by it was symbolized the renewing agency
of the Holy Spirit. It was “a purification for sin,” an
initiatory ordinance, by which remission of sins and admission
to the benefits of the covenant were signified and sealed
to the faith of the recipients. It occupied, under the Old
Testament economy, the very position, and had the significance,
which belong to Christian baptism under the New.
Moreover, it appears under several modifications, and is
thus conformed to Paul’s designation of “divers baptisms,”
whilst these, in their circumstantial variations, were essentially
one and the same ordinance.
.sp 2
.h4
Section IV.—The Baptism of Israel at Sinai.
The occasion of the first recorded administration of this
rite was the reception of Israel into covenant with God at
Sinai. For more than two hundred years they had dwelt
in Egypt, and for a large part of the time had been bondmen
there. The history of their sojourn in the wilderness
.bn 026.png
.pn +1
shows that not only was their manhood debased by the
bondage, but their souls had been corrupted by the idolatries
of the Egyptians (Josh. xxiv, 14; Ezek. xx, 7), and
they had forgotten the covenant and forsaken the God of
their fathers. They were apostate, and, in Scriptural language,
unclean.
But now the fullness of time had come, when the promises
made to the fathers must be fulfilled. Leaving the
nations to walk after their own ways, God was about to
erect to himself a visible throne and kingdom among men,
to be a witness for him against the apostasy of the race.
He was about to arouse Israel from her debasement and
slavery, to establish with her his covenant, and to organize
and ordain her his peculiar people—his Church.
Proportioned to the importance of such an occasion was
the grandeur of the scene and the gravity of the transactions.
Of them we have two accounts, one from the pen
of Moses (Ex. xx-xxiv), and the other from the Apostle
Paul, in exposition of his statement as to the divers baptisms.
(Heb. ix, 18-20.) As to these accounts, two or three points
of explanation are necessary. (1) The two words, “covenant”
and “testament,” represent but one in the originals in
these places, of which “covenant” is the literal meaning.
(2) Paul mentions water (Heb. ix, 19), of which Moses
does not speak. The fact is significant, as the apostle is
in the act of illustrating the “divers baptisms,” of which
he had just before spoken. (3) The word “oxen,” in our
translation (Ex. xxiv, 5), should be “bulls.” Oxen were
not lawful for sacrifice. Yearling animals seem to have been
preferred. Says Micah, “Shall I come before the Lord with
burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?”—Micah vi, 6.
Hence Paul indifferently calls them bulls and calves. The
goats of which he speaks were no doubt among the burnt-offerings
of Moses’s narrative. Both “small and great cattle”
seem to have been offered on all great national solemnities.
The redeemed tribes came to Sinai in the third month
.bn 027.png
.pn +1
after the exodus. Moses was called up into the mount
and commanded to propose to them the covenant of God.
It was in these terms: “If ye will obey my voice indeed,
and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure
unto me above all people, for all the earth is mine, and ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”—Ex.
xix, 3-6. This proposal the people, with one voice,
accepted. God then commanded Moses: “Sanctify the
people to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their
clothes and be ready against the third day; for the third
day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people
upon Mount Sinai.”—Vs. 10, 11. On the third day, in
the morning, there were thunders and lightnings, and a
thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet
exceeding loud, so that all the people trembled. And
Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord
descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended
as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked
greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet sounded
long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God
answered him by a voice. And the Lord came down upon
the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses up to
the top of the mount, and Moses went up.
In the midst of this tremendous scene, so well calculated
to fill the people with awe, and to deter them from
the thought of a profane approach, Moses was nevertheless
charged to go down and warn the people, and set bounds
around the mountain, lest they should break through unto
the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. After such
means, used to impress Israel with a profound sense of
God’s majesty and their infinite estrangement from him,
his voice was heard, uttering in their ears the Ten Commandments,
prefaced with the announcement of himself
as their God and Redeemer. (Compare Deut. iv, 7-13.)
At the entreaty of the people, the terribleness of God’s
audible voice was withdrawn, and Moses was sent to tell
.bn 028.png
.pn +1
them the words of the Lord and his judgments. The
people again unanimously declared, “All the words which
the Lord hath said, will we do.”—Ex. xxiv, 3.
In this sublime transaction we have all the scenes and
circumstances of a mighty revival of true religion. It is
a vast camp-meeting, in which God himself is the preacher,
speaking in men’s ears with an audible voice from the top
of Sinai, and alternately proclaiming the law of righteousness
and the gospel of grace, calling Israel from their
idolatries and sins to return unto him, and offering himself
as not only the God of their fathers, but their own
Deliverer already from the Egyptian bondage, and ready
to be their God and portion—to give them at once the
earthly Canaan, and to make it a pledge of their ultimate
endowment with the heavenly. The people had professed
with one accord to turn to God, and pledged themselves,
emphatically and repeatedly, to take him as their
God, to walk in his statutes and do his will, to be his
people.
It is true that, to many, the gospel then preached was
of no profit, for lack of faith; whose carcasses therefore fell
in the wilderness. (Heb. iii, 17-19; iv, 2.) But it is equally
true that the vast majority of the assembly at Sinai were
children and generous youth, who had not yet been besotted
by the Egyptian bondage. To them that day, which was
known in their after history as “the day of the assembly”
(Deut. x, 4; xviii, 16), was the beginning of days. Its
sublime scenes became in them the spring of a living faith.
With honest hearts they laid hold of the covenant, and
took the God of the patriarchs for their God. Soon after,
the promise of Canaan, forfeited by their rebellious fathers,
was transferred to them. (Num. xiv, 28-34.) Trained
and disciplined by the forty years’ wandering, it was they
who became, through faith, the irresistible host of God, the
heroic conquerors and possessors of the land of promise.
Centuries afterward, God testified of them that they pleased
.bn 029.png
.pn +1
him: “I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the
love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the
wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness
to the Lord, and the firstfruits of his increase.”—Jer.
ii, 2, 3. Until the day of Pentecost, no day so memorable,
no work of grace so mighty, is recorded in the history
of God’s dealings with men as that of the assembly at
Sinai.
And as on the day of Pentecost the converts were baptized
upon their profession of faith, so was it now. Moses
appointed the next day for a solemn ratifying of the
transaction. He wrote in a book the words of the Lord’s
covenant, the Ten Commandments; and in the morning,
at the foot of the mount, built an altar of twelve stones,
according to the twelve tribes. On it young men designated
by him offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings
of young bulls. Moses took half the blood and sprinkled
it on the altar. Half of it he kept in basins. He then
read the covenant from the book, in the audience of all the
people, who again accepted it, saying, “All that the Lord
hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Moses thereupon
took the blood that was in the basins, with water and
scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and
all the people, saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant
which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these
words.”—Ex. xxiv, 8, compared with Heb. ix, 19, 20.
In the morning Moses had already, by divine command,
assembled Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy
of the elders of Israel. And no sooner was the covenant
finally accepted and sealed with the baptismal rite, than
these all went up into the mount, and there celebrated the
feast of the covenant. “They saw the God of Israel;
and there was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of
a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
his clearness. And upon the nobles of Israel, he laid not
his hand. Also, they saw the God of Israel, and did eat
.bn 030.png
.pn +1
and drink.”—Ex. xxiv, 1, 9-11. So intimate, privileged,
and spiritual was the relation which the covenant established
between Israel and God.
Thus was closed this sublime transaction, ever memorable
in the history of man and of the church of Christ, in
which the invisible God condescended to clothe himself in
the majesty of visible glory, to hold audible converse with
men, to enter into the bonds of a public and perpetual
covenant with them, and to erect them into a kingdom,
on the throne of which his presence was revealed in the
Shechinah of glory.
Such were the occasion and manner of the first institution
and observance of the sacrament of baptism. In
its attendant scenes and circumstances, the most august of
all God’s displays of his majesty and grace to man; and
in its occasion and nature, paramount in importance, and
lying at the foundation of the entire administration of
grace through Christ. It was the establishing of the visible
church.
.sp 2
.h4
Section V.—The Blood of Sprinkling.
In all the Sinai transactions, Moses stood as the pre-eminent
type of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the rites administered
by him were figures of the heavenly realities of
Christ’s sacrifice and salvation. This is fully certified by
Paul, throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, and especially
in the illustration which he gives of his assertion concerning
the divers baptisms imposed on Israel. See Heb.
ix, 9-14, 19-28. In these places, it distinctly appears
that the blood of the Sinai baptism was typical of the
atonement of Christ. Not only in this, but in all the
Levitical baptisms, as will hereafter appear, blood was
necessary to the rite. In fact, it was an essential element
in each of the Old Testament sacraments. The one idea
of sacrifice was the blood of atonement. The same idea
appeared in circumcision, revealing atonement by the blood
.bn 031.png
.pn +1
of the seed of Abraham. In the passover the blood of
sprinkling was the most conspicuous feature; and in the
Sinai baptism blood and water were the essential elements.
Peter states the Old Testament prophets to have “inquired
and searched diligently, searching what, or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ and the glory that should follow.”—1 Pet. i, 10, 11.
Of the time and manner they were left in ignorance. But
the blood, in all their sacraments, was a lucid symbol,
pointing them forward to the sufferings of Christ as the
essential and alone argument of the favor and grace of
God. In it, and in the rites associated with it, they saw,
dimly it may be, but surely, the blessed pledge that in
the fullness of time “the Messenger of the covenant”
would appear (Mal. iii, 2), magnify the law and make it
honorable (Isa. xlii, 21), by his knowledge, justify many,
bearing their iniquities (Isa. liii, 11), and sprinkle the
mercy-seat in heaven, once for all, with his own precious
and effectual blood—the blood of the everlasting covenant.
(Heb. ix, 24-26; xiii, 20; 1 Pet. i, 11.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section VI.—The Living Water.
In the Sinai baptism, as at first administered to all
Israel, and in all its subsequent forms, living or running
water was an essential element. This everywhere, in the
Scriptures of the Old Testament and of the New, is the
symbol of the Holy Spirit, in his office as the agent by
whom the virtue of Christ’s blood is conveyed to men, and
spiritual life bestowed. In the figurative language of the
Scriptures, the sea, or great body of salt or dead water,
represents the dead mass of fallen and depraved humanity.
(Dan. vii, 2, 3; Isa. lvii, 20; Rev. xiii, 1; xvii, 15.)
Hence, of the new heavens and new earth which are revealed
as the inheritance of God’s people, it is said, “And
there shall be no more sea.”—Rev. xxi, 1.
.bn 032.png
.pn +1
The particular source of this figure seems to have been
that accursed sea of Sodom, which was more impressively
familiar to Israel than any other body of salt water, and
which has acquired in modern times the appropriate name
of the Dead Sea—a name expressive of the fact that its
waters destroy alike vegetation on its banks and animal
life in its bosom. Its peculiar and instructive position in
the figurative system of the Scriptures appears in the
prophecy of Ezekiel (xlvii, 8, 9-11), where the river of
living water from the temple is described as flowing eastward
to the sea; and being brought forth into the sea, the
salt waters are healed, so that “there shall be abundance
of fish.”
Contrasted with this figure of sea water is that of living
water, that is, the fresh water of rain and of fountains
and streams. It is the ordinary symbol of the Holy Spirit.
(John vii, 37-39.) The reason is, that, as this water is
the cause of life and growth to the creation, animal and
vegetable, so, the Spirit is the alone source of spiritual life
and growth. The primeval type of that blessed Agent was
the river that watered the Garden of Eden, and thence
flowing, was parted into four streams to water the earth.
This river was a fitting symbol of the Holy Spirit, “which
proceedeth from the Father,” the “pure river of water of
life clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God
and of the Lamb” (John xv, 26; Rev. xxii, 1), not only in
its life-giving virtue, but in its abundance and diffusion. But
the fall cut man off from its abundant and perennial
stream, and thenceforth the figure, as traceable through
the Scriptures, ever looks forward to that promised time
when the ruin of the fall will be repaired, and the gates
of Paradise thrown open again. In the last chapters of
the Revelation, that day is revealed in a vision of glory.
There is no more sea; but the river of life pours its exhaustless
crystal waters through the restored Eden of God. But
the garden is no longer the retired home of one human
.bn 033.png
.pn +1
pair, but is built up, a great city, with walls of gems and
streets of gold and gates of pearl and the light of the glory
of God. And the nations of them that are saved do walk
in the light of it. But still it is identified as the same of
old, by the flowing river and the tree of life in the midst
on its banks. (Rev. ii, 7; xxii, 1, 2; and compare Psalms
xlvi, 4; xxiii, 2; John iv, 10, 14; vii, 38, 39; Zech. xiv.
8.) In Ezekiel (xlvii, 1-12) there appears a vision of this
river as a prophecy of God’s grace in store for the last
times for Israel and the world. In it, the attention of the
prophet and of the reader is called distinctly to several
points, all of which bear directly on our present inquiry:
1. The source of the waters. In the Revelation, it is
described as proceeding out of the throne of God and the
Lamb. In Ezekiel the same idea is presented under the
figure of the temple, God’s dwelling-place. The waters
issue out from under the threshold of the house “at the
south side of the altar”—the altar where the sprinkled
blood and burning sacrifices testified to the Person by
whom, and the price at which, the Spirit is sent. (Compare
John vii, 39; xvi, 7; Acts ii, 33.)
2. The exhaustless and increasing flow of the waters is
shown to the prophet, who, at a thousand cubits from their
source, is led through them,—a stream ankle deep. A
thousand cubits farther, he passed through, and they had
risen to his knees. Again, a thousand cubits, and the
waters were to his loins; and at a thousand cubits more it
was a river that he could not pass over. “And he said
unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this?”
3. The river was a fountain of life. On its banks were
“very many trees,” “all trees for meat,” with fadeless leaf
and exhaustless fruit, “the fruit thereof for meat, and the
leaf thereof for medicine.” “And there shall be a very
great multitude of fish” in the Dead Sea, “because these
waters shall come thither.” For “it shall come to pass
that every thing that liveth which moveth, whithersoever
.bn 034.png
.pn +1
the river shall come shall live. Every thing shall live,
whither the river cometh.”
4. By these living waters, the Dead Sea of depraved
humanity shall be healed. “Now this sea of Sodom,”
says Thompson, “is so intolerably bitter, that, although
the Jordan, the Arnon, and many other streams have been
pouring into it their vast contributions of sweet water for
thousands of years, it continues as nauseous and deadly as
ever. Nothing lives in it; neither fish nor reptiles nor
even animalculæ can abide its desperate malignity. But
these waters from the sanctuary heal it. The whole
world affords no other type of human apostasy so appropriate,
so significant. Think of it! There it lies in its
sulphurous sepulcher, thirteen hundred feet below the
ocean, steaming up like a huge caldron of smouldering bitumen
and brimstone! Neither rain from heaven nor
mountain torrents nor Jordan’s flood, nor all combined can
change its character of utter death. Fit symbol of that
great dead sea of depravity and corruption which nothing
human can heal!”[4] But the pure waters of the river of
life will yet pour into this sea of death a tide of grace by
which “the waters shall be healed.”—Ezek. xxvii, 8.
.fn 4
“The Land and the Book.” Vol. II, pp. 531, 534.
.fn-
In the prophecy of Joel (iii, 18,) there is another allusion
to these waters. Again, in Zechariah a modified form
of the same vision appears. “It shall be in that day that
living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them
toward the former” (the Eastern or Dead) “sea, and half
of them toward the hinder sea” (the Mediterranean). “In
summer and winter shall it be;” not a mere winter torrent,
as are most of the streams of Palestine, but an unfailing
river. (Zech. xiv, 8.)
Such is the type of the Spirit, as his graces flowed in
Eden, and shall be given to the world, in the times of
restitution. But, for the present times, the symbols of rain
and fountains of springing water are used in the Scriptures
.bn 035.png
.pn +1
as the appropriate types of the now limited and unequal
measure and distribution of the Spirit. The manner and
effects of his agency are set forth under three forms, each
having its own significance:
1. Inasmuch as the rains of heaven are the great source
of life and refreshment to the earth and vegetation, the
coming of the Spirit and his efficiency as a life-giving and
sanctifying power sent down from heaven are expressed by
water, shed down, poured, or sprinkled, as the rain descends.
Says God to Israel: “I will pour water upon him
that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour
my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring.”—Isa.
xliv, 3. The Psalmist says of the graces of
the Spirit to be bestowed by Messiah, “He shall come
down like rain upon the mown grass” (the stubble, after
mowing) “as showers that water the earth.”—Psalm
lxxii, 6. Of this we shall see more hereafter.
2. The act of faith by which the believer seeks and receives
more and more of the indwelling Spirit is symbolized
by thirsting and drinking of living water. “Ho, every
one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.”—Isa. lv, 1.
“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink....
This he spake of the Spirit which they that believe on him
should receive.”—John vii, 37-39. “Let him that is
athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water
of life freely.”—Rev. xxii, 17. The intimate relation which
this figure sustains, responsive to the one preceding, is
illustrated by the expression wherein God describes the
land of promise: “A land of hills and valleys, and drinketh
water of the rain of heaven. A land which the Lord
thy God careth for.”—Deut. xi, 11, 12. With this, compare
the language of Paul: “The earth which drinketh in
the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs
meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing
of God; but that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected
and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be
.bn 036.png
.pn +1
burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of
you.”—Heb. vi, 7-9. The figure is further illustrated in
the sublime description given by Ezekiel of the destruction
of Assyria, in which he speaks of “the trees of Eden, the
choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water,” and so
grow and flourish. (Ezek. xxxi, 16.)
3. The duty of the penitent to yield himself with diligent
obedience to the sanctifying power and grace of the
Holy Spirit, to put away sin and follow after holiness, is
enjoined under the figure of washing himself with water.
“Wash ye; make you clean; put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to
to well.”—Isa. i, 16, 17. “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart
from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.”—Jer. iv, 14.
So, James cries, “Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and
purify your hearts, ye double-minded.”—Jas. iv, 8. In
the rite of self-washing, to which these last passages refer,
the pure water still symbolized the Holy Spirit given by
Jesus Christ; whilst the washing expressed the privilege
and duty of God’s people conforming their lives to the law
of holiness, and exercising the graces which the Spirit
gives.
.bn 037.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part II. | THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
.sp 2
.h4
Section VII.—The Abrahamic Covenant.
The interest attaching to the Sinai baptism is greatly
enhanced by its immediate and intimate relation to
us. The covenant then sealed is the fundamental and perpetual
charter of the visible church. The transaction by
which it was established was the inauguration of that
church. It was the espousal of the bride of Christ, whose
betrothal took place in the covenant with Abraham. So it
is expressly and repeatedly stated by the Spirit of God in
the prophets. (See Jer. ii, 1, 2; Ezek. xvi, 3-14; xxiii;
Hos. ii, 2, 15, 16.) It is true that this is controverted.
It is asserted that the relations established by the covenants
between God and Israel were secular and political, not
spiritual; that the blessings therein secured were temporal;
that they conveyed nothing but a guarantee that Israel
should become a numerous and powerful nation, that God
would be their political king, the Head of their commonwealth,
and that the land of Palestine should be their
possession and home. How utterly at variance with the
teachings of God’s Word are these assertions a brief analysis
of the record will prove.
The covenant of Sinai was the culmination of a series
of transactions which began with the calling of Abram
from Ur of the Chaldees. “The Lord had said unto Abram,
Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred and
from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee;
and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
.bn 038.png
.pn +1
blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of
the earth be blessed.”—Gen. xii, 1-3. Respecting this
record, the following points are made clear in the New
Testament: (1) That under the type of Canaan, “the
land that I will show thee,” heaven was the ultimate inheritance
offered to Abram; and that it was so understood
by him and the patriarchs. (Gal. iv, 26; Heb. xi, 10,
14-16.) (2) That the blessings promised through him to
all the families of the earth were the atonement and salvation
of Jesus Christ; and that this also was so understood
by Abram. (Gen. xvii, 7; Gal. iii, 16, John viii,
56.) Thus, in his call from Chaldea, and the promises
annexed to it, God “preached before the gospel unto
Abraham.”—Gal. iii, 8. So far, certainly, the transaction
is eminently spiritual.
About ten years after the coming of Abram into the
land of Canaan, the promises were confirmed to him by
being incorporated into covenant form, and ratified by a
seal. Respecting this first covenant, the record of which
is contained in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, the following
are the essential points:
1. The interview was opened by the Lord with an
assurance so spiritual and large as to be exhaustive of
every thing that heaven can bestow. “The Lord came
unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am
thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” Whatever
else was promised or given, after an assurance thus rich
and comprehensive of time and eternity, must evidently
be interpreted in a sense subordinate to it. No minor
particulars can ever exhaust or limit the treasury thus
opened. Henceforth God himself belongs to the patriarch.
2. An innumerable seed was assured to him, as heirs
with him of the promises; and he is told that not to him
but to his seed should the earthly Canaan be given. (Vs.
5, 18; and compare xvii, 7, 8.)
.bn 039.png
.pn +1
3. Abram’s faith was the condition of the covenant.
“He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for
righteousness.”—Vs. 6.
4. The promises thus made and accepted were confirmed
by a sacrifice appointed of God, and his acceptance
of it was manifested by the sign of a smoking furnace and
a burning lamp, passing between the pieces. (Vs. 8, 9,
17, 18.)
5. It was an express provision of the covenant thus
ratified that, so far as it concerned the seed of Abram, its
realization was to be held in abeyance four hundred years.
(Vs. 13-16.) It was the betrothal, of which the marriage
consummation could only take place when the long-suffering
of God toward the nations was exhausted and the iniquity
of the Amorites was full.
About fifteen years afterward God was pleased to appear
again to the patriarch, to renew the covenant, and to
confirm it with a new seal. (Gen. xvii, 1-21.) Of this
edition of the covenant the principal provisions were:
(1) That he should be a father of many nations. (2)
That Canaan should be, to him and his seed, an everlasting
possession. (3) That God would be a God to him
and to his seed after him. By the first of these promises,
as Paul assures us, Abraham was made the heir of
the world, and the father of all believers; of the gospel
day, as well as before it; of the Gentile nations, as
well as of Israel. (Rom. iv, 11-18; Gal. iii, 7-9, 14.)
Hence the name given him of God, in confirmation of
this promise (Gen. xvii, 5), Abraham, “Father of a
multitude,” Father of the church of Christ. But the central
fact of this transaction remains. The covenant was
epitomized in one brief word: “I will establish my covenant
between me and thee and thy seed after thee, in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto
thee and to thy seed after thee.”—v. 7.
.bn 040.png
.pn +1
1. The covenant thus set forth is “an everlasting covenant;”
no lapse of time can alter or abrogate its terms.
2. By it the Godhead assumed toward Abraham and
his seed relations peculiar, exclusive, and of boundless
grace. God, even the infinite and almighty God, can do
no more than to give himself. Christian can conceive no
more, and the most blessed of all heaven’s ransomed host
will know and enjoy no more than this, which was first
assured to Abram, in those words, “Fear not; I am thy
shield, and thy exceeding great reward;” and is now concentrated
into that one word, “Thy God.” What can
there be, not spiritual, in a covenant thus summed? And
what spiritual gift or blessing is not comprehended in it?
But this is not all. Whilst Paul testifies that all who believe
are the seed of Abraham, and heirs with him of the
promises, he also declares that Christ was the seed to whom
distinctively and on behalf of his people they were addressed:
“To Abraham and his seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but as of
one: And to thy seed, which is Christ.”—Gal. iii, 16. It
thus appears that the promises in question were addressed
immediately to the Lord Jesus, and they indicate all the
intimacy and grace of his relation to the Father,—the relation
which he claimed, when, from the cross, he appealed
to the Father by that title: “My God! my God! why hast
thou forsaken me?” It follows, that the title of others to
this promise is mediate only: “As many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.... And
if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs
according to the promise.”—Ib. 27-29.
It was with a view to this relation of the covenant to
the Lord Jesus, that circumcision was appointed as a seal
of it. In that rite was signified satisfaction to justice
through the blood of the promised Seed, and the crucifying
of our old man with him, to the putting off and destroying
.bn 041.png
.pn +1
of the body of the flesh. (Deut. x, 16; Jer. iv,
4; Rom. vi, 6; Col. ii, 11, 12.)
Upon occasion of the offering of Isaac, the covenant
was again confirmed to Abraham in promises which do not
mention Canaan, but are summed in the intensive assurances:
“In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying
I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the
sand which is upon the sea-shore, and thy seed shall possess
the gate of his enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed.”—Gen. xxii, 16-18. What seed
it was to whom these promises were made, we have seen
before. The assurance to him of triumph over his enemies
renews the pledge made to Eve, through the curse
upon the serpent, “Her seed shall bruise thy head.”—Gen.
iii, 15. Of the same thing, the Spirit in Isaiah says:
“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath
poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with
the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many and made
intercession for the transgressors.”—Isa. liii, 12. Of it,
Paul says: “He must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet.”—1 Cor. xv, 25.
The covenant thus interpreted, was confirmed to Abraham
with an oath (v. 16), of which Paul says: “Wherein
God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of
promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by
an oath; that, by two immutable things, in which it was
impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation
who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope
set before us. Which hope we have as an anchor of the
soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that
within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered,
even Jesus.”—Heb. vi, 17-20. Here, again, it appears
that the covenant with Abraham comprehended in its
terms the very highest hopes which Christ’s blood has purchased,—which
he, in heaven, as his people’s forerunner,
.bn 042.png
.pn +1
now possesses, and which with him they shall finally share;
and that the oath by which it was confirmed contemplated
these very things, and was designed to perfect the faith
and confidence of his people, in the gospel day, as well as
of the patriarchs and saints of old.
It is thus manifest that while the Abrahamic covenant
did undoubtedly convey to Abraham and his seed after the
flesh many and precious temporal blessings, it was at the
same time an embodiment of the very terms of the covenant
between God and his Christ; that its provisions of
grace to man are bestowed wholly in Christ; and that it
is, therefore, exclusive and everlasting. There can be no
reconciliation between God and man, but upon the terms
of this covenant. There can, therefore, be no people of
God, no true church of Christ, but of those who accept
and are embraced in, and built upon, that alone foundation,
“the everlasting covenant” made with Abraham.
.sp 2
.h4
Section VIII.—The Conditions of the Sinai Covenant.
At length, the four hundred years were past. The probation
of the apostate nations was finished. The iniquity
of the Amorites was full. God remembered his covenant
with Abraham, and sent Moses into Egypt, saying to him:
“I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto
Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but
by my name, Jehovah, was I not known to them. And I
have also established my covenant with them, to give them
the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein
they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning
of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in
bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore,
say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I
will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,
and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will
redeem you with a stretched out arm and with great judgments;
and I will take you to me for a people, and I will
.bn 043.png
.pn +1
be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am the Lord
your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens
of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land,
concerning which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob.”—Ex. vi, 2-8. In this initial communication
we have the key to the Sinai covenant, and to
all God’s subsequent dealings with Israel. In it three
things are specially observable. (1.) The Abrahamic
covenant is designated, “my covenant,” in accordance with
what we have already seen as to the nature of that covenant,
as exclusive and everlasting. (2.) Its scope is stated
in those all-embracing terms, “I will take you to me for a
people, and I will be to you a God.” (3.) The possession
of the earthly Canaan is specified as a minor particular,
under this comprehensive pledge.
With all this the Sinai covenant was in accord. Its
conditional terms we have seen, as propounded through
Moses. “Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and
tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did
to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings,
and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant.”—Ex. xix, 3-5.
The “voice” which they were to obey they heard on the
next day, when God spake to them the words of the law,
from the midst of the smoke and flame. Of it Moses
afterward reminded the people: “Ye came near and stood
under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire
unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick
darkness. And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst
of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no
similitude, only a voice. And he declared unto you his
covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten
commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of
stone.”—Deut. iv, 11-13. Very great emphasis attaches
to the Ten Commandments, in their relation as thus the
fundamental law of the covenant. The first overture having
.bn 044.png
.pn +1
been addressed to Israel, in the terms, “If ye will
obey my voice,” and by them accepted, the next day that
voice was heard uttering those commandments. Again
the people are called upon, and again respond in pledge
of obedience. Moses then wrote in “the book of the covenant”
all these words of the Lord, and read them in the
audience of the people. And it was not till again they
promised obedience to the terms thus set before them that
the covenant was ratified, as we have seen. The Ten
Commandments were then, by the finger of God, engraved
on the two tables of stone, which were thence known as
“the tables of the covenant.” These were placed in “the
ark of the covenant,” which was in the holy of holies, in
“the tabernacle of the covenant.” Both of these derived
their names and significance from these tables, which were
the very center of the whole system of religion and worship
connected with the tabernacle. The lid of the ark
which covered these tables was the golden mercy-seat, with
its cherubim of gold, between which stood the pillar of
glory, the Shechinah, overshadowing the mercy-seat. It
thus typified God’s throne of grace immovably based upon
the firm foundation of his eternal law—mercy to man only
possible on condition of satisfaction to that law. Therefore,
when remembrance of sins was made every year
(Heb. x, 3), it was by the sprinkling of blood upon the
mercy-seat and the ark of the covenant. (Ib. ix, 7.) A
proper regard to the fact that the moral law was thus the
fundamental condition of the covenant, while the ritual
law was no part of it, but a later system of testimony,
would have prevented much perplexing and erroneous
speculation on the subject.
But the covenant had a second condition, “If ye will
keep my covenant.” This second clause is implied in the
first. But it is none the less important and significant, as
being a categorical statement of the nature of the obedience
required. We have already pointed out the fact that
.bn 045.png
.pn +1
by “my covenant” was meant the covenant with Abraham,
so interpreted by God himself in his first communication
to Israel in Egypt. The covenant thus defined had but one
condition and two promises. The promises were, to bring
them out of the bondage of Egypt and give them the
land of Canaan, and to be to them a God. The condition
was, that Israel, in turn, would surrender themselves to
be for a people to God. (Ex. vi, 7.) This condition is
the only thing that can be meant by the phrase, “If ye
will keep my covenant.” It was the only duty laid upon
them by that covenant. We thus find the two fundamental
conditions of the Sinai covenant to have been in
the terms, “If ye will obey my voice indeed”—the voice
that spake in the Ten Commandments—and, “If ye will
keep my covenant,” to be a willing people unto me, and
cleave to me as your God. Such was the foundation-stone
on which the church was built.
.sp 2
.h4
Section IX.—The Promises of the Sinai Covenant.
As were the conditions of the covenant, so were its
promises altogether and eminently spiritual.
1. “Ye shall be unto me a peculiar treasure above all
people; for all the earth is mine.” A treasure is a property,
valuable, highly prized, and cherished. It is riches
to the owner; his enjoyments largely depend thereon;
and over it he therefore exercises a watchful guardianship.
Such was the relation which, by the covenant, God conferred
on Israel. The expression is strengthened by the
qualifying adjective, “peculiar,” which means, special and
exclusive. “My own special treasure.” What was thus
implied may be gathered from a single Scripture. Says
the Lord, by Malachi: “Then they that feared the Lord
spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened and
heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before
him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon
his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of
.bn 046.png
.pn +1
hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels” (“my peculiar
treasures.” The word in the original is the same),
“and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son
that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between
the righteous and the wicked; between him that
serveth God, and him that serveth him not.”—Mal. iii.
16-18. By this clause, Israel became the object of God’s
assiduous watchfulness and constant care as his own peculiar
treasure of price.
2. The parenthetic clause, “For all the earth is
mine,” is of singular interest. The covenant with Abraham
conveyed the assurance that in him should “all the
families of the earth be blessed.” The clause inserted in
the Sinai overture was a reminder to Israel of that fact,
to certify them and the world that the purpose concerning
the latter was unchanged, that the peculiar relation now
assumed toward Israel was not incongruous to it; that, on
the contrary, whilst Israel was first, it was not alone in
the obligations and promises of the covenant. “All the
earth is mine;” and the claim which, in such a transaction,
God thus makes he will surely vindicate, in his own
good time, by taking his own to himself, bringing them,
also, within the pale of his covenant, and gathering from
them a revenue of praise and glory.
3. “A kingdom of priests.” Israel’s acceptance of the
first condition of the covenant, “If ye will obey my voice,”
erected them into a kingdom, of which God was the alone
sovereign,—the kingdom of God. This promise defines the
character and function of that kingdom,—“a kingdom of
priests;” or, rather, “a priest-kingdom.” Israel was thus
ordained to the exalted office of intercessory mediation for
the world, and of testimony to it on God’s behalf. Had
ten righteous men been found in the cities of the plain,
they would have been spared, for the sake of those ten.
(Gen. xviii, 32.) The angels of destruction could do nothing
to Sodom until Lot departed out of it. (Ib. xix, 22.)
.bn 047.png
.pn +1
Had one righteous man been found in Jerusalem in the
days of Jeremiah, the city would have been spared for the
sake of that one. (Jer. v, 1.) Aaron the priest, with his
golden censer—a type of the prayers of the saints (Rev.
v, 8; viii, 3)—standing between the living and the dead,
stayed the plague in the camp of Israel. (Num. xvi, 46-48.)
So, Israel itself was now ordained a mediating priest, to
stand for the time then present, between the living and
the dead of the nations, in the ordinances at the sanctuary,
uplifting a censer of intercession which stayed the
sword of justice that was ready to destroy them; and appointed
to become at length the agent of the world’s salvation,
through atonement made by one of their nation, and
the gospel sent forth from Jerusalem to all the world, by
the preaching of Israel’s sons. Thus was it a priest-kingdom,
set apart and sanctified of God, to be for salvation to
all the ends of the earth.
This priestly consecration of Israel, moreover, constituted
her a witness on behalf of God among the nations.
It was the lighting of a lamp to shine amid the darkness
of the world. The office to which she was thus ordained
was not yet aggressive; for the times of the Gentiles were
not come. Yet was hers none the less a public and active
testimony, which, if they would, the Gentiles could hear,
a gospel light which did, in fact, penetrate far into the
darkness, and prepared the nations for the coming of
Christ and the gospel day. For the time being, it was
the office of Israel to cherish the light, by keeping the
oracles and maintaining the ordinances of God’s worship,
and transmitting them to their children, until the fullness
of time.
4. “A holy nation.” The word “holy” primarily designates
the completeness and symmetry of the moral perfections
of God. From hence, it is transferred to those attributes
in the intelligent creatures which are in the likeness
of God’s holiness. And, as the distinguishing characteristic
.bn 048.png
.pn +1
of holiness in a creature is surrender and consecration to
God, the word is used to designate all such things as are
his by peculiar dedication to his service. Thus, the altar,
the tabernacle, and all the vessels and things pertaining
thereto, were holy. So the tithe of the land, of the flocks,
and of the herds, was holy; and the firstborn of men and
of beasts. (Lev. xxvii, 30, 32; Luke ii, 23.) In this
sense of accepted consecration, and of appropriation to himself,
God here puts upon Israel the designation of “a holy
nation.” Henceforth, they were so named, and the obligation
implied therein constantly insisted upon, as demanding
from them real separation to God, and holiness of
heart and life. Says the Lord: “Ye shall be holy men
unto me, neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of
beasts in the field.”—Ex. xxii, 31. Moses exhorts them
to abhor and destroy the idols of the land, “For thou art
a holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God
hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above
all people that are upon the face of the earth.... Thou
shalt, therefore, keep the commandments and the statutes
and the judgments which I command thee this day to do
them.”—Deut. vii, 6-11. From this article of the covenant,
the New Testament designation of the members of
the visible church is derived. Says Peter, “Ye are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar
people.”—1 Peter, ii, 9. Hence, the name of “saints,”
or, “holy ones,” which, familiar in the Psalms, is constantly
used in the epistles, as the distinctive title of the
members of the New Testament Church.
Thus it appears that in all the provisions of the covenant
earthly and temporal blessings are not once alluded
to. That clause of the Abrahamic covenant which concerned
the possession of Canaan was, indeed, referred to at
Sinai, and Israel was assured of its fulfillment. (Ex. xxiii,
23.) But it was then, and ever after, spoken of and
treated as already and finally settled by the promise made
.bn 049.png
.pn +1
to Abraham. (Ex. vi, 3-8; Deut. vii, 7-9; ix, 5, 6;
Psalm cv, 8-11.) Moreover, the bestowal of Canaan was
in no sense a secular transaction. Not only as a type of
the better country was it designed and calculated to awaken
and stimulate heavenly aspirations. (Heb. xi, 8-16.) But,
like the fastnesses of the Alps, for centuries the retreat
and home of the gospel among the martyr Waldenses, Canaan,
planted in the very center of the old world-empires,
and upon the mid line of march of the world’s great history,
was chosen and prepared of God as a fortress of security
entrenched for Israel’s protection, in the midst of the apostate
and hostile nations, while tending and nourishing the
beacon fire of gospel light which glowed on Mount Zion,
and shed its beams afar into the gloom of thick darkness
which enshrouded the world. As such, it was assured to
Abraham’s seed by the covenant with him and the seal
set in their flesh.
.sp 2
.h4
Section X.—The Visible Church was thus established.
The Sinai covenant gave origin to the visible church
of God. By the visible church, I mean that society among
men which God has called and taken into covenant and
communion with himself, and ordained to be his witness to
the world. Two points are essentially involved in the
definition. The first is the relation to God established by
the terms—“I will take you to me for a people; and I
will be to you a God.” The second is the office to which
the church is thus called and ordained, to be God’s witness,
testifying on his behalf against the world’s apostasy.
Such is Peter’s declaration, quoting the terms of the Sinai
covenant, and applying them to the New Testament
church: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth
the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into
his marvelous light; which in time past were not a people,
but are now the people of God.”—1 Peter ii, 9, 10. This
.bn 050.png
.pn +1
privilege of communion, and this office of testimony were
implied and involved in the whole covenant, and all its
terms; but especially indicated by that expression, “Ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.”
It is the privilege of priests to draw nigh to God, and their
office to testify on God’s behalf to men.
The manner and meaning of the designation by which,
throughout the Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament and
of the New, the body thus constituted is known as the
ekklēsia, the church, is worthy of special notice in this connection.
The fact of God having met with Israel at
Sinai, and communed with them in an audible voice, is
referred to by Moses and emphasized as being a signal
demonstration of relations established of extraordinary intimacy.
“What nation is there so great, which hath God
so nigh unto them as the Lord our God in all things that
we call upon him for?... Take heed to thyself, and keep
thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine
eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart, all
the days of thy life; but teach them thy sons and thy sons’
sons, specially the day that thou stoodest before the Lord
thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather
me the people together, and I will make them hear my
words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that
they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach
their children.... And the Lord spake unto you out of the
midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw
no similitude; only ye heard a voice.”—Deut. iv, 7-13.
Again, he says: “Ask now of the days that are past,
which were before thee, since the day that God created
man upon the earth, and ask from one side of heaven unto
the other, whether there hath been any such a thing as
this great thing is, or hath been heard like it. Did ever
people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of
fire, as thou, hast heard, and live? Or hath God assayed
to go and take him a nation from the midst of another
.bn 051.png
.pn +1
nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by
war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm,
and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord thy
God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto thee
it was showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he
is God; there is none else beside him.”—Ib. iv, 32-35.
The presence of God with Israel, thus impressively
manifested, was not casual or transient. The fires and
the terrors of Sinai were indeed withdrawn. But the
tabernacle of testimony was erected, and the shechinah
there revealed for the express purpose of being a testimony
to Israel that God was with them dwelling in their midst.
Of the services to be there established, he directed Moses
that there should be “a continual burnt-offering throughout
your generations, at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation before the Lord, where I will meet you to
speak there unto thee. And there will I meet with the
children of Israel, and the tabernacle” (or rather, as the
margin, “Israel”) “shall be sanctified by my glory. And I
will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their
God.”—Ex. xxix, 42-46.
Thus the gathering of Israel at Sinai was not a mere
congregation or assembling of the people to each other,
but a meeting with God; and this fact is very remarkably
indicated in the Septuagint Greek. In the description of
the Sinai scene, given in Deut. iv, in that version, the
tenth verse stands thus: “The day that thou stoodest
before the Lord thy God in Horeb (tē hēmera tēs ekklēsias),
in the day of the assembly, when the Lord said to me (Ekklēsiason
pros me), Assemble to me the people.” Previous to
that occasion the word ekklēsia is not found in the Greek
Scriptures. That day was, by Moses, habitually designated
“the day of the ekklēsia—the assembly” (Deut. ix, 10; x,
4; xviii, 16), and the reason of the designation is thus, by
the Greek translators, stamped upon the face of that version.
It was so called because the people on that day met
.bn 052.png
.pn +1
with God, in compliance with the command (Ekklēsiason),
“Assemble to me the people.” In accordance with the
special meaning to which the word was thus appropriated
it is used throughout the Scriptures. In the Old Testament
and Apocrypha it occurs nearly one hundred times,
and a careful examination fails to discover an instance in
which it is used otherwise than to designate Israel in their
sacred character as the covenant people of God. In that
sense it passed into the New Testament. In one place it
is exceptionally used by the town clerk of the Greek city
of Ephesus, and by Luke, after him, in its classic meaning,
to designate an assembly of the freemen of the city. (Acts
xix, 39, 41.) But everywhere else it is employed in the
same sense as in the Septuagint. It is thus applied
(1) to Israel in the wilderness (Acts vii, 38), and at the
temple (Heb. ii, 12); (2) to the religious assemblies of the
Jews during the time of Christ’s ministry (Matt. xviii, 17),
and ever afterwards, in the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, to
the New Testament Church. According, therefore, to the
uniform usage of the Scriptures, the word is appropriated to
designate an assembly with God, and, in a secondary sense,
the people as related to such an assembly. Such is the designation
given to Israel as the people of God by covenant
and fellowship, among whom he held the communion of
mutual converse, he with them in the words of his testimony
and the communications of his grace, and they with
him in all things in which they called upon him. (Deut.
iv, 7. Compare Matt. xviii, 20; Acts x, 33.) In the
assembly of Israel, the church of the apostles finds an
origin in no wise unworthy her own lofty character and
office. Happy she when with conscious experience she can
take to herself the glad words of Israel’s song, “There is
a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of
God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved; God
shall help her, and that right early.... The Lord of
.bn 053.png
.pn +1
hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge.”—Psalm
xlvi, 4-7.
The following were the essential features of the constitution
of the church thus erected:
1. Its fundamental charter was the covenant, embracing
the ten commandments, in the reciprocal terms which
have been considered in the preceding chapter.
2. The persons with whom these terms were made, and
who were comprehended in the society thereupon erected,
were all those, whether of Israel or the Gentiles, together
with their households, who made credible profession of
accepting the covenant, and were thereupon sealed with
its baptismal seal. To this point we shall presently
return.
3. The radical principle of organization was that of
parental headship and family unity. The family is the
divine original of all human society, as the parental office
is of all human authority. Upon this basis was founded
the Abrahamic covenant, and upon it was erected the system
of government for Israel. It was administered by
the fathers of families, of houses, and of tribes; the first-born
son succeeding to his father as head of his house,
under the designation of elder. This system was recognized
in the first commission of Moses from God, and the
elders, or heads of houses, were united with him in his
mission to Pharaoh. (Ex. iii, 16, 18; iv, 29.) To them
was committed the ordering of the passover on the night
of the exodus. (Ib. xii, 21.) At Sinai, before the giving
of the covenant, the system was perfected in its details, at
the suggestion of Jethro, with the sanction of God. (Ex.
xviii, 12-24.) Immediately upon the sealing of the covenant
seventy of the elders, who had been previously assembled
by the command of God, went up, as already stated,
with Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, into the mount,
and there celebrated on Israel’s behalf the feast of the
covenant. “They saw the God of Israel, and did eat and
.bn 054.png
.pn +1
drink.”—Ex. xxiv, 1, 9-11. Afterward, when the covenant
was renewed in the plains of Moab, the relation of
the elders thereto, in their official capacity, was expressly
stated. “Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord
your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and
your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones,
your wives.”—Deut. xxix, 10.
Such were the essential features of the constitution of
the church, as ordained at Sinai. To her, thus organized,
were given ordinances of testimony, concerning which
a few points only are here necessary. Since she was appointed
simply to maintain, in her position in the midst
of the nations, the lamp of gospel truth ever shining, until
the set time should come for sending it forth through the
world, the ordinances of testimony which were intrusted
to her were adapted expressly to this office. They were:
(1.) The oracles of God, his written word, from time to
time imparted through Moses and other holy men, who
spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost. (Rom. iii,
2; 2 Pet. i, 21.) (2.) The holy convocations of the Sabbath
days. (Lev. xxiii, 3; 1 Kings iv, 23; Acts xv, 21.)
(3.) The priesthood and ritual service. (4.) The sanctuary
worship and festivals. (5.) Public professions of faith, occasional
and stated. (Deut. xxvi.) (6.) Poetic recitations
and psalmody. (Ex. xv, 1-21; Deut. xxxi, xxxii; the
book of Psalms.)
It was with a special view to the witnessing office of
the church of Israel that the ritual system was constructed.
The covenant and the ritual were testimonies to the better
covenant and the heavenly realities which belong to it. It
is with this view that the word “testimony” is so much
used in designating them. Thus the Ten Commandments,
the fundamental law of the covenant, were frequently
designated “the testimony.” (Ex. xxv, 21.) The tables
on which they were written were, in like manner, “the
tables of the testimony.” They were kept in “the ark of
.bn 055.png
.pn +1
the testimony,” which was in “the tabernacle of the testimony.”
In the same way the whole system of ordinances
and laws given to Israel is designated “the testimonies of
God.” Of them, and the office of the church concerning
them, the Psalmist says: “He established a testimony in
Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded
our fathers, that they should make them known to their
children, that the generation to come might know them:
even the children which should be born; who should arise
and declare them to their children; that they might set
their hope in God, and not forget his works, but keep his
commandments.”—Psalm lxxviii, 5-7.
Respecting the ritual system, there are two propositions
which are believed to be demonstrable, but are here presented
without argument. The first is, that these rites
were not dark forms, veiling rather than disclosing a new
revelation; but were inscriptions in luminous characters,
setting forth the doctrines of a faith well understood by
the patriarchs and fathers from the beginning, and from
them transmitted and known to Israel. Second. The ritual
forms in which the gospel was clothed in the Levitical
system were far more suitable for the purposes of popular
instruction and world-wide dissemination than would have
been any conceivable exposition of it in writing. The art
of writing was in its infancy. A written gospel would
have been, even to Israel, a sealed book; how much more
to all other people! The history and laws were put in
writing and kept at the sanctuary for the direction of the
priests and magistrates in the performance of their duties,
the administration of justice, and the instruction of Israel.
But the gospel, for the people, was clothed in forms which
required no interpreter, which meant the same in every
language under heaven, and which were calculated, by
their appeals to the imagination through the eye and the
senses, to stamp themselves indelibly upon the memory and
the affections. Thus were they eminently adapted to arrest
.bn 056.png
.pn +1
the attention and impress the minds of strangers, and of
the young, for whom especially they were designed. (Ex.
xii, 26; xiii, 14; Deut. vi, 20; Josh. iv, 6, 21; 1 Kings
viii, 41, 42.)
The fact is of an importance which entitles it to distinct
and emphatic mention, that the Aaronic priesthood
and the ritual law were no part of the constitution of the
church, as it was established by the covenant. They were
not in existence when the covenant was made, but were
ordinances afterward given to the church, as already existent
and organized. They were bestowed as means of
fulfilling her witnessing office, means adapted to the times
and circumstances of Israel, but subject to be modified, as
they were in the temple system, or to be wholly suspended
or set aside, without impairing the constitution of the
church or the completeness and efficiency of its organization.
Not only thus did the covenant precede the ritual
law and the priesthood, but when, forty years afterward,
the covenant was renewed, and the parties to it were enumerated
in detail, the priests were altogether ignored.
(Deut. xxix, 10-12.) They were in no wise essential to it.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XI.—The Terms of Membership in the Church of\
Israel.
With some slight circumstantial differences, having reference
to the difference in the office of the church under
the two dispensations, the conditions of membership were
essentially the same as propounded at Sinai and as prescribed
under the gospel. While the spiritual blessings
of the covenant were from the beginning conditioned upon
true faith and loving obedience, the privilege of membership
in the visible church was at Sinai bestowed upon
those, with their households, who made credible profession
of these graces, and upon them only. On “the day of
the assembly,” all the people professed to take God for
their God, and to devote themselves to him as his believing
.bn 057.png
.pn +1
and obedient people. And as on the days of Pentecost,
so on this occasion, the profession was accepted, and their
admission was sealed with baptism; although doubtless, in
both cases, there were false professors included with the
true. With certain exceptions, ordained for special reasons
(Deut. xxiii, 1-8), the conditions of membership were the
same for the Gentile world as for Israel. The law was
explicit and most emphatic on this point. “One ordinance
shall be both for you of the congregation and also for the
stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in
your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before
the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you and
for the stranger that sojourneth with you.”—Num. xv, 14-16,
and 29; and see ix, 14; xix, 10; Ex. xii, 43-49;
Deut. xxxi, 12; Josh. viii, 33, etc.
For eliminating unworthy members, the means provided
in the Sinai ordinances were as abundant as those now enjoyed
by the church, and would seem to have been as
well adapted to the effectual securing of the end proposed.
They come under three heads. (1.) Certain offenses were
visited with the penalty of death or of utter separation
from the communion of Israel. (Ex. xxxi, 14; Num. ix,
13, etc.) (2.) The expenses incident to a faithful performance
of the duties required of members of the church of
Israel were large and continual. Firstfruits, firstlings, and
tithes, trespass offerings, sin offerings, freewill offerings, and
other oblations, made up an aggregate which can not have
fallen short of one-fifth of all the income of Israel, and
probably went far beyond that amount. The law provided
none but moral means for enforcing these requirements;
and numerous facts in the history of Israel show
that by many they were entirely neglected. (Neh. xiii,
10-13; Mal. iii, 8-10.) Those who thus withheld what
belonged to the Lord were self-excluded from the fellowship
of the covenant society, and were “cut off from the
congregation (ekklēsia from the church) of the Lord.” (3.)
.bn 058.png
.pn +1
The irksome and humiliating nature of the regulations concerning
uncleanness and purifying were very efficient
means of separating between the believing and the profane.
As we shall presently see, occasions of uncleanness
were of almost daily occurrence, in every house. These
required a conscientious watchfulness and assiduity, in
guarding against defilement, and in using the appointed
rites of purifying, which often involved the interruption
and expense of journeys to the sanctuary and offerings
there.
The communion of the church of Israel thus consisted
of those only, with their families, who added to the obligations
of a public profession of faith, a fidelity to all the
requirements of the law, its moral precepts, its ritual observances,
its tithes and offerings, its rites of purifying and
its annual feasts. In a word, the account given of Zacharias
and Elizabeth describes the character required, in order
to fellowship in the church of Israel: “Righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless.”—Luke i, 6. Such, and such only,
were the clean, to whom the privileges of Israel’s communion
belonged. To them they were certified by the seal
of baptism.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XII.—Circumcision and Baptism.
It is commonly assumed that baptism has come into
the place and office of circumcision. This I conceive to
be a mistaken view, which involves the whole subject in
confusion. Circumcision is the distinctive and peculiar seal
of the Abrahamic covenant. While it is true, that in that
covenant, as relating to the terms of salvation, all believers
were accounted as seed of Abraham, and heirs of the
promises, it is equally true that, by its terms, peculiar
blessings unspeakably great were assured to the seed of
the patriarch after the flesh. Not only was Christ to come
of his flesh; not only was the church to be for fifteen centuries
.bn 059.png
.pn +1
constituted of his offspring, but Paul moreover testifies,
that richer blessings than they have ever yet enjoyed are to
be bestowed on Israel and on the Gentiles through Israel,
in the coming future: “If the fall of them be the riches
of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the
Gentiles, how much more their fullness?... For if the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?”—Rom.
xi, 12, 15. This the apostle, futhermore, puts upon
the ground that “the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance.”—Ib. 29. It was with a view to this relation
of the covenant to Abraham’s natural seed, that circumcision
was appointed as its seal. Said God: “I will
establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant,
to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.”—Gen.
xvii, 7. Hence, by circumcision, the token of the covenant
was set in the flesh of the males, through whom the
descent is counted. So long, therefore, as the church was,
for the divine purposes, restricted to the family of Israel, the
rite of circumcision was necessary as a prerequisite condition
of admission to its privileges, because it was the seal
of incorporation by birth or adoption into that family.
But this did not constitute admission into the church.
The Sinai covenant had its own baptismal seal. The
church consisted, not of Israel, the circumcised; but only
of the clean of Israel. Of this, baptism was the token and
seal. It hence resulted that when the restriction was removed,
and the gospel was given to the Gentiles, emancipated
from the yoke of circumcision, baptism remained
unchanged in place or office, the original and only seal of
actual admission to the fellowship and privileges of the
church of God. Of all this we shall see more hereafter.
.bn 060.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part III. | ADMINISTERED BAPTISMS=SPRINKLINGS.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XIII.—Unclean Seven Days.
In the laws of Moses there were two grades of uncleanness
defined—uncleanness of seven days, and uncleanness
till the even. The former was a symbol of that
essential corruption which is in us by nature, to which are
essential the redeeming blood of Christ and the renewing
of the Holy Spirit, without which no man can see God in
peace. Uncleanness till the even symbolized those casual
defilements to which God’s renewed people are liable by
contact with the evil of the world. The ritual, concerning
the uncleanness of seven days, was designed to signalize
the light in which man’s apostate nature, and the depravity
and sin thence resulting, appear in the sight of a God
of ineffable holiness. To this conception the word unclean
was designed to give expression, the intense meaning of
which is liable to escape the casual reader of the Scriptures.
It signified, not the mere external soiling of the
living person, but death, corruption, and rottenness within
the heart, the fermenting source of pollution poured forth
in the outward life. To impress us with a just sense
of the exceeding evil of this thing the Spirit employs
every variety of figure expressive of deformity and loathsomeness.
In the primitive faith, of which the book of
Job is a record, it is characterized in language which is a
key-note to all the Scriptures on the subject. “Behold he
putteth no trust in his saints” (his holy angels); “yea, the
heavens are not pure in his sight. How much more abominable
and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like
.bn 061.png
.pn +1
water.”—Job xv, 15, 16. Says the Psalmist, “The Lord
looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see
if there were any that did understand and seek God.
They are all gone aside; they are all together become
filthy.”—Psa. xiv, 3. Here the word “filthy” is in the
margin rendered “stinking.” It is the same in the original
as in the above place in Job, and means the offensiveness
of putrefaction. David, in his penitential Psalm,
indicates his sense of this radical evil of his nature.
“Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me
from my sin.... Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in
sin did my mother conceive me. Behold thou desirest truth
in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make
me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall
be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow....
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right
spirit within me.”—Psa. li, 2-10. Isaiah and other sacred
writers represent the same evil by the figures of the vomit
and filthiness of a drunken debauch, and by every kind of
abominable and loathsome thing. (Isa. xxviii, 8; Prov.
xxx, 12.) By the designation, unclean, the moral deformity
and offensiveness of Satan and the “unclean spirits,”
his angels, are described. And in the accounts of the
riches of grace and glory in store for the church, the
crowning feature is the exclusion of the unclean. “A
highway shall be there, and a way; and it shall be called,
The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it.”—Isa.
xxxv, 8. The church is called upon for this cause
to exult: “Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion;
put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised
and the unclean.”—Ib. lii, 1. And again, John,
in the vision of the glory of the new Jerusalem, which
crowns and closes his revelation, says of her: “And there
shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth” (literally,
“any thing unclean”), “neither whatsoever worketh
.bn 062.png
.pn +1
abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written
in the Lamb’s book of life.”—Rev. xxi, 27.
For the purpose of inducing a profound sense of this
evil and loathsomeness of sin, as working in the heart, the
ordinances respecting the uncleanness of seven days were
appointed, each having its own lesson.
1. The birth of a child was the actual propagation,
from the parents, of part in the uncleanness of the apostate
nature. It was, therefore, attended with natural phenomena,
and marked by ritual ordinances which characterized
it, and every function connected with it, as unclean
and defiling. Emphasis was thus given to the challenge,
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not
one.”—Job xiv, 4.
2. Running issues of all kinds were appropriated as
symbols of the corruption of man’s nature, festering within,
and breaking forth in putrescent streams of depravity and
sin in the active life. (Ezek. xvi, 6, 9.)
3. Death is “the wages of sin” (Rom. vi, 23), and
physical death is a terrible emblem of its loathsome and
accursed nature. And as sin and the curse are diffused to
Adam’s seed by the very contagion of nature, this, their
symbol, was ritually endowed with the same contagious
character. He that touched the dead was reckoned no
longer among the living but the dead. He was, therefore,
cast out from the camp, from his family, the sanctuary,
and the privileges of the covenant. To them all he was
dead. He was unclean.
Thus, as the loving and bereaved stood by the couch
of death, gazed upon the face and form once blooming in
health and beauty, and beheld the sightless and sunken
eyes, the ghastly features and cadaverous hue—pledges of
corruption begun—while the very air of the chamber
seemed to breathe the cry, “Unclean!” as they realized
the instinctive recoil which love itself must feel from the
very touch of the departed, and felt as Abraham, concerning
.bn 063.png
.pn +1
the beloved Sarah, the constraint to “bury his dead
out of his sight,”—as, in all this, they knew that these last
offices even must be fulfilled at the expense of defilement
and exclusion from the privileges of God’s earthly courts
and the society of his people, for seven days, they and all
Israel received a lesson of divine instruction as to the exceeding
sinfulness of sin, the wages of which is death, its
loathsomeness in God’s sight, its contagious diffusion and
power, and its curse, to which human speech or angel eloquence
could have added nothing.
4. No less impressive were the ordinances concerning
leprosy. The name designated a class of diseases, some of
which would appear to have been altogether miraculous in
their origin, and peculiar in their symptoms, while others
were attributable to natural causes. The disease was peculiar
for the shocking and loathsome appearance of its
victim, its poisoning the blood and pervading the whole
body, and its incurable and inevitably deadly nature. It
was, therefore, employed by God as, at once, an extraordinary
punishment of sin, and a most fitting symbol of it, as
seated in the heart and nature of man, and pervading and
corrupting his whole being. (Num. xii, 10; 2 Kings v,
27; 2 Chr. xxvi, 20.) The leper was accounted as one dead
(Num. xii, 12), and, therefore, excluded from his family,
from the congregation and ordinances at the sanctuary, and
from the very camp of Israel, where the living God walked.
(Num. v, 2; xii, 14.) Thus, outcast from the abodes of men
and the house of God, “the leper in whom the plague is, his
clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a
covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean! Unclean!
All the days wherein the plague shall be in him, he
shall be defiled; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without
the camp shall be his habitation.”—Lev. xiii, 45, 46.
How dreadful the figure thus presented to the senses of
Israel, of the loathsomeness of sin in God’s sight, and of
its ruinous effects upon the sinner! The person offensive
.bn 064.png
.pn +1
with scabs and sores, the rent garments, the uncovered
head, the wailing cry, “Unclean! Unclean!” while the exclusion
from the house of God, and from the abodes of
men, and the covered lip, proclaimed to Israel that the
spiritual leper, yet in his sins, brings danger to his fellow-men
with his very presence, and is an offense and loathing
to God, before the eyes of whose purity he may not venture
to come, save through the cleansing blood and Spirit
of Christ. Hence, the cry of Isaiah, when he beheld the
glory of the Lord: “Woe is me! for I am undone, because
I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a
people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King,
the Lord of hosts.” And hence, the coal of fire from off
the altar of atonement, and the seraph’s assurance, “Lo,
this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken
away, and thy sin purged.”—Isa. vi, 5-7.
Thus, every way, under the idea of indwelling defilement,
was sin and its source in man’s corrupted nature held
up to Israel as loathsome in itself, propagated to the race
and infecting all, defiling in its contact, deadly in its indwelling
power, and abhorrent to the eyes of God.
Four circumstances in the ritual on these defilements
are peculiar and characteristic:
1. The first of these exhibits a broad and fundamental
contrast between these defilements and those which continued
only till the even. The latter, as already intimated,
presented the conception of an outward soiling of the living
person. But the uncleanness of seven days exhibited
the idea, not of surface defilement of the living, but of the
loathsomeness and pollution of the dead and decaying carcass,
pouring out its own corruption, and infecting all
around with its unclean and abhorrent presence,—a pollution
which no extrinsic or surface washing can ever cleanse.
2. The defilement was for seven days. God’s work of
creation ended in the rest of the seventh day. That day
was hence appropriated as a type of the final rest of Christ
.bn 065.png
.pn +1
and his people upon the completed work of redemption.
Hence, the argument of Paul: “For he spake of the
seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh
day from all his works. And in this place again, If they
shall enter into my rest. There remaineth therefore a rest
for the people of God.”—Heb. iv, 4-9. “A rest:” literally,
as in the margin, “a keeping of a Sabbath,” or, “a
Sabbatism.” But the Sabbath thus reserved for God’s
people, coincides with “the day of judgment and perdition
of ungodly men.” Hence, a seven days’ uncleanness was
typical of such a corruption of nature as is essential and,
therefore, persistent to the end; and the exclusion of the
defiled from the camp and the sanctuary signified the sentence
of the judgment of the last day, when those whose
natures are unrenewed, and whose sins are unpurged will
be excluded from the Sabbath of redemption and from the
new Jerusalem, and remain finally under the woe of the second
death: “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still....
For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers,
and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and
maketh a lie.”—Rev. xxii, 11, 15.
3. The defilement was contagious. If the unclean for
seven days touched a clean person, the latter was thereby
defiled until the even. For, such is the inveteracy of this
native corruption of the race that God’s people are liable
to defilement from every intercourse and contact with the
world,—a defilement, however, which they will leave behind
them when the day of earthly life is ended. Therefore,
“Come out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will
receive you.”—2 Cor. vi, 17.
4. This seven days’ uncleanness could not be purified
without sacrificial rites, and water sprinkled by the hand
of one that was clean. For nothing but the atoning merits
of Christ’s one offering, and the Spirit of life which he
sheds down upon his people, can enter and cleanse our
.bn 066.png
.pn +1
defiled nature, and fit us for admission to the presence of
God, or for part in the New Jerusalem. All this will more
fully appear as we proceed to notice the rites of purifying
appointed for the several kinds of this uncleanness, respectively.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XIV.—The Baptism of a healed Leper.
The rites appointed for the purifying of a healed leper
come under two heads,—those administered by the priest,
and those performed by the person himself. When a leper
was healed, he was first inspected by the priest, who went
forth to him to ascertain that the healing was real, and
the disease eradicated. This being ascertained, the priest
took two clean birds, and had one of them killed and its
blood caught in an earthen vessel, with running water.
He then took the remaining bird, alive, with cedar wood,
scarlet, and hyssop, and dipped all together in the blood
and water; “and he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be
cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce
him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open
field.”—Lev. xiv, 7.
The rite which thus ended by the official decree of the
priest, “He is clean,” completed the purification, properly
so called. The man is now clean. The remaining ordinances
were expressive of duties and privileges proper to
one who is cleansed and restored to the commonwealth of
Israel, and the communion of God’s house. First of these
he was required to “wash his clothes, and shave off all his
hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean.”—Ib.,
vs. 8. He was now admitted to the camp, but must
not yet enter his own tent, nor come to the tabernacle for
seven days. On the seventh day he was again required to
shave off all his hair, wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh;
and “he shall be clean.”—Vs. 9.
Now, on the eighth day, he came to the sanctuary,
bringing a sacrifice of a trespass offering, a sin offering, and
.bn 067.png
.pn +1
a burnt offering. The rites attendant upon these offerings
completed the ceremonial. Thenceforth, the leper resumed
all the privileges of a son of Israel, in his family, in the
the congregation, and at the sanctuary.
The general signification of these ordinances is evident.
The priest, by whom alone the cleansing rites could be
administered, was the official representative of our great
high-priest, Christ Jesus. The two birds were with the
priest a complex type of him who offered himself without
spot to God, who was dead and is alive for evermore, and
by the merits of whose blood and the power of whose
Spirit remission of sins and the new life of holiness are
given to men. The first self-washing symbolized the duty
of the redeemed to turn from their old ways and walk in
holiness. The continued exclusion, for seven days, from his
house and the sanctuary was a testimony that for the
present we are pilgrims and strangers, and that only at
the end of earth’s trials and purgations can we enter our
“house which is from heaven.” The seventh day’s washing
indicated the final putting off of all evil in the resurrection;
and the offerings of the eighth represented the
way whereby, in the regeneration, God’s redeemed people
shall have access to his presence and communion with him,
through the blood of Jesus.
We are now able to understand why the cleansing of
the healed leper was thus separately ordered, and not included
in the provision which we shall presently see was
made, in common, for all other cases of seven days’ uncleanness.
The extraordinary and frequently supernatural
character of both the disorder and its cure rendered it
proper and necessary to take it out of the category of ordinary
uncleannesses, and place it under the immediate
jurisdiction of the priests. This was necessary, alike, in
order to a judicial determination at first as to the existence
of the leprosy, and afterward as to the cure. And the
priestly administration of the rites of cleansing was equally
.bn 068.png
.pn +1
important, as constituting an official and authoritative
proclamation of the healing and restoration of the leper.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XV.—Baptism of those defiled by the Dead.
The purification of the leper must have been of rare
occurrence. All the facts and indications of the Scriptures
tend to the conclusion that, except by miraculous agency,
the disease was incurable. The baptism of Israel at Sinai
was extraordinary in its nature and circumstances, and
could not have been repeated except in circumstances
equally remarkable, such as that when, in the plains of
Moab, the covenant was renewed with the new generation,
which had risen up to take the place of those who perished
in the wilderness. (Deut. xxix, 1.) But of that transaction
the particulars are not recorded. In the water of
separation, provision was made for an ordinary rite, essentially
the same, in its nature, mode, and meaning, as the
Sinai baptism; and so ordered as to serve as a continual
memorial and repetition of it, and reiteration of the promises
and instructions therein embodied. This rite was appointed
for the cleansing of defilements of daily occurrence,
and was maintained through all the after history
of Israel, until the time of Christ, and the destruction of
Jerusalem. It was known to the Jews by the name of
baptism.
In preparation for this rite, a red heifer without blemish
was chosen by the priest, and slain without the camp,
whence the priest sprinkled the blood toward the door of
the tabernacle of the congregation seven times. The entire
heifer was then burned, while the priest cast cedar
wood, hyssop, and scarlet into the burning. The ashes
were gathered and laid up in a clean place, without the
camp. (Num. xix, 2-10.) They were to be “kept for
the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of
separation.”—Ib. 9. By the phrase, “water of separation,”
is not meant a water to cause separation, but a
.bn 069.png
.pn +1
remedy for it. They were, as Zechariah expresses it, “for
sin and for uncleanness.”—Zech. xiii, 1.
The primary case for which they were provided was
that of defilement by the dead. (Num. xix, 17, 18.)
Whoever touched a dead body or bone of a man, or a
grave, was defiled thereby, as was the tent or house where
the body lay, and the furniture and utensils that were in
it. For the purifying of these, some of the ashes of the
heifer were mingled, in an earthen vessel, with running
water. A clean person then took a bush of hyssop, and,
dipping it into the water, sprinkled it on the persons or
things to be cleansed. This was done on the third day,
and repeated on the seventh. “And on the seventh day
he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe
himself in water, and shall be clean at even.”—Num. xix,
2-19. Thus, as in the case of the leper, the rites for defilement
by the dead were divided into two categories,—those
administered by the priest or a clean person acting
officially, and those performed by the subject himself. The
importance of the distinction thus made between rites administered
and those self-performed is worthy of repeated
and emphatic notice. The former symbolized Christ’s and
the Spirit’s agency; the latter, the active personal obedience
and holiness of the believer’s life.
It appears from the rabbins that, at least during the
later period of Jewish history, the purifying of persons
was, whenever practicable, performed at Jerusalem, by the
hand of a priest, and with water drawn from the pool of
Siloam, which flowed from the foot of the temple mount.
For the purifying of houses and other things, the ashes
were sent throughout the land, and the rites performed
where the uncleanness was contracted.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XVI.—Purifying from Issues.
The remaining forms of major uncleanness are those of
childbirth, and of issues. (Lev. xii, 2; xv, 13, 19, 20,
.bn 070.png
.pn +1
25.) The places here referred to in the book of Leviticus
contain the only directions as to purifying which specify
these cases. Were our attention confined to those chapters,
we might imagine that for these defilements there
were no purifyings required, except in one single case, a
self-washing for men healed of issues. But there are several
things which suggest the propriety of looking farther
before accepting that conclusion.
1. The instructions given in these places, if taken by
themselves are incongruous. Thus, a man cured of an
issue was directed to “number to himself seven days for
his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in
running water, and he shall be clean.” But of a woman
it is said: “She shall number to herself seven days, and
after that she shall be clean.”—Lev. xv, 13, 28. In neither
of the cases of female defilement is there mention made of
any purifying rites whatever, although the seven days of
purifying are specified in each of them. And yet if any
one had but touched the bed, or the seat of a woman so
defiled, he must “wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh, and
be unclean until the even.”—Vs. 19-23. I do not here account
as rites of purifying the offerings which in each case
the parties, after being cleansed, were required to make at
the sanctuary. In those offerings they claimed and exercised
the privilege of communion at his table with the God
of Israel—the highest privilege of the clean. Admission to
it was, therefore, a formal and conclusive attestation to
them as already clean.
2. The manifest analogy between these defilements,
and those arising from leprosy and contact with the dead,
indicates the necessity of analogous rites of purifying for
them all. The intimacy of relation between their several
meanings we have seen. It is attested by the whole tenor
of Scripture. The same period of seven days marked
them all—a period emphasized, even where the uncleanness
was prolonged to thirty-three and sixty-six days. (Lev.
.bn 071.png
.pn +1
xii, 2, 4, 5.) They all were included in one decree of exclusion
from the camp, except for manifest reasons—women
in childbed. (Num. v, 2.) At the end of the seven days
of purifying, when they were clean, offerings were to be
made at the sanctuary by the leper, the Nazarite defiled
by the dead, and all the others, except those purged from
the ordinary defilement by the dead. And the offerings
were in each case essentially the same. The leper, if able,
brought three lambs, one for a trespass-offering, the second
for a sin-offering, and the third for a burnt-offering. If
he was poor, he brought one lamb for a trespass-offering,
and two young turtles or pigeons, one for a sin-offering,
and the other for a burnt-offering. This offering of a
lamb and two turtles was the same that was required of
a Nazarite, defiled by the dead, after his cleansing. (Num.
vi, 10, 12.) The two turtles, or pigeons, were alone required
of those defiled by childbirth, or by issues, one for
a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering. Thus,
the only difference in these observances was the trespass-offering
which was, for evident reasons, required of the
Nazarite and the leper, and of them only. The Nazarite,
although by an involuntary act, had trespassed in profaning
the head of his consecration. (Num. vi, 9.) As to the
leper, his disease seems usually, if not always, to have been
a special divine retribution for some specific and aggravated
offense, for which, therefore, upon his cleansing, a
trespass-offering was required. (Num. xii, 10; 2 Kings v,
27; 2 Chron. xxvi, 19.)
3. The supposition that these defilements all did not
call for rites of purifying essentially the same in each case,
would involve incongruity and contradiction in the testimonies
uttered by them severally. That they all were
typical of human depravity in its different aspects can not
be questioned by any one who will candidly study the
Scriptures, and especially the Levitical and prophetic books
on the subject. But, upon the supposition in question,
.bn 072.png
.pn +1
their several representations as to the remedy are irreconcilable.
For leprosy, and those defiled with the dead, the
rites of purifying declare that there is cleansing for man’s
moral defilement nowhere but in the blood and Spirit of
Christ. But the rites for cleansing a man defiled with an
issue would proclaim our own works and righteousness all-sufficient;
whilst the silence of the law as to any rites
whatever for women, in any form of issue, would declare
no cleansing necessary, but that time and death would
purify all. Thus, three several testimonies, each contradictory
to the others, are incorporated in the ordinances,
if complete in those chapters.
The key to these difficulties is found in the general
character and intent of the law concerning the water of
separation. That law was the latest that was given on
the subject of purifyings, and is, therefore, not expressly referred
to in the earlier regulations which have been under
examination, although the divine Lawgiver intended the
later statute to fill up and supplement those which had
gone before. Of this there is a very plain indication in
the ordinances respecting the Nazarite. “If any man die
suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration,
then he shall shave his head in the day of his
cleansing; on the seventh day shall he shave it.”—Num.
vi, 9. Here the defiling effect of contact with the dead is
not declared, but assumed; although the law to that purpose
was not yet given. It is left to the subsequent ordinance
(Num. xix) to prescribe the rites of cleansing, which
are here, as in the rules concerning issued, alluded to, but
not stated.
Those rites might seem to relate only to the case of defilement
by the dead. But among the directions as to them,
there is one which is unequivocal and comprehensive. “The
man that shall be unclean and shall not purify himself,
that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation,
because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the
.bn 073.png
.pn +1
water of separation hath not been sprinkled on him. He
is unclean.”—Num. xix, 20. Here is no limitation nor
exception of any kind. “The man that is unclean;” unclean,
from whatever cause. Of all such, we are here certified
that no lapse of time will bring cleansing. He must
be purified before he can be clean. Till that is accomplished,
his presence is a profanation of the sanctuary. It
is, moreover, here declared that the one only mode of
cleansing for all such was the water of separation, sprinkled
according to the law. That this is a true interpretation, is
confirmed by the testimony of Philo, of Alexandria, a Jewish
writer of the highest reputation, contemporary with the
apostles. Giving an account of the Levitical law, he distinguishes
between defilements of the soul and of the body;
by the latter meaning, ritual defilements. Of them, he
says, in unrestricted terms, that the water of separation
was appointed for purifying from those things by which a
body is ritually defiled.[5]
.fn 5
Below p. #175#.
.fn-
We shall presently see one notable example of this comprehensive
interpretation of the law, in the case of the
daughters of Midian. Their need of the rites of purifying
did not arise out of any of the categories specified in the
laws which we have examined. They were unclean, because
they were idolatrous Gentiles (Compare Acts xv, 9);
and were purified with the water of separation, because
that was the general provision made for the unclean. This
is further illustrated in the fact that all the spoil taken at
the same time was also purified with this same water of
separation. (Num. xxxi, 19-24.)
A fact remains, which is conclusive of the present point.
It is the remarkable name by which the purifying elements
are designated. “It shall be kept for the congregation of
the children of Israel for a water of (nidda) separation.”
This word, nidda, occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three
times. Its radical idea is exclusion, banishment. Hence,
.bn 074.png
.pn +1
the name of the land to which Cain was driven. “Cain
went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the
land of Nod,” that is, “the land of banishment.”—Gen. iv,
16. Under this general idea of exclusion, the particular
form, nidda, is appropriated to the separating or putting
away of a wife from her husband, and to the uncleannesses
which gave occasion to such separation. And inasmuch as
God is the husband of his church, the same word is used
to designate those apostasies and sins which separate her
from his favor and communion. (Lam. i, 17; Ezek. xxxvi,
17, etc.) In the two chapters in Leviticus, which present
the law respecting defilement by childbirth and by issues
(Lev. xii and xv), the word occurs no less than eleven
times. Those who were thus defiled were, nidda, “put
apart,” “separated.” Six times, in the directions as to the
ashes of the red heifer, the water is called “a water of
nidda.”—Num. xix, 9, 13, 20, 21, 21; xxxi, 23. Once,
again, the word is used in the same way by the prophet
Zechariah. (Zech. xiii, 1.) “A fountain for sin and for
nidda.” Elsewhere it always has distinct reference, literal
or figurative, to the causes of separation here indicated;
whilst it is worthy of special mention, that it never designates
defilement by the dead.
The conclusion implied in these facts becomes a demonstration
when we observe that in the figurative language
of the prophets, the defilement of nidda is expressly referred
to as requiring the sprinkled water of purifying. In
Ezekiel (xvi, 1-14) God’s gracious dealings with Israel
at the beginning are described under the figure of the
marriage tie. “I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant
with thee, and thou becamest mine. Then washed
I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy
blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.”—vs. 8, 9.
“I thoroughly washed away.” The verb in the original
is shātaph, which will be critically examined in another
place. It signifies such action as of a dashing rain. In
.bn 075.png
.pn +1
another place (Ezek. xxxvi, 17-26), the Lord, under the
same figure, describes the subsequent transgressions of Israel:
“Their way was before me as nidda.”—v. 17. Because
of this, God declares that he scattered them among
the nations. But, says the Lord, “I will take you from
among the heathen and gather you out of all countries,
and will bring you into your own land. Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from
all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse
you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you.”—vs. 24-26.
So, says the Spirit by Zechariah: “In that day there
shall be a fountain (a flowing spring) opened to the
house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for
sin and for nidda.”—Zech. xiii, 1. Nidda, then, signified
a defilement for which that fountain was necessary;
and to imagine the ritual uncleanness of nidda to have
been healed without ritual water of purifying, would be to
suppose the ordinance to contradict the doctrine of the
prophets.
From these passages it appears: (1.) That the defilement
of nidda was a figure representing the sins and
apostasies of Israel, viewed as God’s covenant people, his
married wife. (2.) That the sprinkling of water is the
ordinance divinely chosen to represent the mode of the
Spirit’s agency in cleansing from these offenses. (3.) That
this defilement and the water of nidda were so intimately
associated with each other in the usage of Israel as to serve
the prophets for a familiar illustration of the gracious
purposes of God, indicated in the texts. If the figure of
speech used by the prophet is the proper one for illustrating
his doctrine in words, the water of nidda sprinkled on
the unclean was the appropriate form by which to express
it in ritual action. When, therefore, in the light of these
facts, we read the law that the ashes of the heifer “shall
be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for
.bn 076.png
.pn +1
a water of nidda,” the conclusion is irresistible, that those
defiled with nidda were to be purified with that water.
And when to this we add the further declaration concerning
“the man that is unclean,” and is not sprinkled with
it, and see it illustrated by the case of the Midianite children,
the further conclusion is equally evident that, except
the peculiar case of the leper, the water of separation was
designed for all classes of seven days’ defilement. To all
others who were in a state of ritual separation from the
communion of Israel, it was essential in order to being
restored.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XVII.—The Baptism of Proselytes.
Maimonides was a learned Spanish Jew of the twelfth
century. He wrote large commentaries upon the institutions
and laws of Israel. Concerning the reception of
proselytes, he is quoted as saying: “Circumcision, baptism,
and a free-will offering, were required of any Gentile
who desired to enter into the covenant, to take refuge under
the wings of the divine majesty, and assume the yoke
of the law; but if it was a woman, baptism and an offering
were required, as we read, ‘One law and one manner
shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with
you.’—Num. xv, 16. But what was the law ‘for you’?
The covenant was confirmed by circumcision and baptism
and free-will offerings. So was it confirmed with the
stranger, with these three. But now, that no oblations
are made [the temple being destroyed], circumcision and
baptism are required. But after the temple shall have
been restored, then also it will be necessary that an offering
be made. A stranger who is circumcised and not baptized,
or baptized and not circumcised, is not called a proselyte
till both are performed.”[6] Various similar statements are
frequently quoted from the same writer, and from the
.bn 077.png
.pn +1
Talmud. Respecting them the following points are to be
noticed:
.fn 6
Maimonides, Issure Biah, Perek 13, in Lightfoot, Harmonia
Evang. in Joan i, 25.
.fn-
1. The Hebrew word which is used by Maimonides and
the Talmudic writers, and is here translated, to baptize, is
tābal, a word which in the books of Moses is never used to
designate rites of purifying of any kind.
2. The tābalings, or Talmudic baptisms, were self-performed,
and not the act of an official administrator. The
reception of the person must be sanctioned by the consistory
or eldership of a synagogue, and attested by the
presence of three witnesses. But it was performed by the
person’s own act. Being disrobed, and standing in the
water, he was instructed by a scribe in certain precepts
of the law. Having heard these, he plunged himself
under the water; and as he came up again, “Behold he
is an Israelite in all things.” If it was a woman, she was
attended by women, while the scribes stood apart and read
the precepts: “And as she plungeth herself, they turn
away their faces, and go out, when she comes out of the
water.”[7] It is perfectly evident that the rite thus described
is wholly foreign to any thing to be found in the
Mosaic law, and that it belonged to the category of self-washings,
and not to that of the sacrament, in which an
official administrator was essential to the validity of the rite.
.fn 7
Maimonides, as above, in Lightfoot, on John iii, 23.
.fn-
3. This baptism is an invention of the scribes, of post
Biblical origin. Our sources of information are (1) the
Scriptures and Apocrypha; (2) the writings of Philo and
Josephus, authors, the former of whom was contemporary
with Christ, and the latter with the destruction of Jerusalem,
both of whom wrote largely of the institutions and
history of the Jews; (3) the Targums of Onkelos and of
Jonathan; (4) the Mishna; (5) the Gemaras.
The Targums are Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.
The Jews, at the return from the Babylonish captivity,
had lost the knowledge of the Hebrew language. It was,
.bn 078.png
.pn +1
therefore, necessary that the public reading of the Scriptures
should be accompanied with a translation into the
Aramaic dialect, which they now used. (Neh. viii, 2-8.)
The translations thus given were, no doubt, at first extemporaneous
and somewhat variable. But they gradually
assumed fixed forms, more or less accurate, as they received
the impress of different schools of interpreters. At first
transmitted orally, they were at length committed to writing,
the Targum of Onkelos soon after the end of the
second century, and that of Jonathan a century later.
The former, as a rule, keeps closely to the text. The
Targum of Jonathan indulges more in paraphrase. The
Mishna is the text of the Oral law, the traditions of the
scribes. It was reduced to writing by Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh,
about the end of the first century, and is believed
to be a faithful exhibit of the traditions of the Jews, as
they stood at that time. The two Gemaras, with the
Mishna, constitute the Talmud. They are collections of
interpretations and commentaries on the Mishna, or oral
law, by the most eminent scribes. The Jerusalem or Palestinian
Gemara was compiled in the third and fourth
centuries, and that of Babylonia one or two centuries
later. The former represents the great rabbinic seminary
at Tiberias, in Galilee; the latter that of Sora, on the
Euphrates.[8]
.fn 8
According to Etheridge, the final revision of the Babylonian
Gemara was completed by Rabbi Jose, president of the
rabbinic seminary at Pumbaditha, on the Euphrates, in the year
499 or 500.—Jerusalem and Tiberias, pp. 174-176.
.fn-
From these sources of information, the indications are
conclusive that Talmudic baptism came into use after the
destruction of Jerusalem. We have seen already part of
the evidence, which will be more fully developed in the
following pages, that no such rite was ordained in the law,
observed by Israel, or recognized in the Scriptures. The
Apocrypha are equally silent on the subject. The writings
.bn 079.png
.pn +1
of Philo and Josephus ignore such a rite; as do the Targums
and Mishna. In the latter, the word, tābal, which is
commonly translated, to dip, is used constantly to designate
the self-washings of the law, which, as will presently appear,
can not have been immersions. In fact, there is
sufficient evidence that this word, in addition to its modal
sense, was also used to express a washing or cleansing,
irrespective of the manner. That it was so employed to
describe the cleansing of Naaman, will hereafter appear.
It is not until we come to the Gemara of Babylonia, dating
at the close of the fifth century, long after the destruction
of Jerusalem and cessation of the temple service, that we
meet with any distinct account of proselyte immersion.
After that it is found everywhere.
4. Whilst it is thus evident that the baptisms of the
Talmud are wholly without divine warrant, they are nevertheless
valuable as constituting an authentic rabbinic tradition
that a purifying with water was requisite in the
reception of proselytes. A key to the truth on this subject
presents itself in a statement found in the Mishna. “As
to a proselyte who becomes a proselyte on the eve of the
passover” (that is the evening before the day of the passover),
“the school of Shammai say, Let him receive the
ritual bath” (tābal), “and let him eat the passover in the
evening; but the disciples of Hillel say, He that separates
himself from his uncircumcision is like one who separates
himself from a sepulcher.”[9] It thus appears that between
the two schools of Jewish scribes there was a division on
this subject. The one party taught that the uncleanness
of the Gentiles was of such a nature as to require seven
days of purifying with the water of nidda, according to
the law for one defiled by the dead. The others held
them subject to that minor uncleanness which ceased with
the close of the day, upon the performance of the prescribed
self-washing. We shall presently see that the
.bn 080.png
.pn +1
former were correct, according to the explicit testimony of
the Scriptures. But here we have a clue to the later
history of Jewish practice on the subject. Upon the destruction
of Jerusalem and the termination of the sacrificial
services there, the rites for purifying with the water
of nidda were of necessity pretermitted, as the ashes of
the heifer were no longer obtainable. The rabbins were,
therefore, induced to substitute the self-washing which
the looser school of scribes had already espoused. At
what precise time the self-washings of the law became the
self-immersions of the Gemaras does not appear. But at
the beginning of the Christian era, causes had been already
for centuries at work which were abundantly sufficient to
account for the change. From the times of the captivities,
the vast multitude of Hebrews who never returned, dwelling
in Babylonia and the farther east, had been exposed
to the influences arising from the religions of the lands of
their dispersion, as embodied in the Zend Avesta and the
Shasters, the teachings of Zoroaster and of the Brahmins,
and from the related manners and customs and religious
rites which have their native seats upon the banks of the
Indus and the Ganges. The profoundness of the operation
of these influences is seen in the pantheism of the
Kabala, traceable as it is to the kindred doctrines of the
Zend Avesta and the Vedas.[10] How conspicuous the place
held by self-immersion in the religious customs of the people
of the East, from the earliest ages, every one knows.
The Hebrews dwelling among them were not restricted by
the law to any defined mode of self-washing in fulfilling its
requirements. It was, therefore, natural and inevitable
for them to adopt the mode which was daily practiced before
their eyes. The relations between the Jews of “the Dispersion,”
and those of Palestine, were of the most intimate
.bn 081.png
.pn +1
kind, sustained through attendance upon the annual feasts
at Jerusalem (Acts ii, 9), and afterwards by continual correspondence
and travel, and by the intercourse of the
school at Tiberias with those of Sora and Pumbaditha.
If to these facts be added the tendency by which the rabbins
would seek to compensate for the absence of the
water of nidda, by expanding and magnifying the self-washings
which were still practicable, there remains no
ground of surprise or perplexity in finding self-immersion
installed among the imperative observances set forth in the
Gemaras. Of the disposition to supply the place of the
now impracticable rites by the enlargement of others, the
Talmud affords more than one example.
.fn 9
Tract Pesachim, cap. viii, § 8.
.fn-
.fn 10
This is clearly shown by Etheridge, in “Jerusalem and
Tiberias.” Pp. 339 et seq. The same thing is largely illustrated
in Blavatsky’s “Isis Revealed.”
.fn-
I have said that the Scriptural mode of purifying
for proselytes was by sprinkling with the water of nidda.
Of its use there is a conspicuous example. On account
of their licentious wiles against Israel, Midian was doomed
to destruction. In the campaign which followed, none
were spared, except the female children. These were
reserved for bond servants. (Num. xxxi, 18; and compare
Lev. xxv, 44-46; and Deut. xxi, 10-14.) But, from the
days of Abraham, all bond servants had been by divine
authority and command endowed with an equal right and
share with their masters in God’s favor and covenant.
And as Israel itself had been purified from the defilements
and idolatries of Egypt, and ordained as the peculiar people
of God by the baptism of blood and water at Sinai, so
these children of licentious Midian, spared from the destruction
incurred by their parents, and about to be joined
with Israel as God’s people, must be cleansed and admitted
in the same manner.
During the expedition, many of the army had become
defiled by contact with the slain, and were therefore to be
cleansed with the water of separation, according to the
law. Moses, therefore, issued orders to the men of the
army: “Do ye abide without the camp seven days; whosoever
.bn 082.png
.pn +1
hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched
any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the
third day, and on the seventh day.” In these directions
as to the third and seventh days, we recognize the exact
requirements of the law, with respect to the water of separation
for the purification of sin. But the narrative is
still more specific. “Eleazer the priest said unto the men
of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of
the law which the Lord commanded Moses. Only the gold
and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go
through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless, it
shall be purified with the water of separation, and all that
abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and
ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the
camp.”—Num. xxxi, 19-24. “The water of separation,”
here, is, in the original, “the water of nidda,”—the water,
that is, in which were mingled the ashes of the red heifer.
With this, therefore, it was that these daughters of Midian
were baptized and cleansed. There were thirty-two thousand
of these captives, thus rescued from the destruction
incurred by the licentiousness and crimes of their own people,
purged from their uncleanness, engrafted into the
family of Abraham, and endowed with the blessings of
the covenant. All were “women children” (Num. xxxi,
18); and, undoubtedly, many were mere babes; the first
recorded example of distinctive infant baptism.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XVIII.—The Baptism of Infants.
We have seen that in the Abrahamic covenant,—the
betrothal of the church,—the infant sons were expressly
included on equal terms with their fathers; and that in the
Sinai espousal the infants of both sexes were joined with
their parents in the bonds of the covenant, and in the reception
of its baptismal seal. We have seen the young
.bn 083.png
.pn +1
daughters of Midian purified and admitted to the covenant
and church of Israel by the same sacrament. By these
unquestionable facts, the principle of infant membership in
the church, and the mode of its certification by baptism,
are both alike clearly established. The Scriptures contain
conclusive evidence that the children of after generations
of Israel were received to the covenant and the
church in like manner, by baptism with the water of
separation.
1. The law of God was explicit that “one ordinance
shall be both for you of the congregation and also for the
stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in
your generations; as ye are so shall the stranger be before
the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you and
for the stranger that sojourneth with you.”—Num. xv,
14-16. From this law, it results as a necessary conclusion,
that inasmuch as the Midianite children were baptized, the
same must have been the rule for the infants of Israel.
2. Circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic covenant,
but not of that of Sinai. So long as the church was
confined to the family of Israel after the flesh, this rite, as
being the proof and seal of membership in that family was
essential as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the
privileges of the church; but did not, of itself, seal or convey
a right to them. Otherwise, every circumcised person
would have been entitled to those privileges; whereas they
were reserved exclusively for the clean.
3. While such was the case, it was a fundamental article
of the faith from the beginning, that men are all natively
unclean. Job, Eliphaz, and Bildad, each severally states
it as an unquestionable proposition that man born of woman
must be so. (Job xiv, 4; xv, 14; xxv, 4.) David cries:
“Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother
conceive me.... Purge me with hyssop and I shall be
clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.”—Psalm
li, 5-7. He not only recognizes the radical nature of his
.bn 084.png
.pn +1
moral corruption as born in him, but indicates the remedy
under the very figure of sprinkling with the water of nidda,
to which the hyssop refers. The Lord Jesus, speaking at
a time when the Old Testament ordinances and system
were still in full force, testifies, “That which is born of
the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
again.”—John iii, 6, 7.
4. To signalize this native corruption of man and the
remedy, the ordinances concerning the defilement of nidda
and its cleansing were appointed. In them the new born
infant was regarded as the product of overflowing corruption,
and as a fountain of defilement to the mother, who
thus became unclean, until purified with the water of
separation.
5. The child was identified with the mother in this uncleanness
(1) as being its cause in her; (2) as being subject
to her touch, which was defiling to the clean; and (3)
as being bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh, born of
her body.
6. In accordance with the doctrine of man’s native defilement,
above illustrated, it was characteristic of the law
that it recognized none as clean, unless purged by water
of sprinkling. The infants at Sinai were so purified and
admitted to the covenant, as well as their parents. So it
was with the daughters of Midian; and no other principle
was known to the law,—no other practice tolerated by it.
“The man” (the person) “that shall be unclean, and shall
not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among
the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of
the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled
upon him; he is unclean.”—Num. xix, 20.
7. It is a very remarkable fact, that while we have in
the Scriptures but one single example specifically mentioned
of the purifying of an infant from this ritual defilement
of birth, that example occurs in the person of Him respecting
.bn 085.png
.pn +1
whom the angel said to Mary, “That holy thing
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God.”—Luke i, 35. In the same gospel in which is this
record, we read, respecting Mary, in the common version,
that “when the days of her purification, according to the
law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Jesus to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.”—Ib. ii, 22. But it
is agreed by critical editors that this is a corrupted reading,
which is wholly without authority from any respectable
manuscript. Instead of “the days (autēs) of her purification,”
it should read (autōn), “the days of their purification;”
that is, of both mother and child. Beside all the
other authorities, the three oldest manuscripts, Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, unite in this reading. How
the mothers were purified, we have seen; and, from these
facts, we know the children to have shared with them in
the baptism.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XIX.—The Baptism of the Levites.
The case of the Levites, in their cleansing and consecration,
was peculiar. They had already enjoyed with the
rest of the congregation the purifying rites and sprinkled
seal of the Sinai covenant; and were thus, in the ordinary
sense of the Mosaic ritual, clean, and competent to the enjoyment
of the ordinances and privileges of Israel. But when
they were set apart to a special nearness to God, in the service
of the sanctuary, they were required to undergo additional
ceremonies of purifying. Moses was instructed to “take
the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse
them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them.
Sprinkle water of purifying upon them; and let them
shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and
so make themselves clean.” They were then to bring two
bullocks; “and the Levites shall lay their hands upon the
heads of the bullocks, and thou shalt offer the one for a
sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, unto the
.bn 086.png
.pn +1
Lord, to make an atonement for the Levites. And thou
shalt set the Levites before Aaron and before his sons, and
offer them for an offering unto the Lord. Thus shalt thou
separate the Levites from among the children of Israel;
and the Levites shall be mine.”—Num. viii, 6-14.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XX.—These all were one Baptism.
The baptism of the Levites was official and peculiar.
Its analogies to the other examples will readily occur to
the reader, as we proceed. As to them, there is a common
identity in all essential points, in form, meaning, and
office. The design of the first administration at Sinai, and
of all the attendant circumstances, was to impress Israel
with a profound and abiding sense of the evil of sin, and
of their own utter vileness and ruin as sinners in the presence
of a God of infinite power, majesty, and holiness; and
to illustrate to them the manner in which grace and salvation
are given. In accepting that baptism, Israel professed
to submit themselves to his sovereignty and accept
him in the offices of his grace, as symbolized in the
baptismal rites. On God’s behalf, the transaction was an
acceptance and acknowledgment of them as his covenant
people. The laws of defilement and the rites of purifying
were continual reminders and re-enactings of the Sinai
transaction, and for the same essential purpose,—the restoring
to the fellowship of the covenant of those who
came under its forfeiture. In each several case, sacrificial
elements—blood or ashes—were applied by sprinkling. In
each, those elements were mingled with running water,
and the instrument for sprinkling was a bush of hyssop,
and in each, scarlet and cedar were used.
The meaning of the scarlet, cedar, and hyssop is unexplained
in the Scriptures. Expositors have wandered
in conjectures, leading to no satisfactory conclusions. One
result of their use is manifest. To us, devoid of meaning,
they more distinctly mark the essential identity of the
.bn 087.png
.pn +1
rites, in which they occupy the same place, and perform the
same office. This may have been one design of their use.
The essential identity of these rites is altogether consistent
with the minute variations in their forms. These
had respect to the diversity of circumstances under which
they were administered. The inferior dignity of a single
person, a leper, as compared with the whole people, explains
the acceptance of lambs or birds for his offerings,
while bulls and goats were sacrificed for the nation. In
the case of ordinary uncleannesses, the circumstances rendered
special provision necessary. Sacrifice was lawful
only at the sanctuary, which was the figure of the one
holy place and altar where Christ ministers in heaven.
But death and other causes of uncleanness were occurring
everywhere. The ashes of the red heifer were, therefore,
provided. They presented sacrificial elements in a form
incorruptible and convenient for transportation. They
were a most fitting representation of the “incorruptible
blood of Christ.” And, as the proper place of the priests
was at the sanctuary, and their presence could not be expected
on every occasion of uncleanness elsewhere, it was
appointed that any clean person might perform the sprinkling.
This was, in fact, a mere ministerial sequel to the
sacrificial rites, performed by the priest, at the burning of
the red heifer. The probability of the circumstances, and
intimations from the rabbins, lead to the conclusion that,
as the priests multiplied and were released from the necessity
of constant attendance at the sanctuary, they were
commonly called to sprinkle the water of purifying. In
fact, the Talmud indicates that in the later times the administration,
when practicable, took place at Jerusalem, by
the hands of the priests, with water from the pool of Siloam,
which, flowing from beneath the temple, was recognized as
a type of the Holy Spirit.[11]
.fn 11
Compare Ezek. xlvii, 2; John ix, 7. “Go wash in the
pool of Siloam, which is by interpretation, Sent.”
.fn-
.bn 088.png
.pn +1
The minute variations traceable in these rites only make
it the more clear that essentially, in form, meaning, and
office, they were one baptism.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXI.—This Symbol was derived from the Rain.
We have seen, in the prophecy of Isaiah, the source
whence the figure of sprinkling or pouring is derived. “I
will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon
the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and
my blessing upon thine offspring; and they shall spring up
as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.”—Isa.
xliv, 3, 4. It is the descent of the rain from heaven,
penetrating the earth, and converting its deadness into
life, abundance, and beauty.
Herein the rites in question stand in beautiful contrast
with the self-washings of the law. The latter accomplished
a surface cleansing, by a process which neither could, nor
was designed to penetrate the substance, or to affect its
essential state or nature. They indicated to God’s people
the duty of conforming the external life to the grace
wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. But the rite
of sprinkling represented the rain of God, sent down from
heaven, penetrating the soil, pervading and saturating it,
converting its hard, dead, and sterile clods into softness,
life, and fertility, and causing the plants and fruits of the
earth to spring forth, saturated with the same moisture,
and thus possessed and pervaded with the same spirit of
life. Thus was typified the work of the Spirit, entering,
pervading, and softening the stony heart, converting all its
powers and faculties as instruments of holiness to God,
and causing the plants of righteousness to spring up and
grow in the life and conduct.
The two words, sprinkle, and pour, are used throughout
the Scriptures with reference to the same figure of rain,
the only apparent difference being that the word, pour, expresses
the idea of abundance. No phenomenon of nature
.bn 089.png
.pn +1
is of greater manifest importance, or more pervasive and
vital in its influences than the rain of heaven, and none
more suitable to illustrate the method of grace. The land
from which the rains are withheld is without fruit, or
beauty, or attraction. It is given over to barrenness,
death, and cursing; and, in the language of the Scriptures,
is accounted unclean, as being shut out from the favor of
God, whose favor is life. Hence, the word of God, to the
prophet, concerning Israel: “Son of man, say unto her,
Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon, in
the day of indignation.”—Ezek. xxii, 24. Similar is the
significance of our Savior’s words: “When the unclean
spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places”
(anhudrōn topōn, “waterless places”), places congenial to
him because unblessed with the Spirit’s presence. (Matt.
xii, 43; Luke xi, 24.)
Illustrations from the Scriptures might be multiplied,
showing this origin of the form of baptism. Isaiah says
of the blessings to be bestowed on Israel in the latter
days, that the times of desolation shall continue “until
the Spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness
be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted
for a forest.”—Isa. xxxii, 15. In another place he cries,
“Drop down, ye heavens from above, and let the skies
pour down righteousness; let the earth open, and let them
bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together;
I the Lord have created it.”—Isa. xlv, 8. Hosea
says of him: “His going forth is prepared as the morning;
and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and
former rain unto the earth.”—Hosea vi, 3. And again,
“Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break
up your fallow ground; for it is time to seek the Lord,
till he come and rain righteousness upon you.”—Ib. x, 12.
The whole conception thus unfolded is assailed and repudiated
by writers who assume that physical phenomena
can not be used to set forth spiritual realities. Dr. Carson
.bn 090.png
.pn +1
insists that “Baptism can not be either pouring or dipping,
for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance
of the Holy Spirit, for there is no such likeness. Pouring
of the Spirit is a phrase which is itself a figure, and not
a reality to be represented by a figure.”[12] The learned doctor
has confounded himself with his own subtlety. On the
day of Pentecost, there was a blessed “reality” of some
kind experienced by the apostles and converts. There is
no absurdity, such as he imagines, in the supposition that
the pouring or sprinkling of water may be an appropriate
physical representation and symbol of that spiritual reality,
and that words descriptive of that symbol may be appropriate
for the verbal designation of the thing signified. If
the assertion of Dr. Carson is to be accepted, it is fatal not
to baptism only but to the other sacrament also. “Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you.”—John vi, 53. Shall we
be told that this language of our Savior “is itself a figure,
and not a reality to be represented by a figure.” Then, we
may not eat the bread and drink the wine, to represent
this very thing, the feeding of the soul, by faith, on Christ.
To do so is absurd if Dr. Carson’s position is sound. It is
true that a figure of speech of a figure of speech, would be
nonsense. But it is equally true that it is the beauty of a
metaphor,—the figure in question,—to be susceptible of
physical representation. Nor is there any absurdity in the
supposition that a spiritual act may be represented by two
co-ordinate figures,—the one a figure of physical action,
and the other a figure of speech, descriptive of that action.
.fn 12
Carson on Baptism, p. 167.
.fn-
Besides, the assertion that “baptism can not be either
by pouring or dipping for the sake of representing the
manner of the conveyance of the Holy Spirit; for there is
no such likeness,” is not merely an assumption of knowledge
concerning the invisible things of God which no mortal
can possess. But, if the language is to be understood
.bn 091.png
.pn +1
in any sense pertinent to the purpose of Dr. Carson, it is a
plain contradiction of the testimony of God himself on the
subject. True, there is no physical outpouring predicable
of God the Spirit. It is as true of the Doctor’s own
word;—there is no physical “conveyance of the Holy
Spirit.” Does it, therefore, follow that there is no conveyance,
no outpouring? He might with as good reason quibble
as to the exaltation of Christ, because height and depth
are mere relative terms, which change their direction, at
every moment of the earth’s motion on its axis and its orbit.
His objection equally applies to the entire ritual of the
Scriptures, robs it of all spiritual meaning and renders the
whole utterly inane and worthless. And yet, if Paul’s testimony
be true, the tabernacle and all the vessels of ministry
were “patterns of things in the heavens.”—Heb. ix,
23. Are those heavenly things not spiritual? Jesus himself
was “the Lamb of God,” the forerunner, John, being
witness. Is there any incongruity between this language,
and the fact that the sacrificial lambs of the ritual law
meant the same thing? If Dr. Carson is right, all this is
absurd. Or, is there no spiritual truth involved in these
figures? Either the physical analogies to which the Word
of God constantly appeals, in figures of speech and similitudes,
and upon which the whole ritual system is built, do
so correspond with the spiritual realities as to assist us to
true conceptions of them, however inadequate,—either the
Scriptural figures, forms, and rites were selected because
best adapted to convey and illustrate the spiritual ideas designed,
or we are mocked by a semblance of revelation
which reveals nothing. The assertion cuts us off from all
knowledge of the spiritual world. Nay, it leaves us ignorant
of the very existence of angel or spirit. For, what is
spirit, but the spiritus or breath of man, the air or wind?
How, then, upon the theory in question, can the word acquire
or convey any idea of immaterial things? Until the
portentous position of Dr. Carson shall have been established
.bn 092.png
.pn +1
by something more conclusive than mere assertion,
the contrary will stand as the truth of God. Moreover,
the assertion, even if admitted, does not affect in the slightest
degree, the argument against which it is directed. The
fact still remains, conspicuous and unanswerable,—that,
whatever be the reason, sprinkling and pouring are, in the
Scriptures, constantly used, both in ritual forms, and in
figures of speech, to signify the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit, by the Mediator, from his throne on high.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXII.—This Ordinance meant, Life to the Dead.
The manner of these rites, and the style of the Scriptures
in connection with them are based upon the fundamental
fact of man’s spiritual condition as by nature dead,
by reason of the apostasy and the curse,—“dead in trespasses
and sins” (Eph. ii, 1, 5); “being alienated from
the life of God” (Ib. iv, 18), so that they are incapable
of exercising any of the activities of true spiritual life unto
God, and are, therefore, outcast as were the leper and the
unclean, from the camp and society of the clean; being
“aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from
the covenants of promise.”—Ib. ii, 12. In short, the death
which by sin, through one man, entered the world was the
death of the soul. With reference to it, Jesus says,—“I
am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me
though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”—John xi, 25,
26. But inasmuch as a dead soul can not sustain life in
the body, the latter too died with the soul, in the day of
its death. For a little time, through the mercy of God, in
order to salvation (2 Peter iii, 15), an expiring struggle is
maintained; but it is with bodies ever stooping to the grave
and irresistibly drawn downward into its yawning gulf. It
is in view of these facts that Paul describes the old man,
the carnal or inherited nature, as “the body of this death,”
or “this dead body;” and its works as “dead works”
.bn 093.png
.pn +1
(Heb. vi, 1; ix, 14) which he represents to be “all manner
of concupiscence,” or evil desires, and consequent evil
deeds. (Rom. vii, 8-24.) Hence, the seven days’ uncleanness,
signifying the deadness of the soul, and the offensiveness
of its works. Coincident in meaning was the defilement
of things by the contagion of death. For man’s sake,
the ground itself is cursed (Gen. iii, 17), and every product
of the earth and every possession of man upon it is involved
in the curse, and until delivered from it, is unsanctified to
man’s use. Hence, the house, the bed, the furniture and
utensils, were defiled by the presence of the dead and unfitted
for the use of the clean, the living.
Such were the conceptions with reference to which the
rites of Levitical baptism were ordained. They were designed
to answer the question: How can these dead be
made alive, this defilement be cleansed, and the curse lifted
from man and the earth? They announced life to the
dead, and the healing of their corruption. They proclaimed
Christ’s atonement made to redeem us from the
curse, and his Spirit given to implant in us new life and
purge us from dead works to serve the living God. As
the descending rain not only penetrates the soil and instils
life into the clods and hardness, but washes and purges
the surface, and gives freshness and beauty to the scenes
of nature, cleansing the face of the impenetrable and barren
rock,—so the Spirit sent down not only penetrates the
heart and creates new life there, but pervades the outward
life and conduct and purifies the whole. Thus, in the one
figure of the sprinkling or pouring of rain, are identified
the two ideas of new life and cleansing; and hence, thus
taught, the cry of the psalmist, in which he identifies both
with the sprinkled baptism. “Wash me thoroughly from
my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.... Purge me
with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall
be whiter than snow.... Create in me a clean heart, O
God, and renew a right spirit within me.”—Ps. li, 2-10.
.bn 094.png
.pn +1
The same relation is recognized by Paul, who ascribes our
salvation to “the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly,
through Jesus Christ our Savior.”—Tit. iii, 5, 6.
In the promise of life signified in this baptism, two
things were included under the one essential conception.
These were, renewing to the soul, and resurrection to the
body. These are as inseparably related to each other as
are the death of the soul and of the body; and that, because
of the essential relation between those two parts, as
identified in the one person. Christ gave himself, body
and soul, for us, to satisfy justice; and bought us unto
himself in our whole being, body and soul. If the Spirit
of life be given us, it is given both to renew our dead
souls and to make our bodies his temples. And, says
Paul, “If the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from
the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his spirit
that dwelleth in you.”—Rom. viii, 11.
That this doctrine of the new life was the meaning of
the baptismal rite, appears from many Scriptures. We
have just seen the significant language of the psalmist.
By Ezekiel, the Lord says to Israel: “Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you and ye shall be clean; from all your
filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I
will put my Spirit within you.”—Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27.
This view of the work of the Holy Spirit is exhibited
very clearly in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones,
and the promises therewith addressed to Israel respecting
the latter days. “Behold, O my people, I will open your
graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and
bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that
I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my
.bn 095.png
.pn +1
people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put
my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.”—Ezek. xxxvii, 12-15.
In the same sense Paul interprets the Levitical baptisms.
Having designated the ordinances of which they
formed a part as figures of the heavenly things, he says:
“If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying
of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ ...
purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living
God.”—Heb. ix, 13, 14. Here he contrasts the dead works
of the unregenerate with the living works of those who, as
they are alive unto God, serve in newness of life him who,
being the living God, “is not the God of the dead, but
of the living.”—Matt. xxii, 32. Of this he recognizes the
sprinklings to be a figure.
The doctrine thus involved in the water of purifying
sheds a beautiful light on one of the most interesting facts
in the life of our Savior. Upon the death of Lazarus,
Jesus so timed his coming as to reach Bethany on the
fourth day. On the previous day, or, more probably, on
that very same day, the sisters and household of Lazarus
had been baptized with the water of purification. And
now, as He stands by the sepulcher, the resurrection, in its
highest sense, as including both soul and body, and rendering
both superior to death, is the theme of his discourse.
“Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I
know that he shall rise again, in the resurrection, at the
last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and
the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead,
yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in
me shall never die.”—John xi, 23-26.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXIII.—The Gospel in the Water of Separation.
Much of the spiritual significance of these rites has already
appeared. But in order adequate appreciation,
they should be viewed in connection.
.bn 096.png
.pn +1
1. The red heifer was a sin-offering. This is denied by
some, who would draw a fine distinction. Says Bishop
Patrick: “Though this was not a sacrifice, it had something
of that nature in it, and may be called a piaculum,
an expiatory thing, though nothing was called korban, a
sacrifice, but what was offered at the altar.” But, (1.)
korban does not mean a sacrifice, but a gift, a dedicated
thing; and is used, not only to designate sacrifices and
offerings at the altar, but even the wagons and oxen which
the princes gave for transporting the tabernacle and its
furniture. (Num. vii, 3.) (2.) The blood of the heifer
was sprinkled by the priest toward the door of the sanctuary.
It was thus brought into a relation to the altar
and the mercy-seat, typically as manifest and close as
though it had been actually sprinkled on the altar. (3.)
The law itself expressly declares it to be a sin-offering.
“It is a purification for sin,”—Num. xix, 9. The original,
here, is the same that is in other places literally translated,
“It is a sin-offering.”—Lev. iv, 24; v, 9, 11, 12. In this,
its character as a sin-offering, lay the meaning of the rite
as a purification. It represented atonement for sin, at the
price of blood,—the blood of Christ. Hence its use in purifying
those uncleannesses which typified moral corruption
in its forms of intensest malignity and deadliness. Hence
the appeal to this meaning of the rite which the psalmist
makes, in his penitence and sorrow for his crimes. “Behold,
I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me.... Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be
clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow....
Hide thy face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities.”—Ps.
li, 5, 7, 9. The Targum thus paraphrases this
place: “Thou wilt sprinkle me, as the priest which sprinkleth
the unclean with the purifying waters, with hyssop,
with the ashes of an heifer, and I shall be clean.” The
same conception is apparent in God’s language of grace to
Israel, and to the nations. “Then will I sprinkle clean
.bn 097.png
.pn +1
water upon you and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness
and from all your idols will I cleanse you.” And,
“So shall he sprinkle many nations.” In a word, in every
instance in which this rite is appointed, or figuratively
alluded to, it will be found to indicate a typical impeachment
of sin; and the design and effect of its use was the
removal of that impeachment, the cleansing of the subject.
It was baptism unto the remission of sins.
2. The heifer was offered without the camp. In the
detailed ritual of the tabernacle and temple service, the
holy of holies, the holy place, and the surrounding court,
typified, respectively, God’s heavenly presence chamber,
the church, and the world. In a wider scheme, the whole
sanctuary was representative of God’s house, whilst the
camp and afterward the city of Jerusalem were the figure
of the church, and the outside region stood for the world
at large. Hence, the unclean were excluded from the camp
and the city. (Compare Rev. xxi, 27; xxii, 14, 15.) And
hence, the red heifer was offered without the camp, to
signify the reproach of Christ, who suffered without the
gate, excommunicate and accursed. (Heb. xiii, 11-13.)
The blood of the heifer, sprinkled from without toward the
sanctuary, intimated in a very affecting manner, the distance
to which Christ came from yonder sanctuary in the
heavens, to shed his blood, and therewith to sprinkle the
throne of justice on high.
3. Blood only was sprinkled toward the sanctuary,
whilst it was water mingled with the blood or ashes, that
was sprinkled on the unclean. For, his own unmingled
blood, offered by Christ himself before the throne on high,
and that alone, makes satisfaction to justice for sin. But
the Holy Spirit is the sole channel and agent through
whom Christ bestows on his people, or they can in any
wise acquire, the virtue of that blood in justifying grace
and holiness. Water, therefore, was the vehicle for communicating
to Israel the blood of sprinkling.
.bn 098.png
.pn +1
4. The blood was sprinkled seven times, to show the
complete and exhaustive efficacy of the sufferings of Christ
to satisfy justice, sanctify the soul, and make an end of
sin forever.
5. He that touched the dead was defiled seven days.
This tactual defilement typified not only the guilt and depravity
which we derive from Adam, but, especially, the
contagion of man’s guilt which came on the Lord Jesus,
by becoming the Son of man, born in our nature. Though
he knew no sin, yet was he laden with our curse. He
signified this very thing, when in the days of his flesh, he
defiled himself by touching the lepers and the dead, that
he might restore them to soundness and life, at the price
of his own life;—“That it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our
infirmities and bare our sicknesses.”—Matt. viii, 17. The
same thing was set forth by the fact that the priest that
sprinkled the heifer’s blood, each assistant at the burning
and gathering of the ashes, and he that sprinkled the
water of separation, all became thereby unclean until the
even. They, together, represented the Lord Jesus, in the
exercise of his mediatorial office, which involved his taking
his people’s curse upon him, to free them. The seven days
of this defilement have been already explained, as typical
of our native condition of depravity and guilt, which, if
not purged, involves continuance and condemnation in the
seventh, the last day, when the sentence will be uttered,
“He that is filthy let him be filthy still.”—Rev. xxii, 11.
6. The ashes of the heifer were as familiar to the religious
life of Israel as was the blood of sacrifice. But the
significance of the blood is so much more familiar to us,
that a pause is here proper, to call attention to the wonderful
propriety and instructiveness of the ashes. In the
blood we see the penalty of sin paid, and justice satisfied.
But it is satisfied at the price of life, and leaves death in
possession. But, in the ashes, Israel saw the sacrifice come
.bn 099.png
.pn +1
forth from the exhausted fires of justice, unconsumed and
unconsumable. On them, the fire could no more take
hold; but, mingled with the living water, they represented
Christ—the law satisfied and the curse exhausted in his
blood—coming forth by the Spirit, from the expiring
flames, robed in life and immortality. “Whom God hath
raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was
not possible that he should be holden of it.”—Acts ii, 24.
7. The ashes were mingled with running water. Prior
to the baptism of Israel at Sinai, we hear of no sacramental
rite setting forth the office and work of the Holy
Spirit. But the living water, then ordained in the divers
baptisms of the Mosaic system, became thenceforward the
standing representation and type of the Third Person of the
Godhead, as the Spirit of life, shed down from heaven by
the Mediator.
8. The sacrificial elements and water were sprinkled on
the unclean. Two ideas were thus symbolized; the bestowment
by Christ from his throne of the virtues of his blood
and Spirit; and, their effectual influence upon the heart
and conscience of him to whom they are given. As the
rain descends from heaven, penetrates the soil, and makes
it fruitful, so Christ’s Spirit shed down from him takes
possession of the inmost heart, purges it from the guilt
of past sins, and produces newness of life and the fruits
of holiness. With reference to the mode thus employed,
and its symbolical relation to Christ’s administration of
grace, the fact is worthy of special emphasis, that in every
rite or figure by which was represented the exercise by
Christ of his office as administrator in the Father’s kingdom,
the mode is affusion, whether it be blood, water, or
oil, expressive of grace bestowed on the people of God, or
indignation and fire poured down upon his enemies.
9. The water of separation was to be sprinkled on the
unclean on the third day and on the seventh. “And if
he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day
.bn 100.png
.pn +1
he shall not be clean;” for, Jesus who died under our
curse, rose again the third day. And “Know ye not that
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized
into his death? Therefore we are buried with him
by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life. For, if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be
also in the likeness of his resurrection.”—Rom. vi, 3-5. If
we do not participate in the resurrection of Christ on the
third day, by rising from the death of sin to the life of
holiness, we can have no part in the resurrection and life
of glory. So, Paul testifies to the Ephesians, that the same
mighty power which raised Christ from the dead and set
him far above in the heavenly places, is at work in all his
people, and by it they who were dead in sins are quickened
together with him, and made to sit with him in the heavenly
places. (Eph. i, 20; ii, 6.) Hence, Paul’s earnest desire
and labor for himself,—“That I may know him, and the
power of his resurrection, ... if by any means, I might
attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”—Phil. iii, 10, 11.
“Might know the power of his resurrection,”—by realizing
within, the steady vigor of the new life in Christ Jesus,
working holiness and grace.
Of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Paul says, that
“he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.”—1
Cor. xv, 4. But where, in the Scriptures, is
the third day thus specified? The Lord Jesus makes a
similar statement, which goes far to answer the question.
“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was
yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the
Psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding,
that they might understand the Scriptures, and said
unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ
to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.”—Luke
.bn 101.png
.pn +1
xxiv, 44-46. In another place, there is a remarkable allusion
to the same thing. When Jesus, in response to the
Jews demanding a sign, said, “Destroy this temple, and
in three days, I will raise it up,” the disciples did not understand.
But “when he was risen from the dead, they
remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed
the Scripture, and the word that Jesus had said.”—John
ii, 18-22. It would thus appear that the resurrection
on the third day was written in the Scriptures, and the
reference to the law of Moses, and statement as to the opening
of the understanding of the apostles, as though the matter
were not patent on the face of the record, both lead us
to look in that direction for the prophetic anticipation of
the third as the resurrection day. The other Scriptures
will be searched in vain for any thing to fulfill the requirements
of these statements of Christ and of Paul. The law
concerning the sprinkling of the water of separation contains
the only intimation on the subject; and the allusions
above cited appear undoubtedly to have had this typical
prophecy in view.
In the design of this ordinance, as a prophecy of the
resurrection, we have the reason of its peculiar relation to
that particular form of defilement which arose from contact
with the dead. Although designed as has been seen
for the cleansing of other defilements, also, it was ordained
in immediate connection with this particular uncleanness,
because that is the connection in which this distinctive
meaning shines forth most clearly.
10. He that was purified with the water of separation
was required to follow it with an act of self-ablution.
“On the seventh day, he shall purify himself, and wash
his clothes and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean
at even.”—Num. xix, 19. It has been asserted that this
rule was meant for the administrator of the rite. But the
exposition afterward given by Eleazar, the priest (Num.
xxxi, 21-24), shows this to be a mistake. The propriety
.bn 102.png
.pn +1
and beauty of the requirement, in the connection, are apparent.
It was a perpetual monition to Israel that those
who have been redeemed with precious blood, and raised
up to new life by the Holy Spirit, should walk worthy of
their calling, and keep themselves from the evil that is in
the world, in the blessed assurance of being freed from all
corruption and evil, and made partakers in the perfection
of holiness and life, on the great Sabbath day of redemption.
This thought was more fully developed in the rites concerning
the leper. Immediately upon his baptism, he was
required to shave his hair, wash his garments and bathe his
flesh. The hair and the defilement adhering to the garments
and flesh were evident types of the outgrowth and
fruits of his leprous life. Of the shaving and cleansing
thus appointed, Paul may give the interpretation—“That
ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man
which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.”—Eph.
iv, 22. After this, the meaning of the like shaving and
washing on the seventh day is apparent. It sets forth the
final and complete putting off of the old carnal nature, in
the resurrection of life, when our bodies themselves also
shall be transformed into the likeness of Christ’s glorious
body, and be reunited to our souls, perfected in holiness.
11. The defilement from the dead, and the purifying
use of the water of separation were not only incident to
persons; but the tent or house where the dead lay, and
every thing that was in it, became defiled, and must be
cleansed by the water of separation, sprinkled on the third
day, and on the seventh. (Num. xix, 14, 18; xxxi, 20,
22, 23.) Thus were Israel taught that the curse of sin is
on the earth, also, and all that is in it, as well as on man;
that, only as sanctified to him through the atonement of
Christ, can the productions and possessions of the earth be
blessed, and that in the regeneration, the earth and the
creatures themselves, also, shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons
.bn 103.png
.pn +1
of God, and “Holiness to the Lord,” be written on the very
bells of the horses. (Zech. xiv, 20.) “For,” saith the
Lord, “behold I create new heavens and a new earth.”—Isa.
lxv, 17.
Thus, all the great truths of the Gospel, were set forth
and symbolized in this ordinance, the last, the consummate
and crowning sacrament of the Old Testament.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXIV.—These were the Divers Baptisms.
That the sprinkled purifyings were the theme of Paul’s
argument is evident:
1. He distributes the whole ritual system under two
categories. His statement (Heb. ix, 8, 9), literally translated,
is, that “the first tabernacle,” erected by Moses, was
“(parabolē eis ton kairon enestēkota), an illustrative similitude,
unto the present time (kath hen[13]) in accordance with
which (similitude), both gifts and sacrifices are offered,
which, as to the conscience, can not perfect the worshipers;
depending only on meats and drinks and divers baptisms,—righteousnesses
of the flesh, imposed until the time of reformation.”
The word (dikaiomata) “righteousnesses” (from
dikaios, righteous), is repeatedly so translated in our English
version (Rom. ii, 26; v, 18; viii, 4), although in
some other places beside the text it is rendered,—“ordinances.”—Luke
i, 6; Heb. ix, 1, 10. The latter rendering,
however, fails to develop the true idea of the word, which
is,—ordinances imposed, in order to the attaining of righteousness
by obedience. So it should be in the first verse of this
chapter. “Then, verily, the first covenant had also righteousnesses
of worship,” (ritual righteousnesses), “and an
earthly holy place.” By the phrase, “righteousnesses of
the flesh,” the writer indicates the contrast between the
outward ritual righteousnesses of the law,—its circumcision
.bn 104.png
.pn +1
of the flesh, its offerings of bulls and goats, and its washings
and sprinklings with material elements,—and “the
circumcision of the heart;” “the offering of Jesus Christ,”
and “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost.” The ritual observances fulfilled the law of
carnal commandments, and were thus righteousnesses of
the flesh, and figures of the true, the righteousness of
Christ.
.fn 13
This reading is attested by codices Bezæ, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and is fully sustained by the internal
evidence.
.fn-
Paul distributes these observances into the two categories
of offerings and purifyings. The law required each
sacrifice to be accompanied with a meat offering made of
fine flour mingled with oil, and a drink offering of wine.
For the altar was God’s table, where he as a Father fed
and communed with his children. It must, therefore, be
furnished with all the provisions of a table. (Num. xv,
3-5, 7, etc.) Thus, the offerings upon the altar were all
comprehended under the two heads of meats (brōmasi,
solid food), and drinks,—nourishments for the body. Paul’s
other category is, the divers baptisms. These, of necessity,
are the purifying rites of the Levitical system. For,
he describes the whole system as including “only meats
and drinks and divers baptisms;” whereas all were actually
comprehended under the two heads of offerings, which
symbolized atonement made, and purifyings, representing
its application, to the purging of sins. That it is of the
purifyings that he now speaks, is evident not only from
the meaning of baptism, itself, but from the whole tenor
of his argument, which is directed exclusively to the two
points just indicated, atonement made, and purification
accomplished.
2. The baptisms of which the apostle speaks were purifyings
of persons and not of things. They were righteousnesses
of the flesh, upon which men in vain relied for the
purging of their consciences, (vs. 9, 14.)
3. There were but two ordinances to which Paul can
possibly refer. Except the sprinklings, and the self-performed
.bn 105.png
.pn +1
washings, there was no rite in the Levitical
system in which water was used, or to which the name of
baptism is, or can be, attributed, with any pretense of reason
or probability.
4. The self-washings will be examined presently. As
compared with the sprinklings, they were of minor importance.
Separately used only for superficial defilements,
they purged no essential corruption. They were without
sacrifice, administrator, or sacramental meaning. They
symbolized no work of Christ, signified no bestowal of
grace, and sealed no blessing of the covenant. In all this,
they stood in eminent contrast with the sprinkled rites.
To suppose that Paul, in a discussion which has respect to
the cleansing efficacy of Christ’s blood and Spirit, and the
Levitical types of it, should refer to the minor rite of self-washing,
which did not symbolize those things, and by an
exclusive “only” reject from place or consideration the
sprinklings which did, is absurd; as it is, moreover, to
suppose that, in such an argument, the latter would not,
of necessity, have a paramount place and consideration.
5. This conclusion is fully confirmed upon a critical examination
of the connection of Paul’s argument. The
“meats and drinks and divers baptisms” he characterizes
as “righteousnesses of the flesh,” in confirmation of the
assertion just made, that they could not “perfect,” or
purify the conscience of the worshiper. He then, immediately,
presents in contrast the atonement of Christ.
“They,” says he, “depended only on meats and drinks and
divers baptisms, righteousnesses of the flesh imposed until
the time of reformation. But Christ being come, ...
neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls
and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more
shall the blood of Christ ... purge your conscience.”
.bn 106.png
.pn +1
Thus, in immediate exposition of his statement as to divers
baptisms, the apostle specifies the two most conspicuous
forms of the sprinklings of Sinai, that of the whole people,
upon the making of the covenant, and that administered
with the water of separation—the one being the
original of the ordinance, and the other its ordinary and
perpetuated form. For, that there may be no mistake as
to his reference, in speaking of the blood of bulls and of
goats, he proceeds, a little farther on to describe particularly
its use in the Sinai baptism: “For when Moses had
spoken every precept to all the people according to the
law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water,
and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book
and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament
(the covenant), which God hath enjoined unto you.”—Vs.
19, 20. As we examine Paul’s argument throughout
the chapter, we find his attention directed, from first to
last, to the sprinklings of the law alone, while the self-washings
are not once named nor alluded to. This, afterwards,
very signally appears in that magnificent contrast
of Sinai and Sion, in which he sums up the whole argument
of the epistle. The crowning feature in the attractions
of Sion is “the blood of sprinkling that speaketh
better things than that of Abel.”—Heb. xii, 24. In the
presence of it the self-washings are not counted worthy to
be named.
6. The manner in which, in the next chapter, self-washing
is at length introduced is a singular confirmation
of the view here taken. So long as the writer is occupied
in the argument as to Christ’s work of expiation, he makes
no allusion to the self-washings. But when he proceeds
to urge upon his readers the practical plea which his argument
suggests, he does it by referring to the two rites,
in the relation to each other which we have indicated.
“Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest, by the blood of Jesus, ... and having a High
.bn 107.png
.pn +1
Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true
heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and our own bodies washed with
pure water.”—Heb. x, 19-22. To an unclean person, desiring
to claim the privileges of the sanctuary, the requirement
of the law was, Let him be sprinkled on the third
day and on the seventh, to set forth Christ’s and the Spirit’s
grace; and then, let him wash himself, in token of the
maintaining of personal holiness. From the rites which
he has been discussing, Paul’s exhortation takes form, and
in them finds interpretation.
The conclusion is evident. Had Paul meant by the
phrase in question to designate the self-washings, they were
by affusion, and it would follow that that is the mode of
baptism. But that his reference was distinctively and
emphatically to the sprinkled rites is beyond candid contradiction.
We, therefore, plant ourselves upon this impregnable
position, and challenge assault. For fifteen hundred
years of the church’s history, baptism was uniformly administered
by sprinkling. It was so administered down to the
time of Christ. It was so administered in the time of Paul.
The word does not then mean to dip or to immerse; for,
Paul being witness, the rite was not so performed. Had
we no further evidence, this should be conclusive.
.bn 108.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h3
Part IV. | THE RITUAL SELF-WASHINGS.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXV.—Unclean until the Even.
The clean, that is those who had been purified by
sprinkling, were liable to contract certain minor defilements,
which were characterized by continuing until the
even. Of these there were two classes. First, were those
which resulted from participation in expiatory rites.
Among the most conspicuous examples of this class were
the uncleanness of the priests and assistants by whom the
red heifer was sacrificed, the ashes collected and the water
of separation sprinkled on the unclean. These all were,
by participation in those rites, rendered unclean until the
even, and were required to wash their clothes, and bathe
their flesh, in order to their cleansing. (Num. xix, 7, 8,
10, 21.) The meaning of this is evident. The red heifer
was a sacrifice of expiation, “a purification for sin.”—Ib. 9.
In it, the priests and assistants and he that sprinkled the
ashes, with the heifer itself, together, constituted a complex
type of the Lord Jesus, offering himself a sacrifice to justice,
sprinkling the altar in heaven with his own blood,
and applying it with his Spirit to his people for the purifying
of their uncleanness. The defilements for which the
ashes of the heifer were provided were typical of our
native depravity and death in sin and the curse. From
these, Christ freed his people, by being himself made a
curse for them (Gal. iii, 13), dying in their stead, that
they might live. To represent this the priests, assistants,
and administrator of the water of separation, became
defiled, by participation in the cleansing rites. The same
.bn 109.png
.pn +1
explanation applies to the defilement which the high priest
and others incurred by participation in the observances of
the day of atonement. (Lev. xvi, 24, 26.)
The curse under which the Lord Jesus came exhausted
itself on his natural life, and expired as he rose from the
dead. Of the period during which he bore its burden,
and fulfilled his atoning work, he himself says: “I must
work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the
night cometh, when no man can work.”—John ix, 4. And
on the night of the betrayal he said to the Father, “I
have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.”—Ib.
xvii, 4. It thus appears that a day is a symbol of the
period of man’s natural life, the period during which the
Lord Jesus was under the curse. Hence the typical uncleanness
of the priests and assistants was limited to the
even of the day on which it was incurred. It was removed
by self-washing; for it was by his own power and Spirit
that Christ threw off the curse and rose from the dead.
(Rom. viii, 2, 11; John x, 17, 18.)
2. The other class of uncleannesses until the even arose
from the more or less intimate contact of the clean with
persons or things that were unclean in the higher degree;
or from other causes essentially similar in meaning. Defilements
resulting from expiatory rites symbolized the
putative guilt incurred by the Lord Jesus, in making
atonement for us; while he ever remained, in himself,
“holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.”—Heb.
vii, 26. But the forms of uncleanness now under examination
resulted from contact with things that were typical
of the debasement, corruption, and depravity of the world.
The uncleanness hence arising signified the spiritual defilement
to which God’s people are liable from contact with
evil. Hence, the grades of defilement, consequent upon
the closeness and fellowship of the contact, and the nature
of the uncleanness with which it took place. These were
designed to teach the lesson with which James crowns his
.bn 110.png
.pn +1
definition of pure religion and undefiled. “To keep himself
unspotted from the world.”—James i, 27. The same
idea is presented by the beloved John. “We know that
whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten
of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one” (that
“unclean spirit,” the representative and source of all moral
evil) “toucheth him not” (to defile him, as would the
touch of the leper or the unclean). “And we know that
we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”
Literally,—“lieth in that wicked one,”—in his bosom, and
the defilement of his contact and communion. (1 John v,
18, 19.) And, again, “Beloved, now are we the sons of
God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we
know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this
hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”—1 John
iii, 2, 3.
From many such Scriptures, the meaning of these uncleannesses
and of the self-washings is easily gathered.
The defilements which they symbolized are not of a radical
nature, but extrinsic and superficial. They represented
those spiritual defilements,—those soilings of heart and
conscience to which God’s people are subject through contact
and intercourse with an ungodly world. It is postulated
only of those whose hearts have already been quickened
and sanctified by the blood and Spirit of Christ,
“once for all” (Heb. x, 10); and who are “the habitation
of God through the Spirit.” They do not require a new
atonement and renewing of the Spirit, but the exercise
of the graces of that Spirit which is already in them. For
their cleansing, therefore, no new sacrificial rites nor official
administrator were appointed; but they were required
to wash themselves. This did not prohibit the employment
of any customary assistance in the washing; as, for example,
that of a servant pouring water on the hands. But
such assistance, if employed, was merely ministerial, and
.bn 111.png
.pn +1
not official. The washing, however performed, was the
duty and act of the subject of it, and therein lay its significance.
Its language was that of the apostle; “Having,
therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God.”—2 Cor. vii, 1.
The termination of the defilement, upon the performance
of the appointed self-washing, with the going down
of the sun, certified the deliverance of God’s people from
sin and corruption, with the end of this present life, in the
coming rest of the believer’s grave, awaiting the seventh
day of resurrection and glory.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXVI.—Gradation of the Self-washings.
There was a noticeable gradation in the self-washings.
1. First was the washing of the hands, alone. This
was required of the magistrates expiating a concealed murder.
(Deut. xxi, 6.) It is also indicated in Leviticus xv, 11.
It will be further examined hereafter. The figure of
washing the hands, as expressive of innocence and purity,
occurs repeatedly in the Scriptures; and as the hands are
the ordinary instruments of the actions and labors of life,
the meaning of the figure is very manifest. Says Job, in
his complaint to God, “If I wash myself with snow water,
and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge
me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me.”—Job
ix, 30, 31. That is, “Though I give the utmost heed
to conform my whole life and conduct to the requirements
of thy holiness, yet, in the severity and penetration of thy
judgment, thou wilt discover and reveal me to myself as
utterly unclean.” The psalmist has recourse to the same
figure, in a happier spirit. “I will wash mine hands in
innocency, so will I compass thine altar, O Lord; that I
may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of
all thy wondrous works.”—Ps. xxvi, 6, 7.
2. Next in the order of these observances was the
.bn 112.png
.pn +1
ordinance requiring the priests to wash their hands and feet
in preparation for the duties of their ministry at the sanctuary.
This will be discussed hereafter.
3. In certain milder forms of uncleanness till the even,
the person was required to wash his clothes, merely. This
rule applied to such as he that ate or slept in a house shut
up on suspicion of leprosy (Lev. xiv, 47); and he that
carried an unclean carcase, or ate unclean flesh. (Lev. xi,
25, 28, 40.) From the time when our first parents, in the
conscious nakedness of guilt, made themselves aprons of
fig-leaves, which the Lord replaced with coats of skins, the
garments had a recognized significance, which is traceable
long before the giving of the law; and, running through
all the Scriptures, gives form to the imagery of the last
book of all. When Jacob, on his return from Chaldea,
was required by God to go to Bethel and erect an altar,
he called on his household and followers to be clean and
change their garments (Gen. xxxv, 2); that is, to put
off their soiled garments and put on clean. So, at Sinai,
in preparation for its transactions, Moses was directed to
“sanctify the people to-day and to-morrow, and let them
wash their clothes.”—Ex. xix, 10, 14.
A few other Scriptures will develop the meaning of this
symbol. In the vision of Zechariah: “He showed me
Joshua the high-priest, standing before the angel of the
Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O
Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke
thee: Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now
Joshua, was clothed with filthy garments and stood before
the angel. And he answered and spake to those that stood
before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from
him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine
iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with
change of raiment.”—Zech. iii, 1-4. “Others save with
fear,” says Jude, “pulling them out of the fire; hating
.bn 113.png
.pn +1
even the garment spotted by the flesh.”—Jude 23. With
this compare the definition of “pure religion and undefiled,”—“to
keep himself unspotted from the world.”—Jas.
i, 27. “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis, which
have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with
me in white; for they are worthy.”—Rev. iii, 4. In his
visions, John saw the souls of them that were slain for
the word of God, and a great multitude out of every nation,
“clothed with white robes.” And the angel told
him, “These are they that have washed their robes, and
made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”—Ib. vi, 11;
vii, 9, 14. “Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that
watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked,
and they see his shame.”—Ib. xvi, 15. To the bride, the
Lamb’s wife, it “was granted that she should be arrayed
in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the
righteousness of saints.”—Ib. xix, 8. Literally, “is the
righteousnesses of the saints.”
From these Scriptures, it is evident: that clean or
white garments primarily and essentially mean, the righteousness
of the Lord Jesus Christ, in which his people are
robed, so that the shame of their spiritual nakedness may
not appear (Rev. iii, 18; vii, 14; Phil, iii, 8, 9); that
keeping them clean, or unspotted, means, the maintaining
of that watchful holiness of heart and life which is
becoming those who have been bought and robed as are
Christ’s people; and that washing the garments signifies
recourse to the blood and Spirit of Christ, as the only and
effectual means of making and keeping them free from
defilement.
4. In certain cases, the unclean until the even were required
to wash their clothes and bathe their flesh. The
characteristic examples of this observance, are those who
had carried or touched any thing on which one defiled with
an issue had sat or lain. (Lev. xv, 5, 6, etc.) A careful
examination of this class, in comparison with the preceding,
.bn 114.png
.pn +1
proves them to be essentially one in meaning, the difference
being mainly if not entirely in degree. The defilement in
the present case was aggravated by the fact that its cause
was symbolical of man’s depravity, breaking out in active
corruption and transgression. On the other hand, the unclean
animals, from which the milder form of this uncleanness
was contracted represented the evil of man’s nature,
simply as native and indwelling, without the active element
of outbreaking depravity and wickedness. Hence,
the difference, in requiring the washing of both the flesh
and the garments, was designed to give emphasis to the
admonition conveyed; and to teach the additional lesson,
that whilst all contact with the ungodly and the world is
dangerous to the purity of Christian character, and renders
necessary a continual recourse to the sanctifying power
and grace of the Holy Spirit; especially is this requisite
in case of intimate relations with it, in its active forms of
ungodliness and corruption, dissipation and riot.
5. The only other class, to be enumerated under this
head, consists of those who, in addition to other rites of
purifying, were required to shave off their hair. Such
were lepers, in their cleansing (Lev. xiv, 8, 9); the Levites,
upon their consecration (Num. viii, 7); a Nazarite,
defiled, before the completion of his vow (Num. vi, 9);
and a captive woman, chosen as a bride (Deut. xxi, 12).
With these may be compared the Nazarite, at the completion
of his vow, although this did not belong to the category
of purifying. The Scriptures contain no formal
explanation of this requirement. But the nature and circumstances
of the cases as compared with each other, and
the general principles of typical analogy, indicate the interpretation.
The hair of the leper, for example, was the
product and outgrowth of his leprous state, and must therefore
be put off and repudiated, with his entrance on the
the new life of the clean. The same principle applies to
all the other cases, except that of the Nazarite, upon the
.bn 115.png
.pn +1
completion of his vow. His hair was the product of the
time during which, by the consecration of his vow, all belonged
to God. It could not, therefore, be retained, but
was shaved off and offered upon the altar, as holy. (Num.
vi, 18.) In the other cases, it was cast away as unclean.
Thus, as in all the preceding regulations, the same lesson
is repeated, which is so needful, and to our stupidity, so
hard to learn;—the lesson of putting off the old man and
putting on the new.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXVII.—Mode implied in the Meaning of the Rite.
The instructiveness and utility of types and symbols
consist in an appreciable analogy between them and the
spiritual things which they are appointed to symbolize.
In the case of the Old Testament self-washings, I suppose
it has never entered the imagination of any one that they
were types of the burial of the Lord Jesus. Of such
an interpretation there is not a trace anywhere in the
Scriptures. On the contrary, such meaning is there attributed
to them that, in order to a sustained analogy, the subject
of the rite should, by a voluntary and active exercise of his
own powers take and apply the water to his members and
person, for their cleansing. In this respect, they stand in
emphatic contrast with the sprinkled water of purifying.
That was designed to concentrate the attention of Israel
upon the active agency of the Mediator, in bestowing the
baptism of his blood and Spirit, for the renewing and
quickening of dead souls. In it, therefore, the subject was
the passive recipient of rites dispensed by the hands of another.
But the activity of the Christian life and warfare
were symbolized by the self-washings. Christ’s grace is
given his people, not to sanction supineness and indolence;
but to stimulate to activity in the pursuit of holiness. As
the Spirit is now to them an opened fountain, they are to
have recourse to it, to seek and obtain, day by day, more
grace, for the purging of the flesh, for overcoming the
.bn 116.png
.pn +1
world, for bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, for fighting
the good fight of faith and laying hold on eternal life.
This, which comprehends the whole matter of practical
religion is urged in the Scriptures, not only by direct and
continual admonitions, but in the use of every variety of
figures and illustrations. It was the lesson taught, under
the figure of self-washing. Pure water is alike adapted to
quicken the soil, to quench the thirst, and to cleanse the
garments and the person. But, as the water of life will
not quench the thirst of the soul, unless we come and drink,
neither will it purge away the defilements of evil, unless
we take it and apply it, with diligence and labor. “Wash
ye! make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well;
seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless,
plead for the widow.”—Isa. i, 16, 17. The Spirit thus clearly
indicates that self-washing signified an intense and life-pervasive
activity,—an activity applied, in detail, to each
particular relation and duty, so as to purge out every principle
of evil, and conform every act to the law of holiness.
To correspond with this meaning of the rite, its form should
be such as to call forth the active energies of the subject,
by the application of the water to the appointed parts and
members of the person in detail; and by such successive
manipulation as is proper to secure a thorough cleansing.
The ordinary mode of washing, among Israel, as we shall
presently see, perfectly met these requirements; whilst immersion
would have been wholly inadequate, not to say
directly contradictory to them, since it indicates a mere
passive recipiency, and not an active appropriation and use
of the means of cleansing.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXVIII.—The Words used to designate the\
Washings.
The discriminating use of words on this subject, in the
original Scriptures is very noticeable, and is susceptible of
.bn 117.png
.pn +1
being brought within the comprehension of any intelligent
reader of the English version. There are three which are
worthy of special notice.
1. Shātaph means, to overflow, or rush over, as a
swollen torrent or a beating rain. Thus,—“Behold the
Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which, as a tempest
of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters
overflowing,” shall beat down the crown of pride. (Isa.
xxviii, 2.) Again,—“Say unto them which daub with untempered
mortar that it shall fall; there shall be an overflowing
shower,” beating it down. (Ezek. xiii, 11-14.)
From this, the radical meaning of the word, is derived its
use to signify the act of washing or rinsing, by means of
water dashed or flowed over the object. It is employed in
application to vessels of wood and of brass (Lev. vi, 28;
xv, 12), and to the hands of the unclean. (Ib. xv, 11.)
In all these places it is translated, to rinse.
2. Kābas. The radical meaning of this verb is, to
tread, to trample. The participle from it is used to designate
the craft of the fuller, who fulled his goods by treading
them with the feet. Hence its use to signify the
thorough cleansing and whitening of clothing and stuffs.
The word occurs in the Old Testament forty-six times, with
this uniform meaning. It is used whenever the ritual
washing of clothes is spoken of. From it a very striking
figure is derived, which appears twice, to indicate the
most thorough self-cleansing, under the idea of a garment
scoured, with “nitre and much soap” (Jer. ii, 22; iv, 14),
and twice, to indicate a like thorough cleansing wrought by
the Holy Spirit. “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin.... Purge me with hyssop,
and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than
snow” (Psa. li, 2, 7), white, as a garment is made by the
fuller’s art. (Mark ix, 3.) These passages indicate the
essential idea of the word. It is expressive of a scouring,
or washing, which searches the very texture of the fabric.
.bn 118.png
.pn +1
It is, however, worthy of notice that in the Targum of
Onkelos, on Numbers xix, 19, it is rendered, “to sprinkle.”
“The clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the
third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh
day he shall be clean; and he shall sprinkle his raiment,
and wash with water, and at even he shall be clean.“
This rendering is very noteworthy, as it indicates the manner
in which the law was understood on this point. In
fact, as we have already seen, sprinkling signified the most
thorough cleansing.
Rāhatz. While kābas indicates a purifying of the substance,
rāhatz signifies a washing of the surface. This is
the word which is invariably used to express the ritual
self-washings or bathings of the hands, the feet, and the
person. It is sometimes assumed that, like the English,
to wash, rāhatz is strictly generic in its meaning—that it
signifies to cleanse with, or in, water, without any regard
to mode. This is an error, as a single fact shows. It is
never used for the cleansing of skins, clothes, or garments.
Nor is this an accidental omission. Such washings are
mentioned nearly fifty times, and in nineteen places they are
brought into connection with the bathing of the person.
But in no one place is the word in question used either
generically, as comprehensive of both the person and garments,
or specifically for the latter. In every place where
the two processes come in the same connection, the language
is accurately discriminated. The directions are, to
wash, or scour (kābas), the clothes, and to bathe (rāhatz)
the flesh. This word occurs over seventy times. In five
or six places, it applies to the washing of sacrificial flesh,
before it was placed on the altar. (Lev. i, 9, 13, etc.)
In every other instance it refers to the human person. It
expresses cleansing with water actively applied to the surface.
Thus, when Joseph ”washed his face,” to obliterate
the traces of tears (Gen. xliii, 31), and when the Beloved
is described, “His eyes, as the eyes of doves by the rivers
.bn 119.png
.pn +1
[rivulets] of waters, washed with milk and fitly set” (Cant.
v, 12), the reference is clearly to the familiar mode of
washing the face with water applied. When the Lord, by
Isaiah, speaks of the time when he “shall have washed
away the filth of the daughters of Zion” (Isa. iv, 4), and
when the Preacher describes “a generation that are pure
in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness”
(Prov. xxx, 12), the idea presented is the same—that
of water actively applied to the surface, so as to detach
and carry off the dirt. In another place this definition
is even more imperatively indicated. “Then (rāhatz)
washed I thee with water; yea (shātaph), I thoroughly
washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee
with oil.”—Ezek. xvi, 9. Here three things unite to determine
the meaning of rāhatz. 1. It is explained by
shātaph, the signification of which we have seen. 2. The
defilement from which the washing is promised, is that of
nidda, for which expressly the sprinkled “water of nidda”
was appointed and named. 3. The construction is precisely
the same in the two clauses of the verse, “I washed
thee with water,” and “I anointed thee with oil.” Of the
mode of the latter there can be no question. In both
clauses the element named is the instrument of the action
specified. The ideas of washing and of immersion are
not merely different, but sharply contrasted with each
other. Where there is an immersion, there may also be a
washing. But it must be by additional action. Rāhatz
expresses the latter. It neither expresses nor implies the
former.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXIX.—The Mode of Domestic Ablution.
The customs of Israel as to personal ablution would, it
is evident, decide the manner of these self-washings, in the
absence of explicit directions. The indications in their
history are very decisive on this point.
1. The patriarchs were keepers of cattle, dwelling in
.bn 120.png
.pn +1
tents. The circumstances of such a mode of life forbid
the supposition that they were accustomed to the use of
the immersion bath. The possession, the transportation,
and the use of the requisite vessels, are wholly foreign to
that mode of life.
2. Facts in the history of the patriarchs confirm the
correctness of the inference thus indicated. Although in
later ages, after Palestine had been pierced with wells,
water was abundant for all the uses incident to the mode
of life of the people, the contrary was true, in earlier
times. Surface streams are of rare occurrence. The substratum
is a cavernous limestone, into the cavities of
which the rains quickly percolate. Hagar and Ishmael
were in danger of perishing of thirst, when sent away by
Abraham. (Gen. xxi, 15.) Abraham and Isaac relied
on digging for water; and the scarcity and value of the
element were indicated by the violence with which the
other inhabitants of the country seized wells digged by
each of those patriarchs. (Gen. xxi, 25; xxvi, 19-22.)
These were usually deep, and all the water used for personal
washings, as well as for drinking and for culinary uses,
must be laboriously drawn and carried by the maidens of
the camp. We can thus see the bearing of the phraseology
of Abraham in tendering his hospitality. “Let a
little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet.”—Gen.
xviii, 4.
3. We may safely conclude that Jacob and his family
did not take with them into Egypt the habit of bathing
by immersion. But may they not have acquired it in the
land of their bondage? It happens that we have very
interesting evidence as to the custom of the Egyptians on
this subject. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his splendid
work on “The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,”
gives an engraved copy of the only pictorial illustration
on this subject found by him among the abundant
remains of Egyptian art. It is taken from a tomb in
.bn 121.png
.pn +1
Thebes. In it, a lady is represented with four attendants.
One removes the jewelry and clothes which she has put off;
another pours water from a vase over her head: the third
rubs her arms and body with open hands; and a fourth,
seated near her, holds a flower to her nose, and supports
her, as she sits. “The same subject,” says Wilkinson,
“is treated nearly in the same manner on some of the
Greek vases, the water being poured over the bather, who
kneels or is seated on the ground.”[14] The Greeks were
colonists from Egypt, with which country their relations
were always intimate. And the fact, which will hereafter
appear, that this was the only mode of domestic or in-door
bathing, in use among them, is very significant, as to the
customs of Egypt on the point.
.fn 14
Wilkinson, vol. iii, p. 388; Abridged edition, ii, 349.
.fn-
4. It is hardly necessary to insist on the utter impossibility
of the Hebrew bondmen having acquired in Egypt
more luxurious habits than those of their Egyptian taskmasters,—habits,
too, requiring much more expensive appliances,
such as would be necessary for immersion-bathing.
And, when they left , “their kneading troughs being
bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders” (Ex.
xii, 34), the supposition that they had with them a sufficient
supply of bath tubs to serve for the continual immersions
which, upon the Baptist theory, the Levitical law
demanded, does not need to be controverted. In fact, the
customary mode of washing, among Israel, as traceable in
all their history, was precisely that which we have seen in use
among the patriarchs and the Egyptians. It was, with water
poured on, and the necessary rubbing by the bather himself,
or by an attendant. This custom was universal in
Israel, and throughout the east, from the earliest ages. At
first, the only utensil used was a pitcher or jar, out of which
the water was poured. A case before referred to in the
history of Abraham illustrates the circumstances and manner
of this usage. As he sat in his tent door, in the heat
.bn 122.png
.pn +1
of the day, he saw three men approach. He ran to salute
them, and said, “Let a little water be fetched, and wash
your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.”—Gen. xviii,
1-4. The washing was done in the open air, and the earth
received the flowing water. In the same region, the Dead
Sea expedition found the same custom among the tent-dwelling
Arabs. On one occasion, “having as usual submitted
to be stared at and their arms handed about and
inspected, as if they were on muster, water was brought
and poured upon their hands, from a very equivocal water
jar; after which followed the repast.”[15]
.fn 15
Lynch’s Dead Sea Expedition, p. 206.
.fn-
So long as the simplicity of tent life was maintained,
this was all-sufficient. But, afterward, the convenience of
a bowl or basin was added, which was so placed as to catch
the water, as it flowed off, in washing, thus preventing the
wetting of the floor. The water, once used, was not applied
a second time, but rejected, as being defiled. The
examples of Bathsheba and Susanna indicate that, in bathing
the person, even in the later times, the primitive custom
still so far survived that resort was sometimes had to a
retired place outside the house; no doubt because of the
inconvenience of flooding the floor with the water, as it was
poured over the person. “The History of Susanna,” (one
of the Apocryphal books), dates as far back as two centuries
before Christ. The heroine is described as an eminently
modest and virtuous woman. Her husband, Joachim,
“was a rich man, and had a fair garden adjoining his
house.” His house was a place of resort to the Jews, and
the magistrates commonly sat there, to exercise their office.
It was Susanna’s custom to walk in the garden at noon,
after the people had left the house. Two of the elders are
described as plotting against her. “And it fell out, as they
watched a fit time, she went in as before with two maids
only, and she was desirous to wash herself in the garden;
for it was hot. And there was nobody there save the two
.bn 123.png
.pn +1
elders, that had hid themselves and watched her. Then
she said to her maids, Bring me oil and washing balls, and
shut the garden doors, that I may wash. And they did
as she had bade them, and shut the garden doors, and
went out themselves at private doors, to fetch the things
that she had commanded them.” Her purpose is prevented
by the appearance of the two elders, from whose false accusation
she is in the sequel rescued by the famous “judgment
of Daniel.” The same custom is illustrated by the case of
Pharaoh’s daughter at the finding of Moses, and by the
Egyptian picture, from Wilkinson. A signal proof of the
prevalence of the custom of washing with water poured
on by an attendant, presents itself, in the fact that the
designation of a body servant, or personal attendant, was
derived from it. Elisha the prophet had been the minister
or attendant of Elijah, before the translation of the latter.
Of this relation, king Jehoshaphat was informed by the
statement that it was he “which poured water on the hands
of Elijah.”—2 Kings iii, 11.
The circumstances render it certain that this was the
form of washing in the expiation of a concealed murder.
The elders of the nearest city were required to take an unbroken
heifer down into a rough and uncultivated valley
or gorge, and there, in the presence of the priests, strike
off its head, wash their hands over the carcass, and call
God to witness their innocence in the matter. Thus, the
water flowing from their hands upon the carcass, transferred
to it and the barren spot where it lay the putative guilt
of the crime. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.)
From this ordinance, the form seems to have become a
familiar mode of protesting innocence of crime, and is memorable
for that occasion when Pilate “took water and
washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent
of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.”—Matt.
xxvii, 24. Two primitive representations of this scene, in
sculptured relief, have been found in the catacombs at
.bn 124.png
.pn +1
Rome. They date from the first centuries of the Christian
era. In them the wife of Pilate appears in the background,
with averted face. An attendant holds a vase or pitcher
in one hand, and in the other a bowl: while Pilate sits
rubbing his hands. The position of the bowl shows it to
be empty. “The mode of washing implied in the empty
bowl is characteristic. In the east, the water is still poured
from the vase over the hands, and caught in the bowl, so
that it should not pass over them twice.”[16]
.fn 16
Maitland’s “Church of the Catacombs,” p. 261. Also,
Withrow’s “Catacombs,” p. 333.
.fn-
The manner of washing the feet is illustrated by a fact
in the life of our Savior. At dinner, in the house of Simon,
the Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner “brought an alabaster
box of ointment and stood at his feet, behind him,
weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did
wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet,
and anointed them with the ointment.”—Luke vii, 37, 38,
44. But how was it possible for the woman, coming behind
him at table, to get access to his feet: which, according
to our custom, would be concealed under the table?
The ordinary mode of sitting, in the east, then as now,
was, on the ground or floor, squat, cross-legged, or reclining.
Chairs were not in common use, but were reserved
for purposes of state, and used almost exclusively
by dignitaries. In later times a bench or settee was introduced,
which was without a back. Whether on it or the
floor, the usual position, in eating was the same. The
guests reclined on the left elbow, leaving the right hand
free. The person next on the right thus leaned toward or
against the breast of him who was at the head. (John
xiii, 23.) The feet were drawn up behind. Persons who
wore sandals, always, on entering a house, left them at the
door. These were not ordinarily worn by the common people,
but only upon occasions of special travel; and our Savior,
therefore, forbade his disciples to take time to provide
.bn 125.png
.pn +1
them, in the haste of the mission on which he first sent
them to preach. (Matt. x, 10; Luke x, 4.) They poorly
protected the feet from the soiling and roughness of the
way.[17] Decency, therefore, and comfort both,—especially
in the case of guests coming from a distance, required that
the feet should be washed, immediately upon entrance, and
the addition of oil or ointment was not only agreeable,
for the perfumes commonly mixed with it, but very soothing
and grateful to the weary and excoriated feet. It was
one of the first obligations of hospitality to provide for this
washing of the feet of guests. (Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2; etc.)
Where special respect was intended, the office was sometimes
performed by the master of the house, or his wife.
As the guest reclined, his feet projecting over the edge of
the seat behind him, a basin was placed beneath, so as to
receive the flowing water, as it was poured over them. To
this mode there is an allusion in the language of our Savior,
to Simon the Pharisee, upon the occasion just referred
to, which is lost in our translation. “I entered thine house.
Water upon my feet thou didst not give.”—Luke vii, 44.[18]
So, the night of the betrayal, Jesus took water and a towel
and washed and wiped the disciples’ feet, as they reclined;
and thus the woman came behind him at the table, and
bedewed his feet with her tears. To this customary rite
of hospitality Paul refers, when he describes a widow—“if
she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’
feet.”—1 Tim. v, 10. To it, Abigail alludes, when, in response
.bn 126.png
.pn +1
to David’s offer of marriage, she replies,—“Behold,
let thine handmaid be a servant, to wash the feet of the servants
of my lord.”—1 Sam. xxv, 41. If the ritual bathings
of Israel were immersions, the mode was without precedent
in the domestic habits of the people; as it was without
prescription in the law.
.fn 17
“Several of them [Arabs of the Jordan] wore sandals, a
rude invention to protect the feet. It was a thick piece of hide,
confined by a thong passing under the sole at the hollow of the
foot, around the heel, and between the great toe and the one
which adjoins it.”—Lynch’s “Dead Sea Expedition,” p. 282.
These thongs were the “latchets” of Mark i, 7.
.fn-
.fn 18
“[Greek: Y(/dôr e)pi\ tou\s po/das mou ou)k e)/dôkas].” The preposition, [Greek: epi],
with the accusative, means upon, with the idea of previous or
present motion,—to wit, (in this place,) of the water, poured
and flowing upon the feet.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXX.—The Facilities requisite.
Not only was the rite of immersion without precedent
in the domestic customs of Israel. It was wholly impracticable
as an observance to be fulfilled with the frequency
of the ritual washings of the law. On this point, delicacy
forbids unnecessary detail. But an examination of the
various requirements on the subject of uncleanness, and
especially as contained in the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus,
will establish the fact that recourse to those washings, was
a matter of constant,—almost daily,—necessity, in every
household, and for both men and women. In order to fulfil
these obligations, the supposition that immersion was
the mode would render two things imperatively necessary
in every family,—a very large supply of water;—and a
capacious bath-tub or tank in which the immersions might
be performed. As to these points, but few words are necessary.
The people of Israel did not usually live on their
lands in the country; but, like all other populations of the
east, were gathered in towns and villages, to which they
resorted at night; going forth in the day-time to their
labors in the field. This mode of life was rendered necessary
to avoid exposure to the depredations of bands of
wandering marauders; and was equally congenial to the
social disposition and habits of the people. The population
of each village was accustomed to depend, for the supply
of water, upon a well to which all resorted, and which was
usually near the gate of the village. From this source,
each household was supplied; the water being carried in
pitchers, or jars, on the shoulders of the females of the
.bn 127.png
.pn +1
family.[19] It is unnecessary to protract argument. The
facts are of themselves conclusive. The washings can not
have been immersions.
This conclusion is confirmed by the absence of vessels
of any kind suited to the performance of such a rite.
Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, neither in the
Apocrypha, Philo, nor Josephus is there any mention of
such facilities, or such a rite, nor allusion to them. In
fact, with all the advantages and appliances of modern
civilization, there is not, and there never was a people on
the globe of whom one in a hundred could comply with
the law of Moses, if interpreted in the Baptist sense.
And it is certain that no primitive people ever adopted
that mode of domestic bathing—a mode which implies a
very great advance in luxury and its appliances. The
Greeks themselves did not use it, except as they sometimes
resorted to rivers and streams. In their arrangements for
bathing, domestic and public, the immersion bath was unknown
until introduced with the luxury of imperial Rome.
In Homer’s description of the bath of Ulysses in the palace
of Circe, the hero is described as seated in a vessel
which contained no water, but was designed to receive
that which was poured over him; and the bathing was
performed in a manner identical with that which we have
seen practiced in Egypt. In the remains of antique Greek
art, the bath is frequently represented. But the mode is
invariably the same. The bather is placed beside the vessel
containing the water, which is taken thence in a dipper
or jar, and poured over him.[20]
.fn 19
Gen. xxiv, 13.—; Ex. ii, 15-19; Judges v, 11; Ruth ii,
1-4; 2 Sam. xxiii, 15; 1 Sam. ix, 11; John iv, 7; Matt. xx, 1-7.
.fn-
.fn 20
See Wilkinson, above quoted, and Smith’s Greek and
Roman Antiquities, article “Balneæ;” and below pp. 200, 207.
.fn-
Homer’s description of the bath of Ulysses is thus rendered
by Bryant:
.pm start_poem
A nymph—“the fourth
Brought water from the fountain, and beneath
A massive tripod kindled a great fire,
.bn 128.png
.pn +1
And warmed the water. When it boiled, within
The shining brass, she led me to the bath,
And washed me from the tripod. On my head
And shoulders, pleasantly, she shed the streams
That from my members took away the sense
Of weariness, unmanning body and mind.”[21]
.pm end_poem
.fn 21
Bryant’s Odyssey, Book X, 429-437.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXI.—The Washings of the Priests.
Writers upon the types and symbols of the Scriptures
too often fail to recognize or appreciate their unity, symmetry,
and completeness as a system, and the just proportion
and propriety of each several part in its relation to
the whole. That such must have been their character
was impressively intimated to Israel by the emphasis with
which Moses was admonished to “look that thou make
them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the
mount.”—Ex. xxv, 40; xxvii, 8; Num. viii, 4. The reason
of this particularity is stated by Paul. “Who serve
unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses
was admonished of God when he was about to make the
tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou make all things
according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.”—Heb.
viii, 5. The tabernacle and its appurtenances were a
systematic and luminous exposition of the plan of grace.
Approaching it from without, the first object that presented
itself was the brazen altar of burnt-offering, exhibiting the
price of redemption. Between it and the door of the tabernacle
stood the laver, the pure water of which symbolized
the Holy Spirit, through whom is the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, the essential
condition precedent to admittance to the fold of Christ.
Entering the tabernacle, the first apartment represented
the church on earth, the fold of the covenant. In it the
light always shone from the seven branched golden candlestick,
the lamps of which, continually replenished with oil
by the priest, symbolized the church shining as the light
of the world, through the oil of grace, the unction of the
.bn 129.png
.pn +1
Holy One, ministered by our great High Priest. The
table of show bread always supplied with twelve loaves,
according to the number of the twelve tribes, set forth that
Bread of life ever abundant for all, which nourishes the
people of God in the earthly church, in preparation for the
heavenly. Immediately before the veil, and before the ark
of the covenant in the holy of holies stood the altar of incense,
the fire of which, kindled with coals from the altar
of burnt-offering, set forth the prayers of God’s people,
made acceptable and fragrant before the throne, by virtue
of the atonement and intercession of Christ. Within the
veil,—thin curtain between the earthly and the heavenly
house,—the mercy seat covering the ark, and the tables of
the covenant law enclosed therein, represented the throne
of God’s grace resting upon the firm foundation of his
eternal law, thus showing that mercy to man is conditioned
upon satisfaction to that law by the blood of atonement
sprinkled there. All the other features of the system, its
rites and ceremonies, were constructed and ordered in a
strictly symmetrical and congruous relation to these. A
recollection of these points will aid in a just appreciation
of the points involved in the present discussion.
Of the form and dimensions of the laver, the Scriptures
give no account, except that it stood on a foot or pedestal.
(Ex. xxx, 18.) It was, however, of such size and proportions
as to be carried about with Israel in their journeyings,
probably with bars, borne on the shoulders of the
Levites, as was the altar. In preparing facilities for the
purpose of immersion, our Baptist brethren invariably
sink the font to such a level that the minister and the
subjects of the rite may descend into it. And this arrangement
is a dictate, not of convenience only, but of decency,
in the performance of the service. But, to suppose the
laver sufficiently large and deep to serve as an immersion
font, and then place it upon a pedestal, involves an elevation
which must have rendered it, practically, inaccessible
.bn 130.png
.pn +1
for such purposes, and precludes the idea that it was intended
to be so used. In fact, the laver was not a bath
tub, nor ever used as such, but a containing vessel from
which was drawn water for all the uses of the sanctuary.
The engravings which appear on pages 200, 207 below,
precisely correspond with the Mosaic description of the
laver, and probably give a very closely approximate idea
of its form, size, and proportions.
In the temple of Solomon, the one laver of the tabernacle
was replaced by a “sea of brass,” and ten lavers.
The sea was appropriated to the washings of the priests,
whilst the lavers were used for washing the sacrifices.
That they were used as fountains of supply, and not as
vessels in which the sacrifices were washed, appears from
the fact that they rested on bases four cubits square, by
three cubits high, and were of the same proportions. (1
Kings vii, 27, 38.) The Hebrew text gives the length,
breadth, and height of the bases, but only the length and
breadth of the lavers. The Septuagint and Josephus give
the former dimensions, and add the height of the lavers—three
cubits. Thus, the bottoms of the lavers were four
and a half feet above the pavement on which they stood,
and their brims, nine feet above it. They were, moreover,
provided with wheels, so as to be removed from place to
place, as occasion required. That the sacrifices were not
immersed in them is evident. The Talmud states that
they were washed upon marble tables; and this is the
mode for which provision is made in the vision of Ezekiel.
(Ezek. xl, 38-43.)
The sea of brass was ten cubits in diameter, and five
cubits high; that is, about fifteen feet by seven and a
It was elevated on twelve brazen oxen, the height of which
is not given. But if we allow them no greater height
than the bases of the lavers, the whole height was about
twelve feet; a height not suggestive of convenience for
immersions.
.bn 131.png
.pn +1
2. The brazen sea was no part of the tabernacle furniture
when God directed Moses to “bring Aaron and his
sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation
and wash them with water.”—Ex. xl, 12; comp. xxix, 4.
“And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing
which the Lord commanded to be done. And Moses
brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with
water.”—Lev. viii, 5, 6. Respecting this, the facts are so
evident as to admit but one conclusion. (1.) The command
given was not to immerse Aaron and his sons, but
(rāhatz), to wash them, according to the proper meaning
of that word, as already shown, and after the ordinary
manner of ablution. (2.) The transaction is thrice described,
in the places referred to above; but the laver is
not once mentioned, nor any means of immersion. (3.)
The place of the washing is so described as to exclude immersion.
Thrice repeated, it is still, “at the door,” of the
tabernacle. (Lev. viii, 4.) If the priests were immersed,
on this occasion, the laver was the only vessel in which it
can have been done; and, not only was it so constructed
as to render its use impossible, but the language of the
account is such as to conceal the fact. But here was
no immersion. As commanded, Moses washed Aaron and
his sons.
3. When Moses was ordered to make the laver, its purpose
was stated: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their
hands and their feet thereat; when they go into the tabernacle
of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that
they die not; or, when they come near to the altar, to minister,
to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord. So
they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die
not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to
him and to his seed throughout their generations.”—Ex.
xxx, 19-21. Not only were the priests thus to wash their
hands and their feet, but also certain parts of the sacrifices.—“The
priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head
.bn 132.png
.pn +1
and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire
which is upon the altar; but his inwards and his legs shall
he wash in water; and the priest shall burn all on the
altar.”—Lev. i, 8, 9, 13; viii, 21; ix, 14.
Should we set aside the arguments arising from the
meaning of the word employed,—from the customs of the
people as to personal ablutions,—and from the form and elevation
of the laver, the present facts discover an insurmountable
objection to the idea of immersion. Or, will it be
insisted that the priests as they came into the sanctuary at
the appointed times of service, successively, climbed to the
top of the laver and, balancing on its brim, immersed their
hands and feet; and, then, in fulfillment of their official
duties, immersed in the water thus fouled, the inwards, or
bowels and intestines, and the pieces of the sacrifices, about
to be offered to God? The supposition would be indecent
and profane. And yet, this is the unavoidable result of
demanding immersion, in this case. For, the same language
is used in requiring the washing of the priests and
of the sacrifices, and there was but one laver, to supply all
demands for water at the sanctuary.
4. But, again: On the day of atonement, the high
priest was required, at a certain time in the order of observances
for the day, being alone in the sanctuary, to “wash
his flesh with water in the holy place.”—Lev. xvi, 24.
Here, at least, there is no room for controversy. The laver
was outside the door of the tabernacle. The priest was
within, “in the holy place.” In it, there was no vessel in
which an immersion could take place. Immersion was not
merely improbable.—It was impossible. The circumstances
compel us to accept the language of the place, just as it
stands; and to believe that the high priest, on this occasion
washed himself, and that he did so, as all washings of
the person are performed, “with water,” as an instrumental
means; and that it was applied with his own hands to his
own person.
.bn 133.png
.pn +1
5. Living or fresh water is the most familiar Scriptural
symbol of the Holy Spirit. This is fully considered elsewhere.
In the symbolism of the tabernacle and temple,
the water of the lavers and sea of brass was the appointed
symbol of that blessed Person, as the source of all cleansing
and sanctifying influences. In this view, the fact is
instructive, that, in the temple of Ezekiel’s vision, (Ezek.
xl-xlviii) there was no laver; but, instead, the waters of
the river of life flowed from the spot on which the laver
should have stood. Jewish tradition states the laver to
have stood on the south side of the door of the tabernacle,
which looked toward the east. That was the position of the
brazen sea. “He set the sea on the right side of the
house, eastward, over against the south.”—1 Kings vii, 39.
“On the right side of the east end, over against the
south.”—2 Chron. iv, 10. In Ezekiel, “the forefront of the
house stood toward the east, and the waters came down
from under, from the right side of the house at the south
side of the altar.”—Ezek. xlvii, 1. Nor is it unworthy of
consideration, that, if the laver was designed as a baptistery
or immersion font, the living stream described by
Ezekiel was wholly inadequate to such a purpose; being,
at that point, but a rivulet, not ankle deep. (Ib. 3-5.)
6. The meaning of the water, taken in connection with
the relation which Moses, by divine appointment, sustained
to Aaron, suggests the interpretation of the washing
of the latter by Moses. Moses was to Aaron “instead of
God” (Ex. iv, 16); and since Aaron’s priesthood was
typical of that of the Lord Jesus, it follows, that the
action of Moses, in washing his brother, and then robing
him in the holy garments of the priesthood, was typical
of the agency of the Father, in endowing our great High
Priest, through the Holy Spirit, with a sinless humanity,
(Heb. x, 5-7) and in it, investing him with the eternal
priesthood which he now fulfills. This washing of Aaron
is to be discriminated from his official anointing. The latter
.bn 134.png
.pn +1
signified the official gifts and qualifications of Christ,
whilst the former had respect to his birth and growth in
personal holiness. (Luke ii, 52.)
7. The significance of the feet, in the figurative system
of the Scriptures, appears in the proverb, which, among
the things that the Lord hates, enumerates “feet that be
swift in running to mischief.”—Prov. vi, 18. On the other
hand, the Psalmist says,—“I turned my feet unto thy
testimonies.”—“I refrained my feet from every evil way.”—Ps.
cxix, 59, 101. The hands and feet, together, represent,
fully, the active energies of man. And the priests
washing their hands and feet, when they came to minister
at the altar was typical of the active righteousness of the
Lord Jesus. This is the more apparent, when associated
with the other fact, that in fulfilling the office for which
they thus washed themselves, they were required, as already
stated, to wash the inwards and the legs of the burnt offerings,
(Lev. i, 9, 13; etc.); the inwards, or bowels representing
the affections, and the legs the active powers.
Thus, the priests and the sacrifices together typified the
essential holiness and the active obedience of the Lord Jesus,
“who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself,
without spot, to God.”—Heb. ix, 14. In all this, there is
still nothing to demand, to suggest, or allow, the idea of
immersion. The significance of the rites accords perfectly
with all the other irresistible indications, which lead us to
the conclusion that under no circumstances was immersion
ever used in the washings of the priests, or the rites of the
tabernacle and temple service.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXII.—Like these were the Washings of the People.
The conclusion just indicated as to the washings of the
priests, carries with it a like decision respecting all the
self-performed washings.
1. The word rāhatz, to wash, is used in the same manner,
in the directions given with respect to all the various
.bn 135.png
.pn +1
cases, of hands, feet and person,—of priests and people,
and of the sacrificial pieces, alike.
2. The self-washings imposed on the people were of the
same essential nature and meaning as those of the priests.
In both, the idea was that of holiness and purity of heart
and life, maintained by personal watchfulness and efficiency
through the grace of the Holy Spirit. If this idea was
properly symbolized by the priestly ablutions without immersion,
the conclusion is unavoidable, that among the
people immersion was unknown. To them, the mode used
by the priests would be the standard of propriety.
3. It is impossible to elicit any consistent meaning out
of the supposed immersions. The ritual system was characterized
by congruity in all its parts, and meaning everywhere.
What else upon Baptist principles, can the immersions
be thought to mean, if not the burial of Christ? But
how, then, are we to understand the grades of washings,
of the hands, and feet, and garments, as so carefully distinguished
from each other, and from that of the person?
What means the fact, which is so clearly marked, that
these washings were self-performed? Did Christ entomb
himself? How are we to explain the washing of Aaron by
Moses? If immersion is typical of the burial of the Lord
Jesus, what pertinence could it have to his birth and inauguration
as priest? What mean the peculiar times at
which the self-washings were to be performed,—the priests
being required always to wash before offering sacrifice or
ministering at the altar; whilst, the unclean for seven
days performed the same rite at the end of the seven days,
after they had been restored from typical death? Was
Christ buried before he had made of himself an offering and
a sacrifice? Or, again, was it after he had, by the Spirit,
risen from the dead? On the immersion theory, the facts
can not be reconciled.
Whilst all these considerations point decisively to one
conclusion, there is not a fact nor a circumstance to occasion
.bn 136.png
.pn +1
even a moment’s embarrassment in its acceptance.
Assume the washings to have been immersions, and confusion
and perplexity invest the subject. Recognize them in
their true character as ablutions and not immersions, and
all is clear and congruous. The customs of the people,—the
circumstances in which the rites were performed,—the
words used to describe them,—the ritual relations in which
they occur,—the analogies of the whole system,—the examples
of the priests, and every casual incident and allusion,—all
find, in this view, a center around which they
cluster and shine, in perfect harmony, clearness and congruity
of meaning.
The conclusion is impregnable. Immersion, as a rite
of cleansing or purifying, was utterly unknown to Israel.
And, particularly, there is nothing whatever to be found,
in all the records of the Levitical system to which the advocates
of immersion can point and say,—“Here are the
ordinances of which Paul speaks, wherein divers immersions
were imposed on Israel, until the time of reformation.”
It is therefore certain that in the vocabulary of Paul,
Baptizo did not mean, to immerse, and baptism is not so
performed.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXIII.—Defilements and Purifyings of Things.
Things, as well as persons, were liable to defilements,
both the major and the minor, and the law made correspondent
provision for their cleansing.
1. To the class of minor defilements belonged those of
wooden vessels, and bags of cloth or skin, which had been
touched by the dead carcase of an unclean animal. “It
must be put into water,” and be unclean until the even.
(Lev. xi, 32.) Here, at last, is an immersion; the only
one found in the entire law. The case is of great interest
as illustrating the ease and clearness with which immersion
is expressed when it was intended. We search in vain for
any corresponding directions, in the case of persons:—“They
.bn 137.png
.pn +1
must be put into water.” This rule moreover is of
great importance, as constituting a standard of reference by
which to ascertain the divine estimation of the value of
immersion as a ritual purifying. Of certain animals, the
ordinance was that “whosoever doth touch them, when
they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. And upon
whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it
shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or
raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be wherein
any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be
unclean until the even;—so it shall be cleansed.”—Ib. 31,
32. Thus, it appears, from both examples,—of persons
and of things,—that the uncleanness described was of the
minor grade, which continued only till the even. In fact,
it seems to have been the lightest form of this grade. For,
while the law provided that he that bore such carcase must
“wash his clothes,” (vs. 25, 28) and be unclean until the
even,—it directed, concerning the present case of mere
casual and momentary contact by touching it, that he shall
be “unclean until the even,” without any prescription of
cleansing rites. (Compare also, v. 29.) The meaning of
this may be gathered from a comparison of 1 Cor. v, 9-13.
In the Levitical system, unclean beasts seem to represent
unregenerate men. To God’s people, a certain
amount of contact with them is inevitable; from which,
therefore, and its defiling influences, the only remedy is to
be looked for in the ending of this life, and the entrance
upon heaven’s rest. The emphasis of the ritual warnings
was, therefore, directed, not against involuntary and casual
contact with the evil, but against dalliance with it, expressed
by carrying and eating the unclean. The immersion
which we have found to be prescribed, was appointed, not
for persons, but for things,—and for things tainted with
this slightest of all the defilements known to the law. On
the other hand, as we shall presently see, for major defilements
of things,—by the dead and by leprosy,—the same
.bn 138.png
.pn +1
sacrificial rites, and sprinkling of water were ordained, as
in the case of persons. Such is the divine testimony as to
the relative ritual value of immersion and sprinkling. I
will not wrong the intelligence of the reader, by discussing
the possibility of this immersion, being what Paul meant
by the “divers baptisms” of the law.
Other minor defilements of things were, (1.) Brazen vessels
used for cooking the flesh of the sin offerings. They
were to be “scoured and rinsed in water.” If the vessel
was of earthenware, it was to be broken. (Lev. vi, 28.
Compare 1 Cor. xi, 24.) (2.) “The vessel of earth that he
toucheth, which hath an issue, shall be broken; and every
vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.”—Ib. xv, 12.
2. Things defiled by the dead, were to be sprinkled
with the water of separation, on the third day and on the
seventh. (Num. xix, 14, 15, 18.) In the case of the spoil
of Midian, there was a further purifying.—“Every thing
that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the
fire; and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified
with the water of separation; and all that abideth not the
fire ye shall make go through the water.”—Num. xxxi, 23.
The word “go through,” here, is the same that is used
when Jesse is said to have caused seven of his sons to
“pass by,” and to “pass before” Samuel, (1 Sam. xvi,
9, 10); when Jacob caused his household to “pass over”
the brook, (margin, Gen. xxxii, 23); and when God
promised to make all his goodness to “pass before” Moses.
(Ex. xxxiii, 19.) The alternatives here of fire and water
seem to have reference to the two great facts of purgation
in the world’s history, of which Peter speaks. (2 Pet.
iii, 5-7.) The deluge was a purifying of the earth, defiled
by sin, and so will the fire be, in the final day.
3. A house infected with leprosy, when cured, was
treated in a manner essentially the same as was a person
so afflicted. (Lev. xiv, 34-53.)
.bn 139.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part V. | LATER TRACES OF THE SPRINKLED BAPTISMS.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXIV.—Old Testament Allusions.
The rite of purifying with the ashes of the red heifer
was one of the most familiar and impressive of the
Mosaic institutions. That its observance was maintained
through the whole course of Israel’s history, is evinced by
the frequent allusions of the sacred writers. King Saul
found in the ordinances on this subject an explanation of
David’s absence from his table.—“Something hath befallen
him. He is not clean: surely he is not clean.”—1 Sam.
xx, 26. The words of David himself have been referred
to already, as he cries,—“Purge me with hyssop, and I
shall be clean.”—Psa. li, 7. This was written about five
hundred years after the giving of the law. Three centuries
later, the Lord says to Israel by Hosea,—“Their sacrifices
shall be unto them as the bread of mourners,” (that
is, bread made or touched by those that were defiled by
the dead), “all that eat thereof shall be polluted.”—Hosea
ix, 4. Isaiah began his prophecy about twenty-five years
later,—about B. C. 760-698. In his time a great revival
took place, under the hand of King Hezekiah, in connection
with which the laws of purification came into prominent
notice. It began with the exhortation of Hezekiah,
to the priests and Levites.—“Hear me, ye Levites; sanctify”
(or, cleanse) “now yourselves, and sanctify the house of
the Lord God of your fathers; and carry forth the filthiness
out of the holy place.”—2 Chron. xxix, 5. When
this was done, the king appointed a service of dedication.
In it “the priests were too few, so that they could not flay
.bn 140.png
.pn +1
all the burnt offerings; wherefore, their brethren the Levites
did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other
priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were
more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the
priests.”—vs. 34. Immediately afterward the king kept
a great passover, gathering the remnants of the ten tribes,
with Judah. “And the priests and the Levites were
ashamed and sanctified themselves, ... for there were
many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore
the Levites had charge of the killing of the passovers for
every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the
Lord. For a multitude of the people, even many of
Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not
cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise
than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them,
saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth
his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers,
though he be not cleansed according to the purification of
the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and
healed the people.”—Ib. xxx, 15-20.
In Isaiah, occurs that prophecy of God’s grace for the
Gentiles, “Behold my servant, ... as many were astonied
at thee, his visage was so marred more than any
man, and his form more than the sons of men; so shall he
sprinkle many nations.”—Isa. lii, 13-15. There are two
words in the original Hebrew, meaning, to sprinkle. That
which here occurs is used to describe the purifying of the
leper, and of those defiled by the dead. The priest, with
the scarlet wool, cedar wood and hyssop, “shall sprinkle
upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven
times.”—Lev. xiv, 7. “A clean person shall take hyssop
and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and
upon all the vessels, and upon the persons.”—Num. xix,
18. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint, have rendered
the passage, “so shall he astonish many nations.”
But this only shows how willingly those writers would
.bn 141.png
.pn +1
have obliterated from the text the promise of salvation for
the Gentiles, which it contains. We know that the Gentiles
were by the law, held to be unclean—“dead in trespasses
and sins.”—Eph. ii, 1, 11; Acts x, 14-16, 28; xv,
9. We have seen baptism by sprinkling to have been appointed
for the purifying of every kind of uncleanness,
and witnessed its use in the reception of the children of
Midian. Moreover, the word here found in the original
is everywhere else used in the sense of sprinkling. With
one exception, it is invariably employed as descriptive of
the ritual purifyings. The exception describes the sprinkling
or spattering of the blood of Jezebel, when she was
hurled from the height of the palace. (2 Kings ix,
33.) There is no conceivable reason for making the text
an exception to the meaning thus invariably indicated.
Christ, the Baptizer, will sprinkle many nations. He
“will pour out of his Spirit on all flesh.”—Acts ii, 17;
Joel ii, 28. Of this it is that Isaiah speaks in the place
in question.
The same grace was promised to Israel by the prophet
Ezekiel (B. C. 595-574), in language which we have
already quoted, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon
you, and ye shall be clean.”—Ezek. xxxvi, 24-27. In this
prophet’s vision of the future temple, he says of the priests:
“They shall come at no dead person to defile themselves:
but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter,
for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they
may defile themselves. And after he is cleansed, they
shall reckon unto him seven days. And in the day that
he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court to minister
in the sanctuary he shall offer his sin-offering, saith
the Lord God.”—Ezek. xliv, 25-27.
About fifty years after the close of Ezekiel’s prophecy
Haggai was sent to Judah (B. C. 520). He inquires of
the priests, respecting “bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil,
or any meat,” “If one that is unclean by a dead body
.bn 142.png
.pn +1
touch any of these shall it be unclean? And the priests
answered, and said, It shall be unclean.”—Hag. ii, 13.
Except the brief testimony of Malachi, Zechariah was
the last of the prophets. His ministry closed, about B. C.
487. In his prophecy occurs that promise of “a fountain
opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.”—Zech. xiii, 1.
The word, “fountain,” in the original means a flowing
spring, “opened,” as was the rock in the wilderness; of
which the Psalmist says, “He opened the rock and the
waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a
river.”—Psa. cv, 41. The language of Zechariah seems
to be an allusion to this.
We have thus traced the baptism of purifying with
the water of separation through the writings of the prophets
for a thousand years, from the time of its institution
to within less than five hundred years of the coming of
Christ. We shall presently follow it down to the time of
Christ and to the destruction of Jerusalem.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXV.—Rabbinic Traditions as to the Red Heifer.
According to Jewish tradition the burning of the red
heifer took place but nine times, from the beginning, until
the final dispersion of the nation. The first was by Eleazar,
in the wilderness. (Num. xix, 3.) This, they say,
was not repeated for more than a thousand years, when
Ezra offered the second, upon the return of the captivity
from Babylon. From that time, until the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus was about five hundred years, during
which they report seven heifers to have been burned—two
by Simon, the just, two by Johanan, the father of Matthias,
one by Elioenai, the son of Hakkoph, one by Hananeel
Hammizri, and one by Ishmael, the son of Fabi. Since
then, it has been impossible for them to fulfill the rite
according to the law, as the altar and temple are no more.
The tenth they say will be offered by the Messiah, at his
.bn 143.png
.pn +1
coming.[22] Lightfoot finds in the increased frequency with
which the heifer was burned, during the later period of
Jewish history, a circumstantial illustration of the growing
spirit of ritualism, which multiplied the occasions of using
the ashes. It is, however, impossible to accept the account,
at least, as to the earlier period, as authentic history. It
is probably mere conjecture, suggested by the silence of the
Scriptures, and is most improbable in itself. But the later
tradition is more reliable; as, at the time when it was put
upon record, the Jews were undoubtedly in possession of
abundant historical materials, for the period subsequent to
the return of the captivity under Ezra. According to this
account, seven heifers served all the purposes of that form
of purification, for five hundred years. In that time, over
fifteen generations, or not less than fifty millions of Jews
were consigned to the sepulcher, and the consequent
sprinkling administered to the families, attendants, houses,
and furniture. If we ignore all other applications of these
ashes, to those defiled by the slain in battle, and to those
subject to other causes of defilement, it is still evident
that the sufficiency and virtue of the rite were not held to
depend upon the quantity of the ashes employed, and that
the amount actually used was so minute that it can not
have been perceptible in the water. The manner of administration
was thus true to the nature of the ordinance,
as having no intrinsic virtue, in itself, but only in its significance
as addressed to intelligence and faith. And it
prepared the minds of the people to witness without perplexity,
the change from water in which an inappreciable
quantity of ashes appealed to the imagination, to that in
which, while no ashes were used, the association of ideas
and meaning remained the same.
.fn 22
Juchasin, fol 16, in Lightfoot.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXVI.—The Festival of the Outpouring of Water.
Not only are the Old Testament Scriptures full of the
doctrine of the outpouring of the Spirit, under the figure
.bn 144.png
.pn +1
of living water; but one of the most remarkable of the
institutions observed by the Jews from the days of the
prophets here last quoted, had immediate relation to
the same thing. It was called “The festival of the outpouring
of water.” Its origin was by the Jews attributed
to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, under whose ministry
the temple was rebuilt, and the ordinances restored;
a tradition which is confirmed by internal evidence. The
festival was incorporated with the feast of the ingathering,
or tabernacles. That feast seems to have been the pre-eminent
type of the prosperity, the rest and gladness of
the kingdom of Messiah. By the law, the people were required
to gather “the boughs” (in the margin, “the
fruit”) “of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the
boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye
shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”—Lev.
xxiii, 40. They used the fruit of the citron or lemon, with
branches of the palm and the myrtle, and willows from the
brook Kedron. These tied together in one bunch were
called, the lulab. Early on the morning of the first day
of the feast, the people, clothed in holiday garb, assembled
at the temple, each having a lulab in one hand and a citron
in the other, and each carrying a branch of willow,
with which they adorned the altar round about. As soon
as the morning sacrifice was placed on the altar, a priest
descended to the fountain of Siloam, which flowed from
the foot of the temple mount, bearing a golden vase or
pitcher, which he filled with water. As he entered the
court, through that gate which was hence called “the
water gate,” the trumpets sounded. He ascended to the
great altar of burnt offering, where were placed two silver
bowls, one on the east side of the altar and the other on
the west, one of which contained wine. Into the other, he
poured the water from the golden vessel, and then mingling
the water and wine, slowly poured it on the ground,
as it would seem, to the east and to the west, as the bowls
.bn 145.png
.pn +1
were placed. (Compare Zech. xiv, 8.) In the mean
time the temple choir sang the Hallel to the accompaniment
of instruments of music.[23] Then, the people who
thronged the court marched in procession about the altar,
waving their lulabs, and setting them bending toward it,
the trumpets sounding and the people shouting, “Hallelujah!”
and “Hosanna!” with ejaculations of prayer,
thanksgiving and praise, selected from the Psalms. In
this service, even the little children, as soon as able to
wave a palm branch, were encouraged to join. After this
they went home to dine, and spent the afternoon reading
the law or hearing the expositions of learned scribes. In
the evening commenced the festive joy of the outpouring
of the water. The water was drawn and poured out, at
the time of the morning sacrifice and in connection with
it,—a solemnity in the presence of which any hilarious
demonstrations were inopportune. The festivity was therefore
reserved until the evening. The multitude then assembled
in the court of the women, that being the largest
court, and the nearest approach that the women as a body
could make to the holy house. On this occasion they occupied
the galleries which surrounded the court, whilst the
men thronged the open space. At suitable places, in the
court there were great candelabra of such size and height
that they overlooked the whole temple mount. A ladder
stood by each, by means of which young priests from time
to time ascended and replenished the oil, of which each
bowl is reported by the Talmud to have held seven or
eight gallons. Many of the people also carried torches, so
that the whole mount was flooded with light. The festivity
was begun by the temple choir of priests, who, standing
in order upon the fifteen steps that led down from the
court of Israel to that of the women, chanted some of the
.bn 146.png
.pn +1
“songs of degrees,” to the accompaniment of instruments;
whilst such of the people as were skilled in music joined
their voices and instruments. Then, the chief men of the
nation, rulers of synagogues, members of the sanhedrim,
scribes, doctors of the law, and all such as were of eminent
rank or repute for gifts or piety laid off their outer robes,
and joined in a joyous leaping and dancing, in the presence
of the multitude, singing and shouting Hosannas and Hallelujahs,
and ejaculating the praises of God. Thus a great
part of the night was expended, each one emulating the
others in imitation of the humility of David, at the bringing
up of the ark (2 Sam. vi, 15, 16); for, the excitement
now indulged in, the leaping and dancing, were, at other
times, accounted unbecoming the dignity of the nobles of
Israel. At length, two of the priests, standing in the gate
of Nicanor, which was at the head of the stairway, sounded
their trumpets, and descending the steps continued to sound
as they traversed the court, until they came to the eastern
gate. Here they turned around toward the west, so as to
face the temple. They then cried,—“Our fathers who
were in this place, turned their backs to the temple of the
Lord, and their faces toward the east.[24] But as for us,
we turn to Him, and our eyes look unto Him.” The
assembly then dispersed. With slight variations, the same
order was observed each of the seven days of the feast.[25]
.fn 23
Ps. cxiii-cxviii, were known among the Jews as, the Hallel,
that is, Praise, being sung at the temple on the first of each
month, and at the annual feasts.
.fn-
.fn 24
See Ezek. viii, 16.
.fn-
.fn 25
Lightfoot on this Feast and that of Tabernacles. Lewis’s
“Origines Hebraeæ.” Pool’s “Synopsis,” etc.
.fn-
The joy of the people at the ingathering of the harvest
and the prosperous end of the labors of the year,—the gay
and festive appearance of the city, every housetop and
open space, and even the sides and top of the mount of
Olives, covered with the green booths,—the extraordinary
services at the temple, where more sacrifices were offered
during the week than in all the other feasts of the year
together,—the green willows adorning the altar and daily
.bn 147.png
.pn +1
renewed—the processions around it, the branches carried
by the people,—the trumpets, songs, and Hosannas,—and,
at night, the flaming lights, the jubliant concourse, the
waving of the lulabs, the music and dancing, the shoutings,
songs, and trumpets, must have presented a scene of
exhilaration and gladness hard to conceive. It was a saying
of the rabbins, that “He that has not witnessed the
festivity of the pouring out of the water, has never seen
festivity at all.”
The rabbins are obscure in their explanations of the
observance here described. Some would represent it as a
thanksgiving for the rains by which the soil had been fertilized
and the harvests matured. But with a better appreciation,
Rabbi Levi is reported in the Talmud, “Why
is it called the drawing of water? Says Rabbi Levi, Because
of the receiving of the Holy Spirit, according to that
which is written,—With joy will we draw water from the
wells of salvation.”—Isa. xii, 3. That the outpouring had
reference, not to the receiving of the Spirit by Israel, but
to its outpouring upon the Gentiles, in the days of the
Messiah, is confirmed by the tenor of the prophecies of
Haggai and Zechariah, the authors of the observance, and
by language of our Savior, which expositors agree in referring
to this rite. Both of those prophets encouraged
Judah in rebuilding the temple by the assurance that
“the Desire of all nations should come” to it.—Hag. ii, 7.
Said the Lord, by Zechariah, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy
King cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation:
lowly and riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of
an ass.... It shall come to pass, in that day, that I will
seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And I will pour upon the house of David and upon
the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of
supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they
have pierced, and they shall mourn for him.... In that
.bn 148.png
.pn +1
day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David
and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness....
And it shall be in that day, that living
waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them toward
the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea.
In summer and winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be
king over all the earth: In that day there shall be one
Lord, and his name one.... And it shall come to pass
that every one that is left of all the nations which came
against Jerusalem, shall even go up, from year to year, to
worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast
of tabernacles.”—Zech. ix, 9; xii, 9, 10; xiii, 1; xiv,
8, 9, 16.
To all this, reference is evidently had in the incident
related by the evangelist, John, as occurring at this feast.—“In
the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood
and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto
me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe
on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”—John vii,
37-39. These words of Jesus, as will hereafter appear,
had distinct reference to the giving of the gospel to the
Gentiles. A few additional facts will shed a clearer light
upon the meaning of the festival.
The feast of tabernacles, strictly so called, was of
seven days’ continuance; during which the people dwelt in
booths. On the eighth day, they removed the booths and
re-entered their houses. They observed that day as a distinct
and peculiar festival. “On the eighth day shall be a
holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering
made by fire unto the Lord; it is a solemn assembly.”
(Lev. xxiii, 36; Deut. xvi, 13-15.) During the seven days
the offerings upon the altar had a very remarkable order.
On the first day, they were “thirteen young bullocks, two
.bn 149.png
.pn +1
rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year,” and one kid
of the goats for a sin offering. These were in addition to
the ordinary daily offerings. On each successive day, the
number of the bullocks was reduced by one, whilst the
other offerings remained the same. But on the eighth day
the offering was one bullock, one ram, and seven lambs,
and one goat for a sin offering. (Num. xxix, 12-38.) On
this peculiar order of sacrifices, the explanations of the
scribes are various. In the Talmud, Rabbi Solomon states
the bullocks, whose aggregate number for the seven days
was seventy, to have represented the seventy idolatrous
nations; that being, as the Jews supposed, their number.
These must be continually diminished, while Israel, represented
by the other offerings, remains.[26] Says Pool,—“The
eighth day was the great day, not by divine appointment,
but from the opinion of the Jews, who regarded
the sacrifices and prayers of the other days as made, not
so much for themselves as for the other nations; but the
eighth, as being solely for themselves.”[27] Hence the Targum,—“The
eighth day shall be holy. Thou seest, O God,
that Israel in the feast of tabernacles, offers before thee
seventy bullocks, for the seventy nations, for which they
ought to love us. But for our love, they are our adversaries.
The holy blessed God therefore saith to Israel, Offer
for yourselves on the eighth day.”[28]
.fn 26
Rabbi Solomon on Num. xxix, in Lightfoot on this feast.
.fn-
.fn 27
Pool’s Synopsis, on John vii, 37. He refers to Grotius.
.fn-
.fn 28
Lewis’s Origines Hebraeæ, p. 606.
.fn-
The gospels render us familiar with the religion of the
scribes. By the help of tradition it sought to divest the
law of God of its claim upon the allegiance of the heart,
to obscure and set aside the spiritual meaning of its rites,
and to substitute a system of minute outward observances,
and a fanatical pride in the blood of Abraham, which
looked scornfully down on all other nations as unclean
and accursed. This system was embodied in the Talmud,
.bn 150.png
.pn +1
and culminated in the compilation of that work, several
centuries after the destruction of the temple and the downfall
of the nation. When, therefore, among the idle traditions
which fill the pages of that work, we come upon
occasional traces of a profounder spiritual exegesis, and
sentiments respecting the Gentiles more in harmony with
the spirit of Old Testament prophecy, we may confidently
recognize them as precious vestiges of truth, which
have escaped obliteration, as they were transmitted through
that uncongenial channel, from a distant and purer antiquity.
Such is the conviction which will result from a careful
comparison of the traditions above cited with the accounts
of the rites in question, the language of the prophets, and
the words of Jesus to which reference has just been made.
By the light thus concentrated, we see, in the ingathering
of the harvest of the holy land and the festivities following,
a type and prophecy of the ingathering of the nations into
the fold of Israel, under the scepter of Messiah, and the
songs and joy that hail their coming. Then the solemnity
of the eighth day may have anticipated the time when,
opposition withdrawn, all nations “shall go up from year
to year to worship the King the Lord of hosts, and to
keep the feast of tabernacles,” when “the Lord shall be
King over all the earth, and there shall be one Lord, and
his name One.” In this light, Israel appears in her lofty
character and office as the priest-kingdom, standing as mediator
for the nations, and making for them offerings of
atonement and intercessions. Nor less significant was the
drawing of the water from
.pm start_poem
“Siloah’s brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God,”
.pm end_poem
and its outpouring by the priest upon the earth, mingled
with wine. From that same fountain, during the same
period of Israel’s history, it was the rule to draw all water
that was used at Jerusalem for purification with the water
.bn 151.png
.pn +1
of separation, especially for those who came to the annual
feasts. To this, Zechariah alludes in his prophecy of
that day when “there shall be a fountain opened to the
house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for
sin and for uncleanness.”—Zech. xiii, 1. By her great
High Priest, was to be dispensed to Israel and through her
to all the earth, the Spirit’s grace, conveying to the nations
of the Gentiles the virtue of the blood of Calvary. Jerusalem
and the temple were to be the source of those healing
waters which were to flow to the east and to the west,
“toward the former sea, and toward the hinder sea,” to
gladden the world. (Zech. xiv, 8.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXVII.—The Hellenistic Greek.
After the close of Old Testament prophecy, the conquests
of Alexander of Macedon, the consequent diffusion
of the Greeks, and the favor which that prince and
his successors showed to the Jews, introduced an intimate
intercourse between them and the Greeks. By him Alexandria
in Egypt was founded, designated by his own name,
and intended to be the western capital of his empire. In
this new Greek capital, its founder assigned the Jews an
extensive section, and equal privileges with the Macedonians.
After the death of Alexander, and the subdivision
of his empire, the Ptolemies, the Greek kings of Egypt,
continued to favor the Jews, treating them on terms of
equality with the Greeks. During the same period, the
persecutions suffered by the Jews of Palestine from the
kings of Syria, drove multitudes into exile, many of whom
were attracted to Egypt, so that the Jewish population of
Alexandria was at one time estimated at nearly a million
of souls, occupying two of the five districts of the city;
and at least, for a time, governed by their own ethnarch,
or superior magistrate. Among these Jews, and those
elsewhere scattered in the Greek colonies, their own language
was gradually superseded by the Greek, into which,
.bn 152.png
.pn +1
at length, the Old Testament Scriptures were translated,
in a version known as the Septuagint. Of the precise
time and circumstances in which this version was made,
there is no reliable information, except that it was done
in Alexandria, within the first quarter of the third century
before Christ. In the time of Christ, the Greek had become
the language of literature and of commerce for the
civilized world. Among the Jews dispersed everywhere, it
was prevalent, and was extensively used even in Palestine
itself, and thus became the divinely prepared channel for
communicating the gospel to all nations.
But the language thus employed—the Greek of the
Septuagint, the Apocrypha and the New Testament—was
not what is known as classic Greek. The Jews did not
learn it in the schools of Greece, nor from a study of her
poets, orators, and philosophers. It was the product of
social and business contact and intercourse of the one people
with the other, in a land foreign to both.
Already the purity of the Attic had been lost, by the
commingling of the Macedonians with the various tribes
of Greece proper and her dependencies, in the armies from
which Alexander’s colonists were taken; and still further
by the mixed multitude which flocked to their new settlements.
In the process of adaptation to the expression of
Jewish thought, it was inevitably subjected to further modifications,
in definition, in syntax, in order and construction—in
the very tone and spirit which pervade the whole.
By these modifications, the language, which had grown up
as the native and coeval expression of the idolatrous religion,
the arts and philosophy of pagan Greece, was adapted
to become a repository for the system of divine and saving
truth, contained in the Scriptures. Those Jews who resided
in Alexandria and other Greek cities, who spake
this Greek language, and were more or less conformed to
the manners of the Gentiles among whom they lived, were
known among their brethren, as Hellenists, that is, Greek
.bn 153.png
.pn +1
Jews, and hence, the Greek dialect used by them has acquired
the designation of Hellenistic Greek.
The authors of the New Testament adopted this as the
language of their writings, and, in their references to the
Old Testament, their quotations are mostly made, not from
the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint, or Hellenistic version.
It was ordinarily used by the Lord Jesus himself in
his discourses. It thus appears as the source and standard
of the language of the New Testament.
Together with these Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament,
there have been transmitted to us several other
Jewish documents of the same period, written in the same
Hellenistic Greek. They are invaluable for the light which
they shed upon the history, customs, and modes of thought
and language of the Jews of that time; although the attempt
of the church of Rome, to exalt some of them to an
equal authority with the Scriptures, has tended to fix a
stigma on them, as known to us under the name of Apocrypha.
Incautious recourse to the rules and definitions
of classic Greek is liable to deceive and mislead us in the
critical study of the New Testament. But conclusions intelligently
deduced from the language of the Septuagint
and of the other Jewish writers of that age, are to be respected
as of the highest authority on all questions of the New
Testament language. On the subject of our present investigation,
these authorities shed a flood of light. In
them, we first find the verb, baptizo, used to designate
rites of religious purifying. Once in the Septuagint, and
twice in the Apocrypha, it is applied to Hebrew rites of
this nature.
That the use of the word to designate religious observances
is peculiar to the Hellenistic, as contradistinguished
from classic Greek, is indisputable; and it is worthy of
consideration, how it came to be selected from the Greek
vocabulary for this purpose. The Hebrews of Egypt, in
their exile from the land of their fathers, had not abandoned
.bn 154.png
.pn +1
but rather augmented their zeal for the institutions
of Moses. A circumstance in their own history, which at
first might have seemed to threaten a dissolution of the
ties that bound them to the temple at Jerusalem, operated
in fact to renovate and strengthen them. This was, the
erection by some of their number, of a temple at Onias in
Egypt, in imitation of that at Jerusalem. Here, the Levitical
rites were punctually observed under priests of the
Aaronic line and Levites of the sacred tribe. For this
they claimed warrant from the prophecy of Isaiah, xix,
19.—“In that day, shall there be an altar to the Lord in
the midst of the land of Egypt.” The adherents of this
movement do not seem to have been numerous, and its
effect was rather to increase the devotion of the people to
the temple at Jerusalem, and the ordinances there maintained.
Among them, was developed the same disposition
which was prevalent in Judea to give undue importance to
multiplied rites of purifying; and hence an increased and
constant necessity of finding, in the Greek language which
they were now adopting, some word suitable to designate
these rites. In that language was the verb, bapto, meaning
(1) to dip; (2) to wet by dipping; (3) to wet, irrespective
of the manner; (4) to dye by dipping, and thence, to
dye, without respect to mode—even by sprinkling. But,
as we have seen, the rites in question were not dippings,
nor were they dyeings, and the word was never used by
the Jews to designate them. From this root, the Greeks
derived the verb baptizo. (1.) Its primary meaning, as
used by them, was,—to bring into the state of mersion.
This meaning had no respect to the mode of action, whether
by putting the subject under the fluid, pouring it over him,
or in whatever manner. In other words, it expressed not
immersion, but mersion,—not the mode of inducing the
state, but the state induced,—that of being embosomed in
the mersing element. From this primary signification, was
derived a secondary use of the word. As any thing that
.bn 155.png
.pn +1
is mersed is in the possession and control of the mersing
element, the word was hence used to express the
establishing of a complete possession and controlling influence.
As we say that a man is drowned,—immersed,—overwhelmed,
in business, in trouble, in drunkenness, or in
sleep; having, in these expressions, no reference whatever
to the mode in which the described condition was brought
about; so the Greeks used the verb baptizo. They spoke
of men as baptized with grief, with passion, with business
cares. An intoxicated person was “baptized with wine,”
etc. In such use of the word, the essential idea is that of
the action of a pervasive potency by which the subject is
brought and held in a new state or condition. On this subject,
no authority could be better or more conclusive than
that of the Rev. Dr. T. J. Conant, a scholar of unquestioned
eminence and whose researches on this subject were undertaken
at the request of the American (Baptist) Bible Union.
The result of his investigations he thus states. “The word,
baptizein, during the whole existence of the Greek as a
spoken language, had a perfectly defined and unvarying
import. In its literal use, it meant, as has been shown,—to
put entirely into or under a liquid, or other penetrable
substance, generally water, so that the object was wholly
covered by the enclosing element. By analogy it expressed
the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which one
was, as it were, inclosed and swallowed up, so that temporarily
or permanently, he belonged wholly to it.”[29] Dr.
Dale has been at the trouble to list and enumerate no less
than forty different words which Dr. Conant employs in his
translations of this word of “perfectly defined and unvarying
import.” It is, however, enough for our present purpose,
that this distinguished scholar here expressly admits
.bn 156.png
.pn +1
with Italic emphasis, that “by analogy,” the word
“expressed the coming into a new state of life or experience,
in which one was, as it were, inclosed and swallowed
up, so that temporarily or permanently he belonged wholly
to it.”
.fn 29
“The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, Philologically and
Historically investigated for the American Bible Union. By
T. J. Conant, D. D.,” p. 158. The italics are by Dr. C.
.fn-
Now, here was the very word required to designate the
Mosaic rites of purifying. Of dippings and immersions,
Israel had none; and, if these had been found in their
ritual, the verbs, bapto, to dip, and kataduo, to plunge into, to
immerse, and the nouns, baphē and katadusis,—a dipping, an
immersion, were at hand and specific in meaning. But they
did want words to express that potency by which the unclean
were, in the words of Dr. Conant, introduced into
“a new state of life,”—a state of ritual cleanness, typical
of the spiritual newness of life in Christ Jesus which God’s
people receive, by the baptism of the Spirit. To express
the working of that change, they appropriated the word
baptizo, to baptize; that is, to cleanse, to purify. Then, to
give name to the rites by which that change was accomplished,
they formed from it the two sacred words, baptisma
and baptismos, words wholly unknown to classic
Greek literature. They are, as to etymology and meaning
identical. By grammarians, the termination, mos, is said
generally to indicate the act signified by the verb, while
ma indicates its effect. But the rule is neither absolute
nor universal; and the sacred writers do not maintain the
distinction. By them baptisma is used alike to signify the
act of baptizing, and the effect, the new state produced by
it. In their writings, the distinction seems to consist in
the employment of baptismos generically, as designating
divers kinds of purifying rites; while baptisma is specifically
applied to the baptism of John and of Christ. It is found
in no other writings of that or preceding ages. Outside
the Scriptures, baptismos occurs once, in the works of
Josephus, who thus designates John’s baptism.[30]
.fn 30
“Antiquities of the Jews,” XVIII, vi, 2.
.fn-
.bn 157.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXVIII.—The Baptism of Naaman.
In the Septuagint or Greek Scriptures, baptizo first appears
in the account of the healing of Naaman. “Elisha
sent a messenger unto him saying, Go and wash in Jordan
seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and
thou shalt be clean.... Then went he down, and dipped
himself seven times in Jordan according to the saying of
the man of God.”—2 Kings v, 10, 14. It is asserted that
here is clearly an immersion.—“He went down and dipped
himself seven times.” Respecting the question thus raised,
it is, in the first place, to be distinctly noticed, that the
decision, whatever it be, can not in any way neutralize or
diminish the force of the argument already developed from
the divers baptisms of the epistle to the Hebrews. Were
we to allow that Naaman was immersed, that fact would
constitute no reply to the demonstration that no immersions
were “imposed on Israel,” although divers baptisms were
imposed. But, that there was no immersion in this case,
will appear in what follows.
1. The word upon which the immersion argument here
rests, is the Hebrew tābal, which is translated, “he dipped.”
As to its meaning in this place, there are several available
sources of information. First, is the manner in which the
word is employed elsewhere in the Scriptures. It occurs,
in all, but fifteen times. It is evident, that while these
places are sufficient to establish the fact that the word was
used as they illustrate, they are wholly insufficient to constitute
a basis for the assumption that it was never
used in a sense not there found, or in a sense not there
doubly illustrated. For example, Gesenius gives, “to
immerse,” as one of the meanings, and appeals to the
text of Naaman as the only example. Without pretending
to emulate the learning of that great scholar, I
venture to assert that, although the definition be not illustrated
by other examples, there is abundant and various
.bn 158.png
.pn +1
evidence that the word is here used as the equivalent of
rāhatz, to wash, according to the proper sense of that word
as already ascertained. The primary and essential idea of
tābal appears to be contact by touch, a contact which may
be of the slightest and most superficial kind, as when the
priest was directed to dip the finger of his right hand in a
few drops of oil held in the palm of his left hand (Lev.
xiv, 15, 16), and when those who bore the ark dipped the
soles of their feet in the brim or edge of Jordan and the
waters instantly fled away. (Josh. iii, 13, 15.) Again, it
is used to describe the staining or smearing of Joseph’s coat
with the blood of the kid. (Gen. xxxvii, 31.) In this
case, there can have been no immersion, since the blood of
a kid would have been wholly insufficient, and the uniform
stain thus induced would have detected the fraud of Joseph’s
brothers, as the violence of a wild beast would not
have produced such a result. How the word, in this place
was understood by the rabbins of Alexandria, is shown by
the Greek of the Septuagint, in which it is represented by
moluno, to soil, to stain, to smear. “They stained or
smeared his coat with the blood.” The same is no doubt
the meaning of Job, when he says to God, “Yet shalt
thou plunge me in the ditch and mine own clothes shall
abhor me.”—Job ix, 31. Not the mode of action, but the
soiling contact, was the thought present to Job’s mind.
The usage of the word in the Scriptures does not justify
the belief that it is ever employed in the energy of meaning
expressed by “plunge.” “Yet shalt thou soil me in
the ditch.”
Another source of information is the direction given to
Naaman by Elisha. He dipped himself seven times “according
to the saying, of the man of God.” What was that
saying? Did Elisha direct him to be immersed seven
times? Elisha sent to him, saying “Go, wash in Jordan
seven times.” The verb, rāhatz, to wash, we have examined.
It means, to perform ablution with water applied to
.bn 159.png
.pn +1
the person. It does not mean, to immerse, nor can the
action expressed by it be accomplished by immersion. It
is, moreover, observable, that, as though to emphasize the
employment of this word, it is twice repeated in the narrative.
Upon receiving Elisha’s message, Naaman exclaims,—“Abana
and Pharpar.... May I not wash in them and
be clean?” And his servants reply,—“If he had bid thee
do some great thing, ... how much rather, when he
saith to thee, Wash, and be clean.” Manifestly, the thing
which the Syrian was commanded, was not, to immerse,
but, to wash himself. And when to the meaning of that
verb, we add the facts already developed as to the customs
of ablution in those lands, the conclusion is manifest. Naaman
was not directed to dip or immerse himself, but expressly,
to wash; and if he was in fact dipped, it was not
“according to the saying of the man of God,” but in express
contravention of it. It may be objected, that a
sprinkling is not a washing. But the Psalmist gives a different
testimony. “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be
clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” Here,
the word, “Wash,” which is made parallel and equivalent
to “Purge me with hyssop,” is not rāhatz, but the yet
stronger term, kābas, scour me. The very designation of
“the unclean,” for whose “cleansing” those rites were appointed
is conclusive on the point. That the sprinklings
thus ordained were, in the law everywhere, viewed as
washings, is undeniable; and in fact, to wash with water
applied, which is the meaning of rāhatz, is the very action
of sprinkling. Moreover, in Ezek. xvi, 9, the cleansing of
the defilement of nidda, for which sprinkling was the ritual
remedy, is described as a washing of the most vigorous
and thorough nature. “Then (rāhatz) washed I thee with
water; yea (shātaph), I thoroughly washed away thy blood
from thee.” How the sprinkling of water can be expressive
of such thorough cleansing, we have already seen. It
is very strikingly illustrated by the language of the Lord
.bn 160.png
.pn +1
to Israel by Ezekiel. “Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you and ye shall be clean; from all your
filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.”—Ezek.
xxxvi, 25.
The usage of the Scriptures, as to words equivalent
to tābal, will shed further light on the present question.
The word is ordinarily represented in the Septuagint
Greek, by bapto. Of this verb, we have already stated
that it means to dip; to wet, by dipping; to wet in any
mode; to stain or dye by dipping; to dye, even by sprinkling.
In the Chaldee of the book of Daniel, the word
equivalent to tābal is tzeba. It thrice occurs in the description
of the calamity of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was cast
out with the beasts of the field, and “his body was wet
with the dew of heaven.”—Dan. iv, 23, 25, 33. In each
of these places, the Septuagint has bapto, an illustration of
the fact that the latter word, even, does not “always
mean, to dip.” If tābal followed the analogy of these its
Greek and Chaldee equivalents, we are to expect among
its secondary meanings that of wetting by affusion. In
the place concerning Naaman, the word by which tābal
is translated into the Greek is baptizo. This fact of itself
makes it certain that the Septuagint translators did not
understand Naaman to have been dipped, or immersed; else
they would have expressed the fact by bapto, or kataduo,
instead of baptizo, which, in their vocabulary, as we shall
presently show, was used to express purification by sprinkling
with the water of separation; as we have already seen
Paul to employ it in the same way.
2. While these facts, of themselves, make it certain
that Naaman was not immersed, there remains evidence
even more conclusive, in the relation which Elisha himself
and this whole transaction sustained to the covenant law,
as given to Israel at Sinai. In considering this case, there
are certain fundamental facts to be held ever in view.
(1.) Leprosy was, at once, a disease and a ritual uncleanness;
.bn 161.png
.pn +1
and was distinctly recognized in these two several
aspects, in the law of God; and hence the leper could not
but be ritually unclean, whilst the mere healing of the
disease left him still unclean. He must be purified as
well as healed. (2.) The ritual law was not a scheme of
arbitrary or unmeaning regulations, but a system of accordant
symbols, each of which had its own distinct meaning,
and all of which together constituted a complete and intelligible
exposition of the doctrine of sin and redemption.
Particularly had the ritual respecting leprosy a meaning
at once manifest, impressive, and profound. So important
was it, in the estimation of the divine Lawgiver of Israel,
that the strict observance of all its requirements was enforced
by a new and special admonition addressed to them
on the banks of Jordan, after the forty years wandering
in the wilderness. “Take heed, in the plague of leprosy,
that thou observe diligently and do according to all that
the priests the Levites shall teach you; as I commanded
them, so ye shall observe to do. Remember what the
Lord thy God did unto Miriam by the way, after that ye
were come forth out of Egypt.”—Deut. xxiv, 8, 9. (3.)
This law had now been in operation for six hundred years,
whilst its regulations were such as to arrest and fix the
attention of all observers. (4.) To Naaman, a Syrian, of
a country immediately contiguous to the land of Israel,
and belonging to a people of kindred blood, language, traditions,
and customs, the Hebrew ideas on this subject, so
interesting to him, can not have been unknown or strange.
Even had he been otherwise ignorant, he could not but
have been informed by the Hebrew maiden at whose suggestion
he undertook his journey to the court of Israel, in
quest of healing. That hers must have been a character
of both intelligence and piety, is evident from the whole
narrative, and especially from the fact that it inspired such
confidence as led the Syrian, at her suggestion, to obtain
from his king letters to the king of Israel, and to go to
.bn 162.png
.pn +1
that court, in the hope of cure, bearing with him rich
gifts, designed as tokens of gratitude. (2 Kings, v, 2-5.)
(5.) The whole history shows this episode in the life of
Elisha to have been any thing but a casual incident. It
bears every mark of a special and extraordinary providence,
designed to bring home to the Syrians and to Israel a signal
testimony to the power and grace of the true God.
The peculiar relation which Elijah and Elisha bore to the
Syrians is illustrated by the fact that, at this very time,
the latter held a commission from God through Elijah to
anoint Hazael to be king of Syria, instead of the reigning
king Benhadad; by Elisha’s subsequent presence in Damascus,
in fulfillment of that commission, and by the application
which Benhadad made to him, to inquire of the
Lord as to the issue of the disease which was then upon
him. (1 Kings xix, 15-17; 2 Kings viii, 7-13.)
3. Elisha treats the case of Naaman as typical in its
nature, and as coming under the provisions of the law for
the cleansing of leprosy. This is manifest from three
things which appear in the very brief narrative. (1) In
his message to Naaman, he distinguishes between the physical
healing, and the ritual cleansing. “Thy flesh shall
come again unto thee; and, thou shalt be clean.” Thus
each is separately promised. (2.) He requires Naaman to
“wash seven times.” The meaning of this seven times we
have seen. It symbolized a radical cure of the evil of
heart leprosy, the native corruption of sin—a cure by
which the sinner will be presented pure and sanctified in
the seventh, or judgment day. The mode of this cure was
represented in the law by sprinkling seven times. The
priest “shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from
the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean.”—Lev.
xiv, 7. (3.) He must wash in the river Jordan,
and nowhere else. But why there? Because the cleansing
of the leper, according to the law must be by sprinkling
with “running water.”—Lev. xiv, 5, 6, 50-52. For
.bn 163.png
.pn +1
the self-washing, no such prescription was given. The
Jordan was appointed, because healing to the leper meant
life to the dead. It meant the renewing grace of the
Holy Spirit, and for this none but the water of life that
flows in the river of the heavenly Canaan will suffice.
And inasmuch as the land of Israel was typical of that
better country, no water so proper for the present occasion
as that which flowed in the one river of Israel. If Palestine
was made a type of heaven, the one river of Palestine
at once became the proper type of that “river of God,
which is full of water.”
4. Naaman recognized the significance of the directions
given by the prophet, and was offended at them.—“Behold,
I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand and
call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand
over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana
and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean?
So he turned and went away in a rage.”—2 Kings v, 11, 12.
Here (1.) Naaman sharply distinguishes between the healing
and the cleansing. For the latter purpose, the waters
of Abana and Pharpar were sufficient for him,—better
than all those of Israel. All he wanted was, that the
prophet should heal him; and for this he was ready to reward
him liberally. But, instead of being treated with
the consideration due to a lordly patron, he feels himself
insulted, by being expected to take the position of an unclean
and humble suppliant; and that, too, at the feet of
the God of Israel. For, (2.) he indicates his understanding
of what was meant by the prophet’s message. If
Elisha had come out and healed the leprosy, as Naaman
expected, it would have been perfectly consistent with the
idolatrous religion of the Syrian to recognize Elisha as a
great prophet, and the God of Elisha as one of the great
gods; although entitled to no exclusive worship from the
Syrians, whose tutelary deity was Rimmon. But, when
.bn 164.png
.pn +1
the prophet, instead of this, sent him to Jordan to be
cleansed, and that by washing seven times, the Syrian
recognized that he was thus required to own allegiance to
the God of Israel, and to humble himself, as utterly unclean
in His sight, and look to him, as alone able to
heal his leprosy, or cleanse his sins. In a word, he was, by
the message of the prophet, brought face to face with the
glad but humbling word of the gospel, as it spake so clearly
in the rites of cleansing for leprosy. That, in the result,
he accepted the good tidings thus announced, may not be
asserted with confidence. But, that he professed to do
so, the narrative assures us. “Behold, now, I know
that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.”—vs.
15. By this profession of faith, and by his application
to Elisha for two mules’ burden of the earth of Canaan,
with which to make an altar to the God of Israel, the
Syrian showed his intelligent appreciation of the issues involved
in the observances required by Elisha, and of the
typical meaning of the land and river of Israel. The purpose
of the earth for which he asked was to make an altar,
after the manner of those appointed in the law; which appear
to have been frames or boxes filled with earth on
which the fire was kindled. (Ex. xx, 24.)
5. The attempt of some writers to derive countenance
to the idea of immersion, in this case, from the Levitical
rites of purifying for leprosy, is wholly futile. They refer
to the self-washings which were required of the cleansed
leper, and assume, without a pretense of proof, that they
were immersions. We have seen that they were not immersions,
but affusions. But, that it was not to them, but
to the sprinklings of the law that the directions of Elisha
refer, is unmistakably indicated by the seven times required.
The self-washings were to be performed but twice. On the
first day, the seven sprinklings were administered, and the
person was then, by the priest, officially proclaimed to be
clean. (Lev. xiv, 7.) It was after this, that the man thus
.bn 165.png
.pn +1
clean, was required to perform the first self-washing. This
was repeated once only,—on the eighth day. This distinction
between the sprinklings which cleansed the leper, and
the self-washings which were required of him as being clean,
is not casual, but essential, and intimately involved in the
difference of meaning between them. By no system of interpretation,
therefore, can seven supposed immersions of
Naaman be identified with the two self-washings required
by the law. To imagine the Syrian to have been directed
to seek cleansing by means of the latter, and not by the
seven sprinklings, would be to suppose him instructed by
the prophet to seek to his own outward righteousness as the
means of purging away his sins, and not to the virtue of
the blood and Spirit of Christ, penetrating to his heart and
renewing the inner man. Self-washing, as dependent upon
and subordinate to the sprinkling of the water and blood,
is beautifully significant of that evangelical obedience and
holiness which believers cultivate, whilst resting wholly on
the righteousness of Christ; and which is acceptable only
thus. But a self-washing, without the sprinkling, or
even magnified to equality with it, can mean nothing else
than a disparagement and rejection of Christ’s blood and
Spirit, and a trusting to our own works of righteousness,—to
a cleansing and holiness self-attained. It would be a
denial of the need of the Spirit’s renewing grace.
6. Israel and the ordinances given her were appointed
to be a gospel beacon to the nations. In furtherance of
this purpose, the rites and ordinances with which she was
endowed were clothed in forms of transparent significance,
selected by divine wisdom as best adapted to set forth the
gospel for men’s instruction. To suppose Elisha, on this
occasion, to have ignored or essentially modified those
respecting leprosy, would imply him to have deliberately
veiled the light which God had kindled for the Gentiles.
If any ritual observances were required of Naaman, the
alternative was inevitable, that they be those appointed
.bn 166.png
.pn +1
in the law, or that by neglect these be dishonored. No
motive for the supposed change can be suggested that will
not imply a disparagement of the neglected rite.
7. The distinctive office successively filled by Elijah
and Elisha was that of prophet to the separated kingdom
of Israel, to whom they were sent to vindicate the repudiated
covenant of Sinai against the apostasies and sins of
that people. (1 Kings, xix, 8, 10, 14-18.) They were
appointed to keep alive in Israel the knowledge and faith
of the covenant God and King whose worship and ordinances
at Jerusalem they had wickedly abandoned. In
the extraordinary circumstances of Naaman the offerings
which the cleansed leper was required to make at the temple
on the eighth day after his purifying, may have been
omitted. But the supposition that the rites proper to the
purifying, itself, were changed without necessity or apparent
motive, so that instead of being sprinkled seven times,
Naaman was seven times immersed, would imply that Elisha
not only thus publicly repudiated the authority of the Levitical
law, but at the same time and in so doing gave direct
sanction to the conduct of Israel, in separating themselves
from the temple at Jerusalem and the ordinances and worship
which, by divine command, were there observed.
The rites of purifying were part and parcel of the system
of ordinances given to Israel and concentrated at the sanctuary,—a
system, in all its parts, congruous and interdependent;
each shedding mutual light on all the rest. If
Naaman was sprinkled seven times, according to the Levitical
order, that fact would of itself have referred him to
the Word and ordinances of God, for light and information,
as to the vastly important questions suggested to him by
the nature and manner of his disease and cleansing. But,
if he was immersed, the observance was without authority
in the law; without example in the Word, then possessed
or afterward given to Israel; without point of contact or
principle of congruity or connection with the system therein
.bn 167.png
.pn +1
unfolded; without explanation anywhere, and without conceivable
motive or meaning, unless it was, to repudiate the
authority of the Levitical law. Instead, therefore, of the
ordinance being a guide line, to lead Naaman to the Word
and worship of the true God, the natural effect of such a
change as is supposed would have been to deter him from
any such inquiries. The facts would have certified him
that the God of Elisha was not the same that reigned at
Jerusalem;—that the doctrine of the one, set forth in the
rite of sprinkling, was manifestly different from that of the
other expressed by immersion,—and that, therefore, the
Word and ordinances of the God who dwelt in Zion were
likely to mislead him, rather than to shed a true light upon
the character of the God of Elisha, by whom he had been
healed. The snare thus presented to the mind of Naaman
would have been the more insidious and fatal in proportion
as he should still have recognized an intimate relation,
or even a kind of identity, between the God of Israel and
the God of Judah. It was a general characteristic of the
ancient idolatries, that the same gods, as worshiped at different
places, were supposed to be endowed with different
attributes and affinities, and to require different rites of
worship. Thus, Zeus Olympius, Jupiter Capitolinus, and
Jupiter Amon, were looked upon as the same deity; but
revealing one character, as on Olympus he was worshiped
by the tribes of Greece; another, as, on the Capitoline
hill he presided over the destinies of mighty Rome; and
yet another to the dark tribes who assembled at his temple
in Thebes in Upper Egypt. Such was the idolatry
which the supposed rite would have tended to confirm in
the mind of Naaman. To all this we are to add the fact
that the very purpose of the miracle wrought by Elisha
was to let the Syrian “know that there is a prophet in Israel.”—2
Kings v, 8. Not, certainly, that Elisha thus proposed
to glorify himself: but to announce himself a prophet
and witness, for the only living and true God, the God
.bn 168.png
.pn +1
of Israel, whose sanctuary was in Zion. (Compare Ib.
15-18.)
8. The fact that no administrator is mentioned, but
Naaman is said to have “baptized himself,” is no embarrassment
to our position. The self-baptism implied by the
phrase, in the English translation, is not required by the
form of the Greek nor of the Hebrew. The same kind of
expression is used, in the directions originally given as to
the water of separation. “If he purify not himself the
third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is
dead, and purifieth not himself ... the water of separation
was not sprinkled on him; he shall be unclean.... A clean
person shall sprinkle on the unclean on the third day and on
the seventh.”—Num. xix, 12, 13, 19. The form of expression
is intended to emphasize the responsibility of the
person in the matter of his own cleansing, and is equivalent
in meaning to the phrase,—“cause himself to be
sprinkled.” Although he can not cleanse himself, he is
not therefore irresponsible. He must seek to the cleansing,
if he would enjoy it. The same form is used by Paul, who
speaks of Ananias as saying to him (Anastas, baptisai),
“Rising, baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins.”—Acts
xxii, 16. In the parallel account, we are told that “he
arose and was baptized.”—Acts ix, 18.
It has been shown already that, in the epistle to the
Hebrews, baptismoi means the sprinklings ordained in the
law for defilements of which leprosy was one. In our next
section, it will appear that the sprinkling of the water of
separation, upon those defiled by the dead, was familiarly
known as a baptizing. And as to the case of Naaman, the
considerations here presented render it certain that baptizo
is there used in the same sense. He was not immersed,
but sprinkled seven times, according to the law. Tābal is
here used, not in a modal sense, but to express a cleansing,
without defining the manner of it.
.bn 169.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section XXXIX.—“Baptized from the Dead.”
The book of Ecclesiasticus, or “The Wisdom of Jesus
the son of Sirach,” is one of the Apochrypha. It was
written by Joshua ben Sira ben Eliezer, a priest, at Jerusalem,
about two hundred years before the coming of
Christ. “The original Hebrew, with the exception of a
few fragments in the Gemaras and Midrashim, is no longer
extant, but we have translations in Greek, Syriac, and
Arabic. The work has been always held in high esteem,
by both Jews and Christians, and was judged by some of
the Talmudists to be worthy of a place among the canonical
Scriptures.”[31] In this work, the priestly author has
written this proverb, “He that is baptized from the dead,
and again toucheth the dead, what availeth his washing?”—Ecclus.
xxxi, 30 (xxxiv, 25 of the English version).
Here, it is unquestionable that reference is had to the
cleansing of those who were defiled by the dead. Such
persons were “baptized from the dead,” that is, purged
from the defilement, incurred through the touch of the
dead, by the sprinkling of the water of separation. It has
been said, by Baptist writers, that the author of the proverb
meant to designate the self-washing which was required
of those who had been thus sprinkled. But, in the first
place, we must again repeat it, the self-washings were not
immersions. In the second, they were not the purification
from the dead. On that point, the law was express.
“The man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify
himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation,
because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord:
the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him;
he is unclean.”—Num. xix, 20. The self-washings are
never called purifyings, nor alluded to by that name. Besides,
as before remarked, on another point, the pre-eminence
thus assigned to those washings, as compared with
.bn 170.png
.pn +1
the sprinklings, is contrary to the whole spirit and tenor
of the law, and would imply a preference given to our own
righteousness, which the former symbolized, over the blood
of sprinkling of the Lord Jesus, and his renewing Spirit,
typified by the latter. Moreover, upon this view, we are
to suppose that the author of the proverb, himself a priest,
ignored that official sprinkling which must be performed
by a clean person, acting in priestly capacity, and which,
in his days, was performed almost invariably by the priests,
and falsely attributed the consequent cleansing to the self-washing,
which was a private personal duty of the cleansed.
On the relative position of the two ordinances, the prayer
of the Psalmist, in his deep sense of guilt and defilement
is very significant. “Purge me with hyssop. Wash me.”
He does not once think of self-washing, but looks up to
the great High Priest for all. It was unquestionably of
the sprinkled water of separation that this writer says,
“He that is baptized from the dead, and again toucheth
the dead what availeth his washing?” Here again we
have an impregnable demonstration. We have before
seen that Paul testifies that the sprinklings of the Mosaic
system were baptisms. We now have the added voice of
the son of Sirach certifying the same thing. By the
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
These witnesses are ignorant or false, or else baptizo
does not here mean, to dip, to immerse.
.fn 31
J. W. Etheridge, in “Jerusalem and Tiberias.” P. 105.
.fn-
This conclusion is yet farther confirmed by the light
which the above proverb sheds upon a passage in the
writings of Paul, which has greatly perplexed expositors.
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,
if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for
the dead?”—1 Cor. xv, 29. Paul is discussing the doctrine
of the resurrection. As elsewhere in the epistle, so
here, he assumes his readers to know the law of Moses.
(Compare 1 Cor. ix, 8-10; x, 1-10.) To it, he, therefore,
appeals.—“You know that there is in the law an ordinance
.bn 171.png
.pn +1
for the ritual restoration of such as, by contact with
the dead, have become ritually dead. But what means
this rite? If the saints shall not really be raised up, to
what intent is this ritual resurrection?” That such was
the meaning of Paul, will hardly be questioned by any
who consider, (1.) That the law of defilement by the dead,
and of purification with the water of separation, was a
statute of universal obligation to Israel, at home, and in
foreign lands: (2.) That the ordinance and its observance
were so familiar that, two hundred years before Christ, it
was made the ground of the proverb above cited. As we
shall presently see, it is mentioned by Philo and by Josephus
as, in their days, universally observed: (3.) That it
was known to Paul by the name of baptism: (4.) That it
meant the giving of life to the dead: (5.) That, hence,
whatever might be Paul’s allusion, it was a fact, throughout
the dwellings of Israel, that, whenever death visited a
house, it involved the consequent necessity of the baptism
of the family and attendants,—a baptism which signified
the resurrection of the dead. It is, therefore, beyond question
that Paul meant to refer to that Levitical purification.
Such were the facts that his readers could not but so understand
him. Moreover, his expression here, and that
which we have heretofore examined concerning the divers
baptisms of the law, mutually illustrate each other and
confirm all our conclusions on the subject.
Thus, starting with the “divers baptisms” of the epistle
to the Hebrews, we have identified them with the seal of
the Sinai covenant and the water of separation. We have
traced the ordinance in the historical books, the Psalms
and the prophets; have found it, in the time of the son of
Sirach, familiarly known as baptism, and have recognized
it in the New Testament itself, referred to by the same
name, by that Hebrew of the Hebrews, the apostle Paul.
We may add that the same apostle again refers to imitations
of this ordinance in his dissuasive against “doctrines
.bn 172.png
.pn +1
of baptisms.” (Heb. vi, 2.) Here, he alludes to those
Pharisaic rites which under the same name were condemned
by the Lord Jesus, who reproved them as “teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men,” concerning their
baptizings. (Mark, vii, 7, 8.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section XL.—Judith’s Baptisms.
Returning to the Apocrypha, the next example of baptism
occurs in the book of Judith. The book dates from
the period of the Maccabean kings of Judah, between one
and two hundred years before Christ; is a historical fiction,
and is designed to present, in the person of Judith, an
ideal type of female piety, courage, and virtue, as conceived
by the Jews of that age. According to the story,
“Nabuchodonosor, the king of Nineveh,” being incensed
against the Jews, had doomed them to destruction. He
therefore sent Holofernes, with a large army to execute his
vengeance. This army being re-enforced by the Ammonites
and the sons of Esau, the mighty host, enters on the
siege of Bethulia, a frontier city of Judah. Surrounding
the city and filling the whole country, they “the
water and the fountain of waters,” upon which Bethulia
depended for its supply. Soon, “all the vessels of water
failed all the inhabitants of Bethulia, and the cisterns were
emptied, so that they had not water, to drink their fill,
one day; for they gave them drink by measure.”—Judith
vii, 12-21.
In this extremity, the elders of the city yield to the
clamor of the famished populace, and promise that if succor
should not come within five days they will surrender
the city to the Assyrians. It is now that the young and
beautiful widow, Judith, appears on the scene. Rebuking
the elders, for their lack of faith and courage, she decks
herself and goes forth to beguile Holofernes, whom, in the
sequel, she slays, in his drunkenness, with his own sword,
and so delivers her nation. When she came to the Assyrians,
.bn 173.png
.pn +1
“the servants of Holofernes brought her into the
tent, and she slept until midnight, and she arose at the
morning watch, and sent to Holofernes, saying, Let my
lord now command that thy handmaid be allowed to go out
for prayer. And Holofernes commanded his body-guard
not to hinder her; and she remained in the tent three
days, and went out nightly into the valley of Bethulia and
baptized in the camp, at the fountain of water. And as
she returned, she besought the Lord God of Israel to direct
her way to the raising up the children of her people”—Jud.
xii, 5-8.
Judith’s baptism, was evidently not one of those required
by the law. It was performed statedly every night,
as a preparation for prayer, and was, no doubt, one of those
washings which Jewish tradition was, at that time, multiplying,
and which were so rife in the days of our
Savior. Judith’s maid was with her, and this baptism
was no doubt performed in the ordinary mode of washing,
with water poured on her hands. As to the place of her
baptism, the language is explicit. It was (en) in the
camp, but (epi) at and not in the fountain. Not only
does the language thus forbid the supposition that she
was immersed in the fountain, but the circumstances were
equally conclusive. She was a young and beautiful woman,
in the midst of a host of rude and licentious soldiers and
followers of the army. They held the fountain with jealous
care, both for the convenience of their own supply,
and as the sure means of bringing Bethulia to surrender.
Judith could not there be private for a moment, even at
midnight, and such exposure as is imagined would have
been an invitation to certain violence, even though there
had been no question of defiling the very fountain whence
the camp drew its supply of water.
Baptist writers, to prove that Judith, nevertheless, immersed
herself, cite the fact that “as she went up (anebē),
she besought the Lord God of Israel to direct her way to
.bn 174.png
.pn +1
the raising up of the children of her people.” But Dr.
Dale has pointed out the fact that the very same language
occurs in a parallel place in the Septuagint Greek, where
no one ever pretended to find an immersion. Rebekah
“went down to the well, and filled her pitcher and went up
(anebē).”—Gen. xxiv, 15, 16. The fountain of Bethulia
was in the valley, to which Judith had to go down from
the head-quarters of Holofernes, which would be in an elevated
position, so as to command a view of the situation.
To suppose the going up to be out of the water, would give
her a time for prayer so brief and in circumstances so peculiar
as to give the suggestion an air of ridicule.
It is well known that the impostor Mohammed was assisted
in constructing his institutions by renegade Jews,
who early became his proselytes. The following precept
of the Koran will illustrate the practice of baptism before
prayer: “O true believers, when ye prepare to pray, wash
your faces and your hands unto the elbows; and rub your
heads and your feet unto the ankles; and if ye be polluted
... wash yourselves (all over). But if ye be defiled,
and ye find no water, take fine sand, and rub your faces
and your hands therewith. God would not put a difficulty
upon you. But he desireth to purify you, and to complete
his favor upon you, that ye may give thanks.”[32] This regulation
by Mohammed is remarkable in relation to that
request of Peter,—“Lord not my feet only, but also my
hands and my head.”—John xiii, 9. Both he and the
prophet of Mecca would seem to have had in view the
same custom of the scribes.
.fn 32
Sale’s “Koran,” chapter v.
.fn-
From the passages thus examined it appears that in
Hellenistic Greek the word, baptizo was employed to designate
two classes of cleansings,—the sacramental sprinklings
of the law, and the self-imposed washings of tradition, the
mode of which, whether performed by affusion or sprinkling,
is not clear. As to the former: the proverb of the
.bn 175.png
.pn +1
son of Sirach is clearly a reference to the sprinkled water
of separation. To the same class, the arguments adduced
entitle us to refer the baptism of Naaman. To the rites
of self-washing the case of Judith is to be assigned,—not
to those appointed by the law, but those imitations of the
scribes which obscured the meaning of the ordinance, as
appointed of God.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLI.—The Water of Separation in Philo and\
Josephus.
Philo, commonly called Judæus, was a Jew of Alexandria,
who was cotemporary with the apostles. He thus
expounds the laws of purification:—
“The law requires him who brings a sacrifice to be
clean in body and soul;—in his soul, from all passions, disorder
and vices, whether in word or deed; and pure in
body, from such things as ritually defile it.[33] And it has
appointed a purification for each of these; for the soul, by
animals suitable for sacrifice;—for the body, by (loutrōn
kai perirrhantēriōn) ablutions and sprinklings.... The
body is purified, as I have said by washings and sprinklings;
nor does the law allow a person washed and sprinkled
once to enter immediately the sacred courts; but requires
him to wait without, seven days; and to be sprinkled
twice, on the third day and on the seventh; and after these,
having washed himself, it admits him to enter and share
the sacred rites. It is to be considered what judgment
and philosophy there is in this. For, nearly all other people
are sprinkled with mere water, the most drawing it
from the sea; some from rivers, and others again out of
vessels of water replenished from fountains. But Moses,
providing ashes from sacrificial fire (and in what manner
.bn 176.png
.pn +1
will be shown presently), directed that some of these
should be put into a vessel, and water poured upon them;
and then dipping twigs of hyssop in the mixture, to sprinkle
those who were to be cleansed.
.fn 33
[Greek: a)ph’ ô(n e)/thos au)to mianesthai].—“From those things which custom
causes to defile it.” [Greek: E)/thos], commonly means a custom
grounded in law. (Compare Acts vi, 14; xv, 1; xvi, 21; xxi,
21; xxv, 16; xxvi, 3; xxviii, 17; etc.)
.fn-
“It is now proper to explain the suitableness of these
ashes. For they are not bare ashes of wood, consumed by
fire, but of an animal suited to such purification. For it
is required that a red heifer which has never borne the
yoke be sacrificed outside the city, and that the high priest,
taking some of the blood, shall seven times sprinkle with it
toward the front of the temple, and shall then burn the
whole animal with its hide and flesh, its viscera and dung.
And when the flame declines, that these three things be
cast into the midst of it;—a stick of cedar, a stick of hyssop,
and a bunch of cummin. And when the fire has
wholly expired, it is required, that a clean person collect
the ashes and deposit them outside the city, in a clean
place.”[34]
.fn 34
Philonis Judæi Opera omnia, Frankofurti, 1691, De Victimas
Offerentibus.
.fn-
Josephus was a Jewish priest, who was made prisoner
by Titus, in the war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem.
He afterward, at Rome, wrote his Jewish “Antiquities,”
and his “History.” He thus describes the manner
of purifying with the ashes of the heifer. “Any persons
being defiled by a dead body, they put a little of these
ashes and hyssop into spring water, and baptizing with these
ashes in water, sprinkled them on the third day and on
the seventh.”[35] This is a literal translation from the Greek
of Josephus; but differs from the popular version of
Whiston. He renders it,—“They put a little of these
ashes into spring water with hyssop, and dipping part of
these ashes in it, they sprinkled them with it,” etc. But
this is a very incorrect translation, is incongruous to the
ordinance as described by Moses, and converts the account
.bn 177.png
.pn +1
into nonsense. According to it, the ashes are in the first
place put into the water, and then part of them “dipped
in it!” How they were recovered from the water, in order
to the dipping, and how the ashes could be dipped in the
water at all, we need not inquire, as the translation is incorrect.
“Baptizing with these ashes-in-water,” truly represents
the original.[36] “Baptizing,” was the action; the
mixture of “ashes in water,” was the element; “sprinkling,”
the mode; and “the third and seventh days,” the
time. In fact, in using the water of separation, according
to the law, there was no dipping of any sort, except of the
hyssop bush, with which the water was sprinkled. The
only action to which Josephus can refer,—that to which
he does undoubtedly refer,—by the word, “baptizing,”
is the purifying rite, of which he immediately states the
form to have been a sprinkling.
.fn 35
Josephus, Antiquities, IV, iv, 6.
.fn-
.fn 36
“[Greek: Bapti/santes te kai\ tês te/phras tau/tês ei)s pêgê\n].” [Greek: Tê~s te/phras
tau/tes] is the partitive and instrumental Genitive, and indicates
the ashes-in-water, as that with which the baptism was to be
performed. (Compare John ii, 7.—“Fill the water pots with
water.”)
.fn-
To get rid of the force of this passage, Baptist writers
have proposed an arbitrary alteration of the text, by the
erasure of the entire clause (te kai—pēgēn) “with these
ashes in water.” The change thus suggested is purely
gratuitous. The reading which they propose is without
the pretense of sanction from any manuscript of Josephus,
and is sustained by no sound principles of criticism. Its
only warrant is the necessities of the Baptist position. On
the contrary, the rendering which we have given is, in
some of the manuscripts of Josephus, enforced by the preposition
(meta) with, after the word, “baptizing.” According
to this version, the passage can be read no otherwise
than as we have given it. “Baptizing with these ashes
in water.”
In the writings of Josephus there is another and very
.bn 178.png
.pn +1
characteristic notice as to the use of the water of separation.
Speaking of the funeral rites, he says, “Our law
also ordains that the house and its inhabitants shall be
purified after the funeral is over, that every one may
thence learn to keep at a great distance from the thought
of being pure, if he hath once been guilty of murder.”[37]
We are not to suppose that the spiritual meaning of these
rites had been so utterly lost by the Jews, that Josephus,
a priest, a Pharisee, a man of extensive learning and reputation,
imagined this to be a true account of the nature
and meaning of the ordinance. But he was speaking in
defense of Judaism, against the assaults of Apion, a Greek
philosopher of Alexandria, at the bar of the pagan philosophy
of Greece and Rome. He affects, for himself, a profoundly
philosophic style and spirit, and aims to vindicate
a similar character for the laws and institutions of Moses.
Knowing that the truths of God as committed to Israel
would be foolishness to the wise, to whose applause he
aspired, he sets them aside in favor of his own “philosophic”
inventions. He seems to have taken the suggestion
from certain heathen observances, of which we shall
see more further on.
The foregoing extracts not only illustrate the law as to
the water of separation, and the use of the word, baptizo, with
reference to it, but indicate the place held by the ordinance
among the observances of Israel, down to the time of Jerusalem’s
desolation.
.fn 37
Josephus against Apion. Book ii, 27.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLII.—Imitations of these Rites by the Greeks and\
Romans.
Placed as was Israel in the very center of the civilization
of the ancient world, and on the direct line of communication
between its peoples and empires, her influence
upon the institutions and religious rites of other nations
must have been very great, and is traceable in every direction.
.bn 179.png
.pn +1
There is reason to believe that Greece and its colonies
in Italy, from which sprang the republic and empire
of Rome, derived from Israel the first great impulses of
their civilization, as well as continual subsequent contributions
to its maintenance and growth. Israel had dwelt in
the land of Canaan about three hundred years before the
supposed era of the siege of Troy, and seven hundred before
the reputed date of the great poems of Homer, from
the silence of which it is evident that to him letters were
wholly unknown. According to the earliest Greek tradition,
Cadmus, “the man of the east,” coming with a colony
of Phœnicians settled in Greece, bringing with him the art
of alphabetic writing. But at what age he lived, or
whether he was not, in fact, wholly a mythical character is
a matter of conjecture. The tradition, however, distinctly
points to Phœnicia as the land whence the art was introduced
into Greece; and the circumstances accord with this
supposition. That the Greek letters were derived from
those called Phœnician is an undoubted fact. The extensive
commerce maintained by the ships of Phœnicia was a
constant and efficient means of disseminating the seeds of
her advancing civilization; and besides, the sages of Greece
were accustomed to travel to Egypt, Phœnicia, and the
east, in search of knowledge; and returned thence with
acquisitions of which all Greece was the beneficiary.
About four hundred years before Christ, Plato himself
was in Egypt in search of knowledge, a student of the
priests of On. At this time, Egypt was full of Jews, and
it is not to be imagined that such an inquirer would wholly
fail to catch some glimpses of the light which shone in
the institutions and literature of Israel.
Many things concur to show that neither Egypt nor
Phœnicia was the original fountain of much that was thus
disseminated to Greece. In some instances, the attendant
circumstances, and in others the internal evidence, unmistakably
indicate an Israelite origin. Phœnicia was a strip
.bn 180.png
.pn +1
of sea-coast, ten or twelve miles wide, lying between the
northern part of the land of Israel and the Mediterranean
Sea. Tyre and Sidon, its two chief cities, were the only
practicable sea-ports on the coast of Palestine. They were
distant, the former, about one hundred and twenty miles,
and the latter, one hundred, from Jerusalem. Their supplies
were derived largely from the fields, the vineyards,
and the olive groves of Israel. (2 Chron. ii, 10; Acts xii,
20.) Except slight provincial differences, the language of
the two people was the same; and the intimacy of the relations
is seen in the fact that the drift of dialect in the two
closely coincided. Hiram king of Tyre, was David’s intimate
friend, and Solomon’s faithful and efficient ally, in the
erection of the temple and his own palace, in adorning
Jerusalem, and in commercial enterprises. His relation
with David, and his message of salutation to Solomon (2
Chron. ii, 12) argue him a professed worshiper of the God
of Israel. Thus, whilst the Phœnician territory was a
mask by which Israel was concealed from the Mediterranean
countries, the Phœnicians, themselves, can not but
have realized a profound impression from the wonderful
system of religious rites and the testimonies of religious
truth which were maintained in Israel and centered around
that temple on Mount Sion, which was a monument of
Phœnician skill in architecture and the mechanic arts. The
ideas thus communicated and the impressions thus produced
must have been borne abroad by every wind that
filled a Phœnician sail, and disseminated to every land that
was touched by a Phœnician prow.
The art of alphabetic writing is an illustration of this.
It did not originate in Phœnicia, but, as internal evidence
demonstrates,—with the Arameans, of whom Israel was a
branch. The Phœnician characters were the same as the
Old Hebrew. Once acquired by that maritime people, the
art was diffused to Greece, to Rome, and the world. The
Egyptians no less than the Phœnicians were idolaters, having
.bn 181.png
.pn +1
lords many and gods many. When, therefore, the
sages of Greece returned from their explorations, prepared
to whisper to their confidential disciples the sublime doctrine
of the divine unity, and even to erect an altar “To
the Unknown God,”[38] we are justified in the conviction that
at some point in the course of their travels, they had
caught an echo of that voice which spake to the twelve
tribes in the wilderness,—“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our
God is one Lord.”—Deut. vi, 4. To the same originals
undoubtedly are to be referred many of the ceremonials
of their religion. Of this, the rules of uncleanness, and
rites of purifying are remarkable illustrations.
.fn 38
That this altar was the expression of a blind though real
groping after the true God, is distinctly attested by Paul.—“Whom
therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto
you.”—Acts xvii, 23. To suppose as do some that the altar was
erected by one who was uncertain which of the tutelary deities
he should propitiate, implies Paul to have resorted to a
weak pretense, founded on the mere jingle of words, which, so
far from constituting an appropriate and impressive basis for
his argument and appeal, would have invited the derision and
contempt of his skeptical audience. He adopted no such artifice;
but appealed to a recognized and affecting fact.
.fn-
Of the various forms of purification among the Greeks,
Plato makes an enumeration.—“The purifications (katharmoi)
both according to medicine and vaticination, both the
pharmacial drugs, (pharmakois), and the vaticinal fumigations
(peritheiōseis) as also the washings (loutra) in such
rites, and the sprinklings (perirrhanseis);—are not all these
effectual to one end,—to render a man pure, both as to
body and soul?”[39]
.fn 39
Plato, in Cratylo, xxii.
.fn-
On this subject, the historian Grote makes some noteworthy
statements.—“The names of Orpheus and Musaeus
(as well as that of Pythagoras, looking at one side of his
character), represent facts of importance in the history of
the Grecian mind, ... the gradual influx of Thracian,
.bn 182.png
.pn +1
Phrygian and Egyptian religious ceremonies and feelings,
and the increasing diffusion of special mysteries, schemes
for religious purification, and orgies (I venture to Anglicize
the Greek word, which contains in its original meaning
no implication of the ideas of excess to which it was
afterward diverted), in honor of some particular god, distinct
from the public solemnities, and from the gentile
solemnities of primitive Greece.... During the interval
between Hesiod and Onomakritus [B. C. 610-510], the
revolution in the religious mind of Greece was such as to
place both these deities [Dyonisus and Demeter, the
Bacchus and Ceres of the Latins] in the front rank....
From all these countries [Egypt, Thrace, Phrygia and
Lydia], novelties unknown to the Homeric men found their
way into the Grecian worship; and there is one amongst
them which deserves to be specially noticed, because it
marks the generation of the new class of ideas in their
theology. Homer mentions many guilty of private or involuntary
homicide, and compelled either to go into exile,
or to make pecuniary satisfaction; but he never once describes
any of them to have either received or required
purification for the crime. Now, in the times subsequent
to Homer, purification for homicide comes to be indispensable.
The guilty person is regarded as unfit for the society
of men, or the worship of the gods, until he has received
it; and special ceremonies are prescribed whereby it is to
be administered. Herodotus tells us that the ceremony of
purification was the same among the Lydians and the
Greeks. We know that it formed no part of the early
religion of the latter, and we may reasonably suspect that
they borrowed from the former.... The purification
of a murderer was originally operated not by the hands of
any priest or specially sanctified man, but by those of a
chief or king who goes through the appropriate ceremonies
in the manner represented by Herodotus, in his pathetic
.bn 183.png
.pn +1
narrative respecting Crœsus and Adrastus.[40] The idea of
a special taint of crime, and of the necessity, as well as
the sufficiency of prescribed religious ceremonies, as a means
of removing it, appears thus to have got footing in Grecian
practice subsequent to the time of Homer.”[41]
.fn 40
But Herodotus does not “represent” the manner of the
purifying of Adrastus. Moreover, the legend of Crœsus and
Adrastus, is fabulous, as appears from internal evidence (see
Rawlinson’s note on the place); and with it, the theory of Grote,
as to the Lydian origin of the Greek purifying rites falls to the
ground. See Rawlinson’s Herodotus, Hist. I. 35.
.fn-
.fn 41
Grote i, 29-35.
.fn-
Again he says,—“Herodotus had been profoundly impressed
with what he saw and heard in Egypt. The wonderful
monuments, the evident antiquity, and the peculiar
civilization of that country acquired such preponderance
in his mind, over his own native legends, that he is disposed
to trace the oldest religious names or institutions of
Greece, to Egyptian or Phœnician original, setting aside,
in favor of this hypothesis, the Grecian legends of Dyonisus
and Pan.”[42]
.fn 42
Ib. 530.
.fn-
In these statements, the eminent historian seems studiously
to avoid a recognition of the direction to which all
his facts so distinctly point. All the countries mentioned
by him border on the Mediterranean, and were in constant
and intimate communication with Egypt and Phœnicia, the
relations of which with Israel are too well known to need
emphasis. They were, in fact, the channels through which
Hebrew ideas must ordinarily pass, in order to gain access
to Greece and the continent of Europe. To whatever
source the Greeks may have been immediately indebted
for the novel ideas of a special stain or defilement, resulting
from crime, and of ritual purifying from it, we know
that they were incorporated in the laws and ritual of Moses
ages before there is a trace of them in any of the countries
mentioned. The disposition of Herodotus to refer
.bn 184.png
.pn +1
them to Egypt and Phœnicia is therefore entitled to
more respectful consideration than our author gives it.
That the Gentile rites in question, however grossly corrupted,
were derived from divine originals, must be manifest
to any one who will compare the significance and
beauty of the Scriptural rites as connected with the spiritual
truths of revelation, which they symbolized, with the
bareness and absurdity by which they are characterized, in
their distorted Gentile forms, detached from the spiritual
connection to which they natively belonged.
On the matters of which it treats, no authority is higher
than Dr. Wm. Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities. As to the present subject, it testifies that
their purifyings, “in every case of which we have any
certain knowledge were connected with sacrifices and other
religious rites, and consisted in the sprinkling of water, by
means of a branch of laurel or olive; and at Rome, sometimes
by means of the aspergillum, and in the burning of
certain materials the smoke of which was thought to have
a purifying effect.”[43]
.fn 43
Smith’s Greek and Roman Antiquities, article, “Lustratio.”
.fn-
Of the Greek heroes the Abbe Barthelemi says,—“They
shuddered at the blood they had spilt, and abandoning
their throne and native land, went to implore the
aid of expiation in some distant country. After the sacrifices
enjoined them by the ceremony, a purifying water
was poured upon the guilty hand, after which they again
returned into society and prepared themselves for new
combats.”[44]
.fn 44
Travels of Anacharsis, Introduction.
.fn-
Of the Romans, Ovid says:—“Our fathers believed
purifications to be effectual for blotting out every crime
and every cause of penalty. Greece was the source of the
custom. She believes the guilty, when purified with lustral
rites, to be freed from the guilt of their evil deeds. Thus
.bn 185.png
.pn +1
Peleus purified the grandson of Actor; and thus Acastus,
with the waters of Hæmus, cleansed Peleus himself, from
the blood of Phocus.—Ah credulous people! who suppose
that the dreadful crime of murder can be obliterated by
(fluminea aqua), running waters.”[45]
.fn 45
Ovidii Fast. ii, vs. 27-46.
.fn-
The same poet describes the festival of Pales, the
tutelary goddess of shepherds. Some days before her festival,
cows were sacrificed and the unborn offspring torn
from their bowels and burned with fire by the eldest of
the Vestals, “that their ashes may purify the people on
the day of Pales.” On the festival day he sings: “I am
called to the Palilia.... Often, truly, have I carried in
my full hand the ashes of the calf and the bean stalks,
hallowed purifiers. Truly I have leaped over the fires
kindled in three rows, and the dripping branch of laurel
has scattered the water.... Go, ye people, seek the fumigation
from the altar of the virgin! Vesta will give it.
By the grace of Vesta, you shall be purified. The blood
of a horse shall be your fumigatory, with the ashes of the
calf, and third the empty husk of the hard bean. Shepherd,
purify your full fed flocks in the early twilight.
Water should first sprinkle them, and a twig broom should
sweep the ground.”[46] Again, he tells of “a fountain of
Mercury near the Capanian gate. If we choose to believe
those who have tried it, it has a divine virtue. Hither
comes the merchant with purse-girdled tunic, and being
purified, draws water which he may carry away in a perfumed
vase. In this, a branch of laurel is moistened, and
with the wet laurel all things are sprinkled that are to
have new owners. He sprinkles his own locks, also, with
the dripping bush, and with a voice familiar with deceit
offers his prayers. ‘Wash away my past perjuries,’ says
he: ‘Wash away the falsehoods of the past day. Whether
I have called thee (Mercury), to witness, or have called
upon the great majesty of Jove, wishing him not to hear;
.bn 186.png
.pn +1
or, if I have been false to any other god or goddess, let
the swift zephyrs carry away my dishonest words, and let
my perjuries be obliterated by to-morrow. Let not the
superior powers give heed to what I may say.’”[47]
.fn 46
Ib. iv, 633-640; 731-736.
.fn-
.fn 47
Ovidii Fast. ii, v, 673-688.
.fn-
In Virgil, Æneas, preparing for flight from the overthrow
of Troy, says to his father,—“Do you, my father,
in your hand take the consecrated things and the ancestral
gods? To me, just returned from such and so recent a
battle and slaughter, it were sacrilege to touch them, until
I shall have washed in a living stream.”[48] In another
place the closing rites at the funeral pyre of Misenus are
thus described,—“The same (Chorinaeus) passed thrice
around his companions with water, sprinkling them with a
gentle spray, and with a branch of the auspicious olive
purified the men and uttered the parting words.”[49]
.fn 48
Æn. ii, 717.
.fn-
.fn 49
Ibid. vi, 229.—The (novissima verba) last or parting words,
were addressed to the deceased,—“Vale! Vale! Vale!” Farewell!
Farewell! Farewell!
.fn-
Of funeral lustrations at Rome, Adams in his Antiquities,
gives this account: “When the remains of the dead
were laid in the tomb, those present were, three times,
sprinkled by a priest with pure water, from a branch of
olive or laurel, to purify them.... The friends when
they returned home, as a further purification, after being
sprinkled with water, stepped over a fire.[50]... The house
itself also was purified and swept with a certain kind of a
broom.” The classic writers frequently refer to similar
observances among the Greeks. Thus, in Euripides, the
people are perplexed as to the death of Alcestis, king
Admetus’ wife, because “they do not see the lustral water
before the door, as is customary at the doors of the dead.”[51]
.fn 50
Compare above, p. #138#.
.fn-
.fn 51
Euripides in Alcest. 398. See, also, Aristophanes in Eccl.
1025.
.fn-
The census of the population of Rome was taken every
five years, and was followed by a lustration of the city.
.bn 187.png
.pn +1
From this custom the word lustrum (a lustration), came to
signify a period of five years. There was also a lustration
for new born infants, when their names were given. For
boys it was usually on the ninth day after birth; for girls,
by some, on the eighth day, and by others, on the fifth, or
the third day, while some performed it on the last day of
the week wherein the child was born. “On the lustral
day, a feast was prepared, over which the goddess Nundina
was supposed to preside. The assembled women handed
the child backward and forward around the fire burning
on the altar of the gods; after which they sprinkled it
with water, in which were mingled saliva and dust.”[52]
Philo Judaeus, was a resident of the Greek colony of
Alexandria. He was a man of learning, and especially
versed in the religious doctrines and rites of the Gentiles,
as well as of Moses, of which he wrote largely. We have
seen that, in contrasting the purifying rites of other nations
with those of Israel, he says that “nearly all other people
are sprinkled with unmixed water, mostly drawing it from
the sea, some from rivers and others again from vessels
replenished from fountains.”[53] This preference of the
water of the sea, probably originated in a desire to differentiate
the Gentile imitations from the divine originals as
observed by Israel. Of it an illustration appears in Euripides.
Iphigenia speaks of Orestes and his companions,
defiled with dreadful crimes,—“First would I (nipsai)
imbue them with holy purifyings.”
.fn 52
Rees’s Encyclopedia, article, “Lustration.”
.fn-
.fn 53
Above, p. #175#.
.fn-
King Thoas. “From springs of waters? Or, from
spray of the sea?”
Iphigenia. “The sea spray (kluzei[54]) washes away
all the crimes of men.”[55]
.fn 54
[Greek: Klyzô] (klyzō) to besprinkle, to water, to rinse, to dash
over. “The sea, besprinkling, washes away all the crimes
of men.”
.fn-
.fn 55
Iphigenia in Taur. 1192-1194.
.fn-
.bn 188.png
.pn +1
The rites used in the Greek mysteries illustrate the same
subject. “The benefits which the initiated hoped to obtain
were security against the vicissitudes of fortune and protection
from dangers both in this life and in the life to come.
The principal part of the initiation, and that which was
thought to be most efficacious in producing the desired
effects, were the lustrations and purifications, whence the
mysteries themselves are sometimes called katharsia or
katharmoi.”[56]
.fn 56
Smith’s Dictionary, article “Mysteria.”
.fn-
Those of Eleusis were a manifest imitation of the Levitical
feast of ingathering or tabernacles. They were celebrated
at the same season,—immediately after the bringing
in of the harvest; and were in honor of Demeter, or Ceres,
the patroness of agriculture. The celebration proper, continued
for seven days, after which there was an additional
eighth day, appropriated to the initiation of those who had
been too late for the regular observances. This, again,
was followed by a ninth day, which was named plēmochoai,
from a vase called plēmochoē. “Two of these vessels were
on this day filled with water or wine,” (Should it not be
“water and wine?”) “and the contents of one thrown to
the east, and those of the other to the west, while those
who performed this rite uttered some mystical words.”[57]
From the appropriating of a ninth day to the outpouring
of the water and wine, it seems probable that the mysteries
were originally imitated from the Levitical feast
before the festival of the outpouring was instituted; and
that when the latter rite was introduced, an additional day
was appropriated to it, so as to avoid any change in what
had become the established and consecrated order of the
preceding days.
.fn 57
Smith, article “Eleusinia.” Compare above, p. #144#.
.fn-
These mysteries were of two orders. The less were
celebrated at Agræ, and were essential as a preparation
for the greater at Eleusis. In the preparatory rites, the
.bn 189.png
.pn +1
candidates were required to keep themselves continent and
unpolluted for nine days; and were purified with water
sprinkled on them, by an officer who was thence called the
hydranos.[58] At Eleusis they offered sacrifices and prayers,
wearing garlands of flowers; and, standing on the skin
of a sacrificial animal, were again purified by the sprinkling
of water by the hydranos.
.fn 58
“[Greek: Y(dranos] (hydranos), a waterer, a sprinkler with water; from
[Greek: y(draino] to water, to sprinkle any one with water, to pour out
libations.”—Liddell & Scott’s Greek Lexicon.
.fn-
That the observances thus illustrated were corrupted
forms derived from the rites and institutions of Moses, is
apparent. So manifest is this, that in the third and fourth
centuries it was made the ground of a specious theory by
means of which the advocates of paganism sought to stay
the progress of Christianity. “Among those who wished
to appear wise, and to take moderate ground, many were
induced to devise a kind of reconciling religion, intermediate
between the old superstition and Christianity, and to
imagine that Christ had enjoined the very same things
which had long been represented by the pagan priests, under
the envelope of their ceremonies and fables.”[59]
.fn 59
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Book II., Part i, § 18.
.fn-
.bn 190.png
There was, no doubt, an element of truth in this conception.
The rites of Gentile idolatry were, it is evident,
corrupted forms derived from divinely appointed institutions,
partly, it may be, by , from the parents of
the race; but chiefly by imitation of the ritual of Moses.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLIII.—Baptism in Egypt and among the Aztecs.
I am indebted to the courtesy of W. H. Ryland, F. S. A.
Secretary of the (British) Society of Biblical Archæology,
for a copy of the proceedings at a meeting held on the 4th
of May, 1880. From it I make the following extract including
part of a communication read from M. Paul Pierret.
It is descriptive of “the Libation Vase of Osor-ur,” preserved
.pn +1
in the Museum of the Louvre (No. 908), an inscription
on which has been deciphered by M. Pierret.
“The vase, of the Saitic epoch, is of bronze, and of an
oblong form, covered with an inscription, finely traced with
a pointed instrument. The text has been published, by
M. Pierret in the second volume of his ‘Recueil d’Inscriptions
du Louvre,’ in the eighth number of the ‘Etudes
Egyptologiques.’ The goddess, Nout, is represented standing
in her sycamore, pouring the water which is received
by the deceased, on one side, and by his soul, on the other.
‘Saith the Osiris, divine father and first prophet of Ammon
Osor-ur, truthful;—Oh, Sycamore of Nout! give me
the water and the breath [of life] which proceed from
thee. That I may have the vigor of the goddess of vigor;
that I may have the life of the goddess of life; that I
may breathe the breath of the goddess of the respiration
of breaths; for I am Toum. Saith Nout;—Oh the Osiris,
divine father, etc., thou receivest the libation from my own
hands; I, thy beneficent mother, I bring thee the vase, containing
the abundant water for rejoicing thy heart by its
effusion, that thou mayest breathe the breath [of life] resulting
from it, that thy flesh may live by it. For, I give
water to every mummy; I give breath to him whose
throat is deprived of it, to those whose body is hidden, to
those who have no funeral chapel. I am with thee. I
reunite thee to thy soul, which will separate itself no more
from thee, never.’”
The Saitic epoch, to which this vase is referred, began with
the accession of Psammetichus I, about 664, B. C., and closed
with the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525. The
parallel period of Jewish history extends from the closing
years of Manasseh’s reign to the time of the machinations
by which the decree of Cyrus for rebuilding the temple
was suspended. But, although the date thus given is such
as might suggest the idea of derivation from the institutions
of Moses, it seems highly probable that the inscription
.bn 191.png
.pn +1
presents a vestige, in a greatly corrupted form, of the
primitive faith touching the resurrection, as held by Noah
and the patriarchs of the old world, and transmitted to the
founders of the Egyptian empire. Whatever the view
adopted on that point, the relation of the inscription to the
subject of the present treatise is manifest and very interesting.
Not only does it very strikingly illustrate the doctrine
of life to the dead, as symbolized by the effusion of
water, but it brings together the two symbols of water and
the breath of life, in such a manner as presents a very remarkable
analogy to the similar association of ideas presented
in the scene of Pentecost, as unfolded hereafter.
Very remarkable was the rite of infant baptism, as it
was found by the Spanish conquerors among the Aztecs of
Mexico.[60]
.fn 60
As this work goes into the hands of the printers, the newspapers
announce that “the Rev. Professor Campbell of Montreal
has discovered that the Hittite and Aztec alphabets are
identical, and by applying the latter to the former, he has been
enabled to read inscriptions belonging to the ninth century before
Christ.” Should this announcement prove true, it brings
the Aztecs into a relation to Israel which the reader will at once
recognize.
.fn-
“When everything necessary for the baptism had been
made ready, all the relations of the child were assembled,
and the midwife, who was the person that performed the
rite of baptism, was summoned. At early dawn, they met
together in the court-yard of the house. When the sun
had risen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms,
called for a little earthen vessel of water, while those
about her placed the ornaments which had been prepared
for the baptism in the midst of the court. To perform the
rite of baptism, she placed herself with her face toward the
west, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies....
After this she sprinkled water on the head
of the infant, saying, ‘O, my child! take and receive the
water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and is
.bn 192.png
.pn +1
given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is
to wash and to purify. I pray that these heavenly drops
may enter into your body and dwell there: that they may
destroy and remove from you all the evil and sin which
was given you before the beginning of the world; since all
of us are under its power, being all the children of Chalchivitlycue
She then washed the
body of the child with water, and spoke in this manner:
‘Whence thou comest, thou that art hurtful to this child;
leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth anew,
and is born anew; now is he purified and cleansed afresh
and our mother, Chalchivitlycue, again bringeth him into
the world.’ Having thus prayed, the midwife took the
child in both hands, and lifting him toward heaven, said,—‘O
Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom thou hast
sent into the world, this place of sorrow, suffering, and penitence.
Grant him, O Lord, thy gifts, and thine inspiration,
for thou art the great God, and with thee is the
great goddess.’ Torches of pine were kept burning during
the performance of these ceremonies. When these things
were ended, they gave the child the name of some one of
his ancestors, in the hope that he might shed a new luster
over it. The name was given by the same midwife or
priestess who baptized him.”[61]
.fn 61
Sahagun. Hist. de Nueva Espana, vi, 37. In Prescott’s
“Conquest of Mexico.” Vol. III, p. 385.
.fn-
How like, yet how different, the Græco-Roman, the
Egyptian, and the Mexican rites, from each other, and
from those of Israel and of Christ, appears at a glance.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLIV.—The Levitical Baptisms in the Christian\
Fathers.
The writers of the primitive church distinctly recognize
the Old Testament sprinklings, and especially the water of
separation, by the name of baptism. By the same name,
they designate the idolatrous imitations above described.
.bn 193.png
.pn +1
Tertullian was born about fifty years after the death of
the apostle John. In allusion to the renewing efficacy
which he attributed to Christian baptism and the futility
of the Gentile rites, he says,—“The nations, strangers to
all understanding of true spiritual potencies, ascribe to
their idols the self-same efficacy. But they defraud themselves
with unwedded waters; for they are initiated, by
washing, into certain of their sacred mysteries—as for example
of Isis, or Mithras. Even their gods themselves
they honor with lavations. Moreover, everywhere, country
seats, houses, temples and whole cities are purified by
sprinkling with water carried around. So, it is certain
they are imbued (tinguntur) in the rituals of Apollo and
Eleusis; and they imagine this to accomplish for them
renewing and impunity for their perjuries. Moreover,
among the ancients, whoever was polluted with murder,
expiated himself with purifying waters.... We see here
the diligence of the devil, emulating the things of God, since
he even administers baptism to his own.”[62]
.fn 62
Tertull. de Baptisma, chapter v.
.fn-
Here, Tertullian expressly designates these rites of the
Gentile idolatries by the name of baptism, and represents
them as imitations of the divinely appointed ordinance.
Some he distinctly describes as sprinklings, and among
them evidently refers to Ovid’s representation of the dishonest
merchant, sprinkling himself to wash out his “perjuries.”
He does not allude to immersion, and in fact that
form of rite was not found among the Greek and Roman
superstitions. The only difference which Tertullian recognizes
between the idolatrous rites and Christian baptism is
indicated by the phrase (viduis aquis), “unwedded,” or
“widowed, waters,” by which he designates the element
used in the pagan rites. His meaning, here, is to be found
in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which already
prevailed in the church; according to which, it was believed
that, in baptism, in response to the invocation of
.bn 194.png
.pn +1
the officiating minister, the Holy Spirit descended upon the
water, imparting to it a divine potency to produce a new
birth in the recipient of the rite. Thus, the waters of
Christian baptism were married waters, as being capable
of generating life; whilst the others were unmarried,—unendowed
with any “spiritual potency.”
It is further worthy of special notice, that Tertullian
here refers, among other Gentile imitations of baptism, to
that purgation for murder, by affusion of water, from which
evidently Josephus derived his preposterous explanation of
the sprinkling of the water of separation, for defilement by
the dead. The probability is great that the Greek purgation
was derived from that appointed for the elders of
Israel, in the case of a concealed murder.
Jerome, living between A. D. 340 and 420, comments
thus upon Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27.—“I will pour out or
sprinkle (effundam sive aspergam), upon you clean water
and ye shall be cleansed from all your 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.... It is to be observed that a new heart and a
new spirit may be given by the pouring out or sprinkling
of water.” Again, he paraphrases;—“I will no more pour
out on them the waters of saving baptism, but the waters
of doctrine and of the word of God.”—Jerome v, 341.
Ambrose, bishop of Milan from A. D. 374 to 391, thus
expounds the 7th verse of Psa. li.—“He asks to be cleansed
with hyssop, according to the law. He desires to be washed
according to the gospel, and trusts that if washed he will
be whiter than snow. He who would be purified by typical
baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by a
hyssop bush.”[63]
.fn 63
Ambrosii Opera, in Psa. li.
.fn-
Again he says, “He (the priest), dipping the living
sparrow, with cedar, scarlet and hyssop, into water in
which had been mingled the blood of the slain sparrow,
.bn 195.png
.pn +1
sprinkled the leper seven times, and thus was he rightly
purified.... By the cedar wood, the Father, by the
hyssop the Son, and by the scarlet wool, having the brightness
of fire, the Holy Spirit, is designated. With these
three, he was sprinkled who would be rightly purified, because
no one can be cleansed from the leprosy of sins, by
the water of baptism, except through invocation of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.... We are
represented by the leper.”[64]
.fn 64
Ibid., in Apocal. cap. 6.
.fn-
Again, addressing the newly baptized, he says,—“You
took the white garments, to indicate that you cast away
the cloak of sin and put on the spotless robe of innocence;
whereof the prophet said: ‘Thou shalt sprinkle me with
hyssop and I shall be clean, thou shalt wash me, and I
shall be made whiter than snow.’ For he that is baptized
appears cleansed both according to the law and the gospel;
according to the law, since Moses, with a bunch of hyssop
sprinkled the blood of a bird; according to the gospel, because
the garments of Christ were white as snow, when,
in the gospel, he showed the glory of his resurrection. He
whose sins are forgiven is made whiter than snow.”[65]
.fn 65
Ibid. Lit. ad initiandos. c, 7.
.fn-
Cyril lived in the next century. He was bishop of
Alexandria, A. D. 412-444. In his exposition of Isaiah
iv, 4, he says, “We have been baptized, not with bare
water, nor with the ashes of a heifer,—We are sprinkled
[with these] to purify the flesh, alone, as says the blessed
Paul,—but with the Holy Spirit, and fire.”
Thus, from the translation of the Old Testament into
Greek down through the time of Christ and the apostles,
and to the middle of the fifth century, the Levitical sprinklings
were known and designated as baptisms. Further
we need not trace them.
.bn 196.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part VI. | STATE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLV.—Points established by the foregoing Evidence.
A review of the preceding pages will discover the
following points to have been established.
1. Baptism was a rite familiar among the Jews at the
time of Christ’s coming, and not a new institution then
first introduced.
2. Paul being witness, it was an ordinance imposed on
Israel at Sinai, as part of the Levitical system.
3. There is no trace, in the Levitical law, of an ordinance
for the immersion of the person, in any circumstances,
or for any purpose whatever.
4. There is not, anywhere, in the Old Testament an
allusion to immersion as a symbolic rite, nor a figure derived
from it, although those Scriptures are full of allusions
and figures referring to the symbolic import of the pouring
and sprinkling of water.
5. There was an ordinance for the immersion of certain
things very slightly defiled; which at once illustrates
the ritual value of immersion as compared with sprinkling,
and the plainness of the language where immersion was
meant.
6. The baptisms, therefore, to which Paul refers as
having been “imposed on” Israel, could not have been
immersions, and the word, baptizo, did not in his vocabulary
mean, to immerse.
7. The only institutions to which he can have referred
are comprehended under the two heads of, administered
rites, and self-performed washings.
.bn 197.png
.pn +1
8. The self-washings were not sacraments, or seals of
the covenant, but monitory symbols of duty.
9. The gradation of these washings, the frequency and
circumstances of their observance, and the limited facilities
available, render it impossible that they can have been
immersions.
10. Their symbolic significance, the words used to describe
them, the customs as to ablutions, and the washings
of the priests in the court of the sanctuary, and of the
high priest in the holy place, concur to demonstrate that
they were ablutions performed by affusion.
11. The administered rites were sacramental seals of
the covenant. They were essentially one in meaning, office,
and form; and were invariably performed with a hyssop
bush, by an official administrator, sprinkling the recipient
with living water, in which was the blood or ashes of
sacrifice.
12. In the Hellenistic Greek, the language of the Septuagint,
the Apocrypha, and the New Testament, these
purifications by sprinkling were called baptisms, and they
were known and designated by that name by the primitive
fathers of the Christian church.
13. These sprinklings of the law were the “divers
baptisms” of Paul. So far, therefore, from baptizo meaning
to dip, or, to immerse, and nothing else, it is an indisputable
fact that for at least fifteen hundred years after the
first institution of the rite, baptism was always performed
by sprinkling.
14. The ordinance was first instituted to seal the covenant
by which the church of God was founded in Israel;
and that form of it in which the ashes of the red heifer
were used was divinely appointed as the ordinary rite for
the reception of applicants to the privileges of that covenant
and church.
15. Its symbolism set forth all that is recognized in
the Scriptures as meant by Christian baptism. Especially
.bn 198.png
.pn +1
and distinctively was it the sacrament of the purification,
or remission of sins.
16. The figure presented in the form of sprinkling or
pouring is derived from the rain descending out of heaven,
penetrating the earth and making it fruitful; and it signifies
the Spirit of life from God imparted to the dead, entering
the heart, purging its corruption, and creating new
life. To the case of indwelling corruption, with reference
to which this rite was appointed, no external washing, such
as immersion is supposed to represent, can be of any avail.
17. Affusion is the constant form of action in the ritual
law, whether with water, blood, or oil, to signify the
efficient agency of the Lord Jesus, in all the functions of
administration in his mediatorial office.
18. The recipients of the Levitical baptism, were, at
its first institution, the whole congregation of Israel, old
and young, thus purified from the defilements of Egypt,
sealed unto the covenant of God, and installed as his
church. Afterward, they were all, without distinction of
sex, age, or nation, who having been suspended for any
cause from the communion of the church of Israel, sought
in the appointed way restoration; or who were received
into it, as infants or proselytes.
19. While this rite was the door of admission to the
privileges of the covenant, at Sinai, and so long as the
Levitical system survived, it is appropriated by the Spirit,
as the chosen figure by which is set forth, in prophecy, the
bestowal of the grace of Christ upon the Gentiles, in the
gospel day, and upon Israel, restored. “So shall he
sprinkle many nations.” “Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and ye shall be clean.”
20. The figures of speech corresponding to the forms
of sprinkling and pouring appear everywhere in the Old
Testament. Pervading and determining the entire structure
of the ritual law, they reappear continually, in the
historical records, in the devotional and penitent utterances
.bn 199.png
.pn +1
of the Psalmist, the discourses of the Preacher, and the
expostulations and warnings of the prophets, and in their
glad anticipations of the grace of the coming Messiah.
With one and the same spiritual meaning everywhere,
these figures pervade and control the whole texture of
thought and mode of expression of the sacred writers.
21. This rite of purification by sprinkling was not only
thus familiar to Israel, but, under corrupted forms, it had
been disseminated throughout the civilized world; so that
when the apostles went forth to carry the gospel to the
nations, the ideas of sin and guilt, defilement and cleansing,
thus nourished, were a very important element in the providential
preparation of the world to appreciate and accept
the salvation of Christ. While such was the case, the fact
is equally significant that among the nations contiguous to
Israel there is no trace of ritual purification by immersion,—a
form of observance which, had it existed in
Israel, could not have failed of imitation by her idolatrous
neighbors.
Thus assiduously and multifariously were the people of
Israel taught, and trained—by instructions, by warnings,
by promises, by rites and ceremonies, enjoined and observed
at the sanctuary and at home, which laid hold upon them
in every relation of their being and every function of their
lives—to conceive of themselves in all their sinfulness and
need, and of the coming Messiah in his offices of grace, in
the light of this ordinance, and according to the similitude
embodied in it. For fifteen centuries these influences
were continually at work, until the very bent and tendency
of their thoughts and conceptions, in so far as they yielded
themselves to the divine agencies thus applied, were
moulded to the forms of those rites.
In view of the facts thus developed, two questions present
themselves for thoughtful consideration as we proceed
with our inquiry. (1.) Is it to be imagined that John and
Jesus, in coming to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament,
.bn 200.png
.pn +1
which were embodied in sprinkled baptism, would
ignore that ordinance, and silently substitute in its place
the rite of immersion; thus bringing to naught and repudiating
the products of the divine discipline so assiduously
pursued through all those centuries, and dissolving every
tie of association between the gospel of Christ and the
hopes and expectations which the saints had been taught
to cherish, by the unanimous testimony of the law, the
prophets, and the Psalms, all speaking in the language of
the repudiated rite? (2.) Since the name of baptism, was,
beyond question the designation used for the Levitical
sprinklings, how else can we understand John, Christ, and
the apostles, than as meaning the same thing, in the similar
use which they make of the same word?
.il fn=i_200.jpg w=350px ew=75%
.ca
The Greek Bath.—From Sir. Wm. Hamilton’s
vases, in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities; article “Balneæ.”
.ca-
.bn 201.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
Book II. | NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.
.sp 4
.h3
Part VII. | INTRODUCTORY.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLVI.—State of the Question.
Before entering upon an examination of the New
Testament, it will be well to notice distinctly what, at
this stage of our inquiry, is the precise state of the question
to which our attention is directed. In a word, two
rites present themselves, each claiming to be the true and
legitimate ordinance which Christ commanded to be dispensed
to all nations.
On the one hand is the ritual sprinkling of water. In
this rite, we have an ordinance instituted at Sinai by divine
command, with specific directions as to the mode of
observance, and abundant exemplification in the history
of Israel and the writings of the Old Testament,—an ordinance
by which the tribes of Israel and the Gentile children
of Midian were both alike received and sealed unto
the covenant of God,—its rites replete with the richest gospel
meaning, as expounded by poets and prophets, and
constituting in connection with the Lord’s supper, a clear
and symmetrical representation of the whole plan of grace.
In this ordinance, the sprinkling of water for the ritual
purging of sin, is a lucid symbol of the very baptizing
office which is now fulfilled from the throne of heaven by
Him whom John fore-announced as the Baptizer with the
Holy Ghost. That the doctrine which the New Testament
identifies with Christian baptism was symbolized by the
.bn 202.png
.pn +1
ordinance, in its Old Testament form, can not be successfully
questioned; nor that there was a beautiful symmetry,
congruity and significance in each several part and feature
of the observance. It thus stands forth, luminous with
most precious gospel truth. Appointed of God at Sinai, as
the most fitting form under which to figure the first act of
His grace, in the bestowal of salvation on sinners,—honored
as the rite by which the church was at the beginning consecrated
to her exalted office, as God’s witness and herald
to the nations,—it comes to the New Testament church,
hoary and venerable with a history of fifteen centuries,—embalmed
and hallowed by commemoration in the poetic
strains of the psalmist and the brightest visions of the
prophets, and fragrant from association with the profoundest
and most precious experiences of God’s people, in all
those centuries, and with every beam of hope for a better
life beyond, which shone into their stricken hearts, in the
times of bereavement and mourning. It comes, its image
indelibly stamped on the face of God’s word, and its conceptions
therein transmitted to blend with the clearer visions
of hope revealed to the gospel church, by Him, in whom
life and immortality are brought to light.
On the other hand is that form of observance in which
the person of the subject is immersed in water, as a symbol
of the burial of the Lord Jesus. For this rite, no
higher antiquity is claimed, by its advocates, than that involved
in its supposed institution by the Lord Jesus, after
his resurrection. It has no precedent in the Levitical ritual,
nor place among the figures employed by the Old Testament
writers. The prophets did not foreshadow it in
their imagery, nor the psalmist in his strains. All other
rites of divine authority, are distinctly described, both as to
office and form. But, of the rite of immersion, there is
neither description nor explanation anywhere in the Scriptures.
Its evidence stands wholly in definitions, contrary
to the unanimous testimony of lexicographers, unsustained
.bn 203.png
.pn +1
by any broad inductions from the facts and analogy of
Scripture, and at variance with the conclusions which such
induction demands.
And when we examine the relations and details of the
rite, we find incongruity and contradiction conspicuously
displayed. If the rite be regarded as a typical seal of the
covenant of grace, as are all sacraments, it follows that
the administrator represents the Lord Jesus, administering
the true baptism, the real seal of that covenant. But, if
baptism is by immersion, to represent the burial of the
body of the Lord Jesus, we are reduced to the alternative
that the office of the administrator means nothing, in which
case we have a burial with no one to perform it;—or, that
he represents Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus; by
whom the body of Jesus was laid in the sepulcher.
Again, in the Scriptures everywhere, and especially,
and in the most express terms, by the Lord Jesus himself
(John iv, 14; vii, 37-39), living water is recognized as the
divinely appointed symbol of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit
of quickening and life. How beautifully and richly appropriate
to this purpose it is, we have seen. But, according
to the immersion theory, the dipping of the person in this
element,—that is, mersion in water of life, represents the
consigning of the body of Jesus to the grave, the den of
corruption and death!
Besides, the supposed resemblance of this rite to the
burial of Christ’s body is a transparent misconception. It
results from the transfer to Palestine of ideas derived from
the wholly different western method of interment. In the
sense required by immersion, Jesus never was “buried.”
The sepulcher of Joseph, in which his body was laid was
not a grave, but a spacious above-ground chamber. Such
were its dimensions that, at one time, on the morning of
the resurrection, there were present in it “Mary Magdalene
and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and other
women,” at least five or six persons, and with them the
.bn 204.png
.pn +1
two angels before whom they fell prostrate. (Luke xxiv,
1-10.) To this day, the hillsides around Jerusalem and
throughout Palestine are pierced with innumerable such
chambers, excavated horizontally in the rock, and frequently
used as dwellings by the present inhabitants. Such was
the sepulcher of Jesus,—an artificial chamber with a perpendicular
door, so that Peter and John and the women
could by stooping walk into it.—John xx, 5-8. The entombing
of Jesus was no more a burial, in the sense required
by the immersion theory, than was the laying of the body
of Dorcas in an upper chamber. (Acts ix, 37.) The supposed
similitude of immersion in water is a figment of the
imagination, in entire disregard of the real facts.
But, even should we allow the ordinance to be a true
and fitting symbol of the burial of Christ, it remains void
of all spiritual significance. Study it as we may, it teaches
nothing,—it means nothing. In all other sacraments the
plan of salvation, in one or other of its grand features, is
lucidly represented. The Lord’s supper is the acknowledged
symbol of Christ’s atonement and death, and of the manner
in which he imparts to his people the benefits of that
death,—while they by faith feed upon his broken body.
According to the immersion theory, baptism represents and
shows forth the burial of the dead body of Jesus, contradistinguished
from his death, as symbolized in the Lord’s
supper. But that burial is a thing wholly unimportant
and insignificant, in itself, whether viewed as to the fact or
the mode. No emphasis is ever in the Scriptures put upon
either, nor spiritual meaning attributed to them. Thus, if we
admit immersion to a place among the ordinances, it must
remain a mere form, shedding no ray of divine light,—an
opaque spot among the luminaries in the instructive constellation
of Scripture rites. The result moreover of accepting
this ordinance is, to strip the New Testament church
of all sacramental knowledge of the power and glory of
Christ’s triumphant sceptre. In Levitical baptism, the
.bn 205.png
.pn +1
Old Testament church had a most beautiful pledge of
his triumph over death and a symbol of his grace shed
down from the throne of his glory. But, upon the immersion
theory, all this is utterly ignored in the New Testament
ritual, and all attention directed to the humiliation,
sufferings and death,—one sacrament setting forth his
death, and the other his burial; whilst both are left void
of meaning; since the intent of the abasement can only be
found in his exaltation, and the baptizing office exercised
from his throne. We are to believe that at the very
moment when his exaltation became a glorious reality,
and his baptizing office an active function, and when these
facts had become the very crown and sum of the gospel
thereupon sent forth to the world, all trace of them was
obliterated from the sacramental system, to the marring of
its symmetry and the utter destruction of its completeness
and adequacy as a symbolical gospel.
Moreover, it is the office of the rite of baptism, to seal
admission to the benefits of the covenant, in the bosom of
the visible church. Appropriate to this office, the Old
Testament rite was a symbol of that renewing and cleansing
which the Lord Jesus by his Spirit gives, in the bestowal
upon his people of the benefits of the better covenant,
and the fellowship of the invisible church. The same import
is attributed to baptism throughout the New Testament.
But in the rite of immersion, as symbolizing the
burial of the Lord Jesus, not only is this meaning excluded,
but the ordinance has no conceivable congruity to the office
which it fills. Dr. Carson attempts to evade this difficulty
by the assumption that there are two distinct emblems in
baptism,—one, of purification by washing; another of
death, burial and resurrection, by immersion.[66] Then, we
are to understand that in baptism, the administrator represents
at once, the men by whom the body of Jesus was laid
in the sepulchre, and the Lord Jesus himself, dispensing
.bn 206.png
.pn +1
the baptism of his Spirit! The water symbolizes both the
grave which is the abode of death and corruption, and the
Holy Spirit of life! And the immersion of the person of
the baptized represents at one and the same time, the
placing of the body in the grave, and the bestowal of his
Spirit by Jesus, for quickening and sanctifying his people!
Manifestly, the two sets of ideas thus brought together,
as involved and represented in the one form, are
wholly irreconcilable. They are not merely incongruous,
but mutually destructive. To assert water, in one and the
same act, to signify the Spirit of life, and the corruption
of the grave; or an immersion to symbolize, at once, the
burial of the dead body, and the quickening of dead
souls, is to deny it to have any meaning at all. The rite
may be labelled with these incongruous ideas. But they can
not be made to cohere in it. The theory ignores and contradicts
the true nature of the rites of God’s appointment;
which are not mere mnemonical tokens, but representative
figures, ordained as testimonies, which convey intelligible
expression of their meaning by their forms; and are therefore
constructed upon fixed and invariable principles, and
characterized by definiteness and unity of meaning.
.fn 66
Carson on Baptism, pp. 265-268.
.fn-
Are these difficulties evaded by falling back to the position
of the first Baptist confession,—that baptism “being
a sign, must answer the thing signified, which is, the
interest the saints have in the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ; and that as certainly as the body is buried under
the water and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies
of the saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day
of the resurrection?” This is, to abandon the very citadel
of the cause, which consists in the position that the form
and meaning of the ordinance are to be determined by a
strict interpretation of the classic meaning of the word
baptizo. That word never means “burial and resurrection,”—the
immersion and raising up of the subject. It
sometimes means a submersion; that, and nothing more.
.bn 207.png
.pn +1
This is now distinctly admitted by the ablest representatives
of the immersion theory, as we shall see abundantly
evinced before we close.
Such are some of the considerations that present themselves,
as, at this point in our inquiry, we view the two
diverse rites which assume the name of Christian baptism.
Their claims are now to be judged, by a comparison of the
New Testament evidence, with what has been already concentrated
from the law, the prophets, and the Psalms;—writings
all of them equally authoritative and divine.
.il fn=i_207.jpg w=350px ew=75%
.ca
The Greek Bath.—The god, Eros, presides. From
Sir. Wm. Hamilton’s vases, in Smith’s Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Antiquities; article “Balneæ.”
.ca-
.bn 208.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part VIII. | THE PURIFYINGS OF THE JEWS.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLVII.—Accounts of them in the Gospels.
The fact has been referred to already that at the great
passover, in the days of Hezekiah, to which the remnant
of the ten tribes were invited by the king, “a multitude
of the people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh,
Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet
did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written,”
not being “cleansed according to the purification of the
sanctuary;” that, thereupon, a plague was sent among
them; but at the intercession of the king, the Lord healed
the people. (2 Chron. xxx, 17-20.) In the law, it appears
that, at the entreaty of certain persons, who, at the regular
time of the passover, were defiled by a dead body, provision
was made for a second passover, to be kept a month
later, by such as, by reason of defilement, or absence at a
great distance, could not keep it at the appointed time.
(Num. ix, 6-11.) These facts illustrate the statement of
John respecting a certain occasion when the “passover
was nigh at hand; and many went out of the country up
to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.”—John
xi, 55. The self-washings could all be performed by
the people at home. But, in the later period of Jewish
history, the ashes were kept at Jerusalem, and the sprinkling
of the unclean usually performed there by the priests
alone. Hence, the coming of these Jews to Jerusalem for
purifying before the feast. It is thus evident that at all
the annual feasts, the preparatory purifying of the people
must have been a very conspicuous feature of the occasion,
.bn 209.png
.pn +1
a fact of no little significance, as bearing upon the observances
in the Eleusinian mysteries, already referred to.
We have shown the name of baptism to have been
used to designate both the Levitical rite of sprinkling
with the water of separation and the ritual purifyings
invented by the scribes. With the growth of ritualistic
zeal, the occasions for the latter observances were multiplied.
The earliest allusion to them, in the life of our
Savior, appears in connection with his first miracle, wrought
in Cana of Galilee at the marriage feast. “There were
set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the
purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins
apiece.”—John ii, 6. That this provision for the purposes
of ritual purifying upon such an occasion was absolutely
necessary, in obedience to the traditions of the scribes,
will presently appear.
The next occasion on which these rites come into notice,
is recorded by Luke. In the course of our Lord’s second
tour through Galilee, after having preached the gospel to
a vast concourse, “a certain Pharisee besought him to dine
with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And
when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not
first baptized (ebaptisthē), before dinner. And the Lord
said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside
of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is
full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that
made that which is without make that which is within
also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have;
and behold all things are clean unto you.”—Luke xi,
37-41.
The next incident is mentioned very briefly by Matthew
(xv, 1-9), and more fully in Mark. The apprehensions
of the rulers at Jerusalem seem to have been aroused by
reports of Christ’s ministry, and the excitement caused by
it among the people of Galilee. And as they had formerly
sent messengers to challenge John, so, now, scribes and
.bn 210.png
.pn +1
Pharisees from Jerusalem were on the watch to find occasion
against Jesus. And “when they saw some of his
disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen
hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and
all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not,
holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come
from the market, except they baptize (ean mē baptisōntai),
they eat not, and many other things there be which they
have received to hold, as the baptisms (baptismous), of cups
and pots, brazen vessels and tables” (or “beds.” So the
margin and the Greek.)—Mark vii, 1-4.
These are the only places in which the ritual purifyings
of the Pharisees are so mentioned as to shed light upon
the subject of our inquiry. In them, we trace three distinct
observances. These are enumerated by Mark, who
represents them as common to “the Pharisees and all the
Jews.” They are, (1) Washing the hands, before meals;
(2) Baptism, after coming from the markets; (3) The
baptisms of utensils and furniture.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLVIII.—Washing the Hands before Meals.
It appears to have been a custom, enjoined by tradition
and observed by all the Jews, always to wash the
hands ritually before eating. The origin and meaning of
the tradition may probably be inferred from a few Scriptural
facts. (1.) Flesh was used for sacrifice, before it
was given to man for food. Compare Gen. i, 29; iv, 4;
viii, 20; ix, 3. It was thus transferred from the altar to
the table. (2.) One essential idea in the Levitical system
as to sacrifice, was communion of Israel with God at his
table. Of this, the passover was but one among many
illustrations which the books of Moses contain. (Deut.
xii, 17, 18, 27, etc.) (3.) Hence, all eating of flesh was
treated as sacrificial in its nature, and, therefore, the prohibition
of blood—a prohibition perpetuated in the church
by the apostles. (Gen. ix, 4; Lev. xvii, 3-14; Deut. xii,
.bn 211.png
.pn +1
20-27; Acts xv, 20, 29.[67]) If, to these facts be added
the rule which required the priests to wash themselves
before entering upon their official duties, one of which was
the eating of the sacrificial flesh in the holy place, and the
words of the Psalmist,—“I will wash mine hands in innocency,
so will I compass thine altar, O Lord” (Psa. xxvi,
6), we will have the probable foundation of the ritualistic
structure.
.fn 67
This is not the place to enlarge upon the present obligation
of this law. In the above places, the reader will find it,
as at first given to Noah, as expounded and perpetuated under
the Levitical dispensation, and as again re-enforced upon the
Gentile churches by the apostles. When and why was it abrogated?
.fn-
As to the mode of these washings, the rules given in
the ritual law are very significant. But two cases in which
the washing of the hands was required are there found.
One of these is the washing of the hands of the elders in
expiation of a concealed murder. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.) Here
the circumstances render it certain that the water was
poured on the hands. The other is mentioned in Lev. xv,
11, where the English, “rinsed,” represents the Hebrew,
shātaph, to dash, or pour on with violence. If the Jews
imitated the Levical rites they did not immerse their hands.
Mark throws but little light upon the mode of the Pharisaic
washing. In the expression, “except they wash their
hands oft,” the last word of the original (pugmē,—“oft”),
probably had a technical meaning, by which the mode was
designated. But if such was the case, that meaning has
been lost. By some writers, it is interpreted,
“to the wrist,” “with closed fist,” etc. But all this
is mere conjecture, as is the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, that
it denoted a certain form of the affusion of water upon
the hands.
The account of the marriage feast affords ground for
surer deductions. There were set six water pots of stone,
holding two or three firkins apiece. Whatever were the
.bn 212.png
.pn +1
rites referred to by Mark, under the two designations of
“washing the hands,” and “baptism,” it was necessary that
sufficient water should be provided for all occasions of both
kinds which were likely to occur, in the large concourse
of wedding guests, of whom Christ and the apostles were
but a small proportion. For, whilst the guests, generally,
were expected, of course, to make use of the ordinary rite,
by washing their hands, there might be numbers who had
incurred such exposure as to require the appointed baptism.
What, then, are the indications as to the nature of the
rites thus provided for?
The capacity of the water-pots, according to the most
probable estimate, was not more than ten gallons each.
The highest supposition sets them at about eighteen. They
were, therefore, altogether too small to have been used as
bath-tubs, for the immersion of the guests. The possibility,
therefore, of such a necessity, did not enter into the calculations
of those who provided for the occasion. Were the
waterpots, then, used for immersing the hands? The customs
of the east, then and to this day,—the fact that Jesus
and his disciples evidently appear as but a small proportion
of the guests,—and the quantity of wine miraculously
made by Jesus for their supply, unite to certify that the
great body of the community of Cana was present at the
feast. The first suggestion, therefore, that presents itself
is, that the supposed process must soon have rendered the
water disgusting, from its use in the manner supposed, by
a succession of persons. Another and conclusive fact is
the use made by our Savior of these waterpots. The feast
had been some time in progress, so that the guests had
“well drunk,” before the exhausting of the wine. All had
been purified, and the pots, appropriated to that use, stood
with the remaining water, as thus left. When, Jesus said
to the servants,—“Fill the waterpots with water,” “they
filled them to the brim,” and immediately carried the wine
to the governor of the feast. The servants were ignorant
.bn 213.png
.pn +1
of the purpose of Jesus, and, as the narrative shows, simply
did as they were directed. There was no emptying of
foul water. There was no cleansing of the waterpots.
There is no consciousness, manifested in the narrative, of
occasion for it. Nor was there time. It was in the midst
of the feast; and the wine was already exhausted, although
the ruler of the feast and the guests were unaware of
it. (V. 9.) The account of the transaction was written by
John, an eye-witness, for the information of cotemporaries
who were familiar with the rites of purifying, whatever
they were. And had they been performed in the water, in
any way, an explanation was necessary, or the inference
became inevitable that the vessels were used just as they
stood. In these circumstances, is it to be imagined that
the waterpots already contained the washings of the guests;
or even that they were emptied of these and then appropriated
as recepticles of the wine, which was immediately
served to the very persons who had just washed in them?
Clearly, the facts compel the conclusion that “the purifyings
of the Jews,” here provided for were not done in the
waterpots, but with water taken from them, and poured or
sprinkled on the guests.
This conclusion is confirmed by the explicit testimony
of the rabbins. Rabbi Akiva was a doctor of the law of
the most eminent reputation, his disciples being numbered
by thousands. He was president of the sanhedrim, less
than one hundred years after the death of Christ. Being
made prisoner by the Romans, upon the suppression of the
insurrection of Bar Kokeba, of which he was an active
promoter, he was thrown into prison awaiting execution.
When food was brought to him, the jailer thinking the
supply of water too liberal, poured the greater part on the
ground. The rabbi although famishing of thirst, directed
what remained to be poured upon his hands, saying, “It is
better to die with thirst than to transgress the traditions
of the elders.”
.bn 214.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section XLIX.—Baptism upon return from Market.
Another point in Mark’s statement is, that, “When
they come from the market, except they baptize, they eat
not.” Here, it would seem that Mark means something
different and more important than the ordinary washing of
the hands, to which he has just before referred. It is an
additional statement, of other rites employed on special
occasions. The word, agora, which is translated “the
market,” has a much more extensive signification than the
English word. Its primary meaning is, a concourse, an
assembly, of any kind. And while it was used among
others, to designate the assemblies for traffic, and hence
the places of such assemblies, it is not, in the text, to be
understood in that limited sense; but as comprehensive of
all promiscuous assemblages of the people, in which a person
was liable unwittingly to come in contact with the unclean.
It was upon occasion of our Savior’s coming from
such an assembly, that the Pharisee of whom Luke informs
us was surprised that he had not first baptized before dinner.
He had been preaching in the midst of a multitude
“gathered thick together” (Luke xi, 29), when he received
and accepted the invitation to dine. He had thus
been exposed to a contact which the Pharisees would have
carefully avoided, as liable to involve them, unaware, in
the extremest defilement, and to render necessary special
rites of purifying. This was undoubtedly the cause of the
surprise of the Pharisee at the conduct of Jesus.
As to the mode of the baptism here referred to, the
gospels are silent. In favor of the supposition that it was
immersion, there is nothing whatever in the Scriptures. It
rests wholly upon the assumption that that is the meaning
of baptizo. The circumstances all very strongly favor the
conclusion, that as the major defilements of the Mosaic law
were all purged by sprinkling, so this, the major defilement
of Pharisaic tradition was cleansed in a kindred way.
.bn 215.png
.pn +1
Among the indications in favor of this conclusion are, the
fact that the provision made for purifying at the marriage
feast excludes the idea of immersion;—the entire silence of
the Scriptures as to any facilities for that purpose;—the incongruity
of the supposition to the circumstances of Jesus,
in the act of sitting down at the Pharisee’s table;—the absence
from the narrative of any allusion to means provided
by the Pharisee for the performance, in that mode, of a
rite by him so highly esteemed, and for which special provision
was necessary;—and the improbability of such a form
gaining prevalence among “the Pharisees and all the
Jews,” involving, of necessity, both expense and labor, to
an intolerable extent. If, on the contrary, as we may
reasonably suppose, the house of the Pharisee was provided
with appliances, “after the manner of the purifying of the
Jews,” they would consist of water pots set at the door, as
at the marriage feast, out of which the guests, as they
entered, could take water for pouring on their hands, or
baptizing their persons by sprinkling, without inconvenience
or delay.
We have formerly seen that the self-washings of the
Mosaic law,—in which alone its advocates have ever pretended
that immersion may be found in the Old Testament,—were
of continual recurrence in every family. We
find in the time of Christ the rites supplemented by those
now in question, which were of even more frequent occasion.
If they were performed by self-washing, by affusion, or by
sprinkling, such provision of vessels as thus indicated was
all-sufficient. But if they were immersions of the person, the
almost daily necessities of every family would have required
not only an extraordinary supply of water, but a capacious
bath tub in every house. Without such a vessel and
supply, at home, immersion of the person, with the frequency
required, was not merely improbable; it was impossible.
But such arrangements would have involved an amount
of expense and of labor which no people could endure.
.bn 216.png
.pn +1
If we open the Scriptures to inquire what is their testimony
on this point, on which, if the system of immersion
was in operation, some hints could not fail to appear, we find
that the one only statement or allusion is contained in the
account of the six water pots at the marriage feast. They
were set “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.”
This expression, alike in itself, and in the attendant circumstances,
as already considered, is exclusive of the supposition
that any purifying rite was observed among the
Jews, for which the water pots were not a sufficient provision.
In short, all the evidence concurs to determine
that “the purifying of the Jews,” however performed, was
not by immersion of the person.
.sp 2
.h4
Section L.—A Various Reading.
There is a various reading, in the Greek manuscripts,
which is full of meaning with reference to our present inquiry.
Whilst many manuscripts, including the Alexandrian,
which is referred to the fifth century, read baptisōntai,—“except
they baptize they eat not,” (Mark vii, 4); the two
oldest and of the highest authority, the codices Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus, both dating from the fourth century, and
with them numbers of a later date, read, rantisōntai, “except
they sprinkle they eat not.” The presumption is very
strong in favor of rantisōntai being the true reading. Its
bearing on the logical connection of Mark’s statement is
worthy of note. According to it, he describes three classes
of rites. He specifies, first, self-washings of the hands, as
always used before dinner; second, certain sprinklings, resorted
to upon supposition of more serious defilements; and
third, baptisms of pots and cups, etc., the modes of purifying,
for which, prescribed in the law, were various. The
relation of these purifyings to those appointed by Moses
is apparent. They coincide with the self-washings, the
sprinklings, and the purifying of things prescribed by
him. The various readings here involve considerations of
.bn 217.png
.pn +1
great importance. As before stated, rantisōntai is the reading
of the two oldest and most highly esteemed manuscripts,
dating back to within about two hundred and fifty years of
the death of the apostle John. These manuscripts are
recognized by critical scholars as being so far independent
of each other that their various readings indicate the gradual
divergence which would progress from copy to copy through
several generations of manuscripts; so that the reading on
which they unite must have originated, if not with the
evangelist, at least very soon after the first publication of his
gospel. On the other hand, the reading, baptisōntai, first
found in the Alexandrian codex, of the fifth century, appears
in the great majority of extant manuscripts. We
may confidently conclude that there must have been earlier
copies of high authority in which this reading was found.
It thus appears that at a time but little if any removed
from the age of the apostles, these two readings existed
side by side in the received copies of the gospel.
This fact is the more significant in view of the jealous
care with which the purity of the New Testament text was
guarded. So long as the last of the apostles survived, his
inspired authority was an available resort on all questions
of controversy, arising in the churches. (2 Cor. xi, 28;
3 John 9, 10.) During this period, the importance of an
absolutely pure text of the writings of the apostles and
evangelists was not fully appreciated. The work of transcription
was left to the zeal of private individuals, who
were often wanting in the necessary qualifications; whilst
there was no system of responsible revision. It was probably
during this period, closing about fifty years after the
death of the apostle John, that the most important variations
and errors crept in. About that time, the importance
of a pure text, as an authoritative standard of appeal on
questions of controversy, began to be felt; and, thereafter,
great vigilance was exercised by the officers of the church
in securing correct copies. The transcriptions were made
.bn 218.png
.pn +1
from the best and most accurate manuscripts. And when
a copy was made, it appears to have been subjected to a
critical revision, after having been first collated usually by
the scribe himself, with the copy from which it was taken,
for the purpose of correcting any clerical errors, that might
have occurred in the transcription. The manuscript was
then handed over to “the corrector,” whose business it was
to revise the text by a comparison with other available
manuscripts. In this office the services of the most learned
and able men in the church were employed; and it was
not until sanctioned by such revision that a manuscript
was accepted as an authentic copy. Beside the process
here described, the ancient manuscripts abound in changes
made by subsequent critics. The codex Sinaiticus exhibits
alterations “by at least ten different revisers, some of them
systematically spread over every page, others occasional or
limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of
them being cotemporaneous with the first writer; far the
greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a
few being as recent as the twelfth.”[68]
.fn 68
Scrivener’s Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, Introduction,
p. xx.
.fn-
In view of the diligence of the criticism thus systematically
exercised, the fact is very remarkable that the two
readings, baptisōntai, and rantisōntai should have been
transmitted side by side, and traceable back nearly to the
apostolic age. And it is further remarkable, that no one
of the ten successive critics whose revisions are traceable
on the codex Sinaiticus has corrected the place in question
so as to read baptisōntai, although it is certain that reading
did extensively prevail. Nor is the variation alluded to in
the writings of the fathers. It is immaterial to the present
argument which is the true reading. If it was rantisōntai,
the language of Mark explains the meaning of Luke.
What the Pharisee expected was that Jesus should have
baptized himself by sprinkling. And, whichever is the true
.bn 219.png
.pn +1
reading, this fact is patent that at an age so early as to be
undistinguishable from that of the apostles and evangelists,
so intimate was the relation between sprinkling and baptism
that the one word was inadvertently substituted for the
other, in transcription; and the alteration received by the
ablest men in the church, without question or protest, then
or afterward, or the betrayal even of a consciousness of
change; despite the watchfulness of a criticism systematic
in its exercise and jealous for the purity of the text. If
the primitive church understood baptism to mean immersion,
if the rite was administered in that, as the only
Scriptural mode, the occurrence of the case here presented
would have been plainly impossible. It could only happen
where the two words were identified as designating the
same rite. How easily the words might be confounded
will appear by a comparison of them as written in the
primitive Greek, known as uncials, or capital letters:—
.ce
[Greek: BAPTIZÔNTAI.]
.ce
[Greek: RANTIZÔNTAI]
Were the first and third letters dimly written, or
blurred, the one word might readily be taken for the other.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LI.—Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture.
Another point in Mark’s statement is the baptisms of
cups and pots, brasen vessels and tables. It is unnecessary
to insist upon the argument which is deducible from
the practical impossibility of the immersion of these things;
nor to notice the theories which have been devised to overcome
the difficulties which it interposes to the Baptist
mode. The reader who has followed the course of this
history will recognize, in the Levitical ordinances respecting
the purifyings of things, the source whence was derived
the hint of these supererogatory rites. And a comparison
of the various Mosaic regulations on the subject will
satisfy the candid reader that the list here given is not designed
to be exhaustive, but an exemplification merely of
.bn 220.png
.pn +1
the observances in question. This is further evident from
the fact that the enumeration, as made by the Lord Jesus
(v. 8), was of pots and cups, only; which Mark in his
subsequent account amplifies by the other additional examples.
Respecting them, the ritual of Moses provided modes
of purifying varied both with respect to the nature of the
things to be cleansed, and the character of the defilements;
as we have formerly seen. We may well suppose that the
scribes did not fail to imitate every form of the legal purifyings,
in their additions to the law of God. It is not
only possible, but very probable that some of these inventions
were in the form of immersion. For, as we have formerly
seen, that was one of the forms appointed in the
law, for the purifying of things. But the evangelist speaks,
not of one, but of various rites; which he designates by the
plural and generic name of (baptismous),—baptisms. The
word thus selected is the very same which is used by Paul
as the comprehensive designation of the purifying rites of
the Mosaic law,—the “divers baptisms,” imposed at Sinai.
The conclusion is therefore irresistible, that whilst Paul
used word in a generic sense, as comprehending the
various forms of legal purification, among which the immersion
of person is not to be found, Mark uses it in
a like generic sense as comprehensive of the various forms
for the purifying of things, among which immersion may
have been one, although, if such was the fact, the proof is
yet to be produced.
The result of our examination is, that among the Pharisaic
rites, no trace of the immersion of the person is to be
found.
.bn 221.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part IX. | JOHN’s$1BAPTISM.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LII.—The History of John’s Mission.
The account of John’s ministry in the evangelists, is
invariably introduced by an appeal to the prophecies
which foretold his coming and office. A remarkable passage
from Malachi is alluded to by the angel Gabriel, in
announcing to Zacharias the birth of the forerunner (Luke
i, 17), and by Mark in his introduction to the gospel.
(Mark i, 2). A prophecy of Isaiah is cited in all the gospels;
as is also John’s own account of his commission and
office. It will be convenient for the purposes of the present
discussion to bring these passages together. Says the
Lord by Malachi, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and
he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom
ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger
of the covenant whom ye delight in; behold he shall
come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the
day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?
For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap; and he
shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall
purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be
pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in
former years. And I will come near to you to judgment,
and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers....
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant which I commanded
unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes
and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the
.bn 222.png
.pn +1
prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day
of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to
the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,
lest I come and smite the earth” (the land of Israel)
“with a curse.”—Mal. iii, 1-5; iv, 4-6.
The citation from Isaiah (xl, 3-5), together with John’s
exposition of it, is thus given by Luke. “John came into
all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins; as it is written in
the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying,
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
way of the Lord; make his paths straight. Every valley
shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought
low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation
of God. Then said he to the multitude that came
forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who
hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring
forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not
to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father;
for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to
raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe
is laid unto the root of the trees; every tree, therefore,
which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire.... I indeed baptize you with water;
but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose
shoes I am not worthy to unloose; he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in his
hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will
gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will
burn with fire unquenchable.”—Luke iii, 3-17. In John’s
gospel, some additional points are given. “John seeth
Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of
God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he
of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred
before me; for he was before me. And I knew him not;
.bn 223.png
.pn +1
but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore
am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record,
saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, like a
dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not, but
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 Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that this is
the Son of God.”—John i, 29-34.
The title by which, in the prophecy of Malachi, the
Lord Jesus is designated,—“the Messenger of the covenant,”
carries us back to the scene at Sinai, when the covenant
was made and sealed. In the close of the prophecy, our
attention is expressly directed to that occasion. “Remember
the law of Moses, which I commanded unto him in
Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.”
The intimations thus given lead us up to the originating
occasion of John’s testimony.
Immediately after the coming of Israel to Sinai, among
the communications which expounded the covenant, preparatory
to its sealing, the Lord said to them, “Behold I
send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and
to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware
of him and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he
will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in
him.”—Ex. xxiii, 20, 21. This Angel is by the Lord
elsewhere called “My Presence” (Compare Ex. xiv, 19;
xxxii, 34; xxxiii, 2, 14, 15), and by Isaiah, “the Angel
of His presence.”—Isa. lxiii, 9. He is thus announced to
Israel as sent to be God’s servant in the fulfilling of the
Sinai covenant, and is hence by the prophet called “the
Messenger of the covenant.”
Another line of facts leads in the same direction.
When, at the mount, Israel was overwhelmed with the
terror of the great fire and of God’s audible voice, and
entreated Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear;
.bn 224.png
.pn +1
but let not God speak with us lest we die” (Ex. xx, 19;
Deut. v, 22-27), their proposal thus to accept Moses as
Mediator between them and God was graciously approved.
“They have well said, all that they have spoken.”—Deut.
v, 28. Moses was accepted in that office, and Israel dismissed
from the assembly at the mount. (Ib. 28-31.)
But, afterward, Moses revealed to them how much more
richly their abasement and prayer had been answered than
they had asked or imagined. “The Lord thy God will
raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of
thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in
Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not
hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me
see this great fire any more that I die not. And the
Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which
they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from
among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my
words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all
that I shall command Him.”—Deut. xviii, 15-18. Compare
John xiv, 31; xvii, 8, 14.
We are thus brought to the relation which Moses and
the Sinai covenant, sustained to the Lord Jesus, and that
better covenant of which he is the Mediator. (, 6.)
The covenant of Sinai as formally accepted by Israel and
ratified through the mediation of Moses, was of unspeakable
moment, as being the installation of the visible church.
But it was, at the same time, an outward type, a manifestation
and announcement of the covenant of grace made
with the invisible church. Of the one, Moses was the
Mediator;—of the other, the Lord Jesus. The one is
founded upon the public professions and promises of Moses
and the assembly of Israel (Ex. xxxiv, 27);—the other
on the engagement of the Lord Jesus to fulfill all righteousness.
The former was graven on tables of stone; the latter
is written in the fleshly tables of the hearts of Christ’s
.bn 225.png
.pn +1
people. (Jer. xxxi, 33; 2 Cor. iii, 3; Heb. viii, 10.) The
former was sealed with the blood which was partly sprinkled
on the Sinai altar, and partly mingled with water and
sprinkled on Israel; the latter, with the blood of sprinkling
of Jesus Christ offered in the holy place in heaven, and the
baptism of the Spirit which, through the merits of that
blood, he gives his people.
We can now see the bearing of certain memorable
words uttered by the Lord Jesus. When Moses sealed the
covenant, he sprinkled the book and the people with the
sacrificial blood and water, saying, “Behold, the blood of
the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning
all these words.” At the table, the night of the
betrayal, the Lord Jesus took the cup, and having given
thanks, gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my blood
of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission
of sins.”—Matt. xxvi, 28. He thus signified the
typical nature of the transaction in the wilderness, as relating
to him, and announced himself about to fulfill all that
it foreshadowed. Particularly did his language, by appropriating
that of the Sinai baptism, recognize both it and the
supper as symbols and seals of the remission of sins, of
which his own blood bestows the reality.
To the same relation between the Sinai transactions and
Christ’s office and work, Peter bears witness. A few days
after Pentecost, upon occasion of the healing of the impotent
man, he reminded the wondering assembly of the promise
made by Moses to the fathers.—“A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto
me.... Yea and all the prophets, from Samuel and those
that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise
foretold of these days.”—Acts iii, 22-24.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LIII.—Israel at the Time of John’s Coming.
When John came, the Jews had been for four hundred
years without a prophet, or any sensible token of God’s
.bn 226.png
.pn +1
presence among them. The captivity and return from
Babylon and subsequent circumstances in their history had
effectually and finally cured the inveterate tendency to
idolatry, which had characterized them from the days of
the Egyptian bondage. But this change did not bring with
it an awakening of true spiritual devotion to the service
of God. Instead thereof an intense zeal of self-righteousness
was cherished, under the two forms of a fanatical
pride in the blood of Abraham, and an ardent devotion to
the external forms and rites of religion, to tithes and offerings,
to fastings and purifyings,—to “righteousnesses of the
flesh,”—whilst the spirituality and power of the divine law
were obscured and set aside by the glosses and interpretations
of the elders. Such was the religion of the scribes,
who “sat in Moses’ seat,” as the instructors of the people.
The great mass of the nation, led by these blind guides,
were with them hastening to destruction; while the few
who still sought after the God of their fathers were as
sheep without a shepherd. In the meantime, Jerusalem
and Judea had been the prey alternately of the Ptolemies
of Egypt, the Seleucidæ of Syria, and factions among
themselves. After the successful revolt of the Maccabees,
a brief time of peace and prosperity was enjoyed under the
sceptre of that family. But the rivalry and seditions of its
members brought in the Romans, under whose patronage
the Herodian family, of Edomite origin, had come into
power.
During the progress of these events, the whole land had
been polluted with crimes and atrocities of every kind, and
of the deepest dye. The high priesthood was habitually
subject to barter and sale, one possessor of the office giving
place to another in rapid succession, as the respective aspirants
were able to purchase the office from the kings of
Syria, or of Judea, or to seize it by violence or the favor
of the The temple itself had been desecrated by
being formally set apart to the worship of Jupiter Olympius.
.bn 227.png
.pn +1
And as though that was not enough, it had been
yet more horribly defiled by fratricidal blood; an aspirant
for the high priesthood having secured and held the office by
the murder of his own brother, in the very precincts of the
temple. The entire social system was rotten, and the nation
was fast ripening for the developments about to be
witnessed, in the denial and crucifixion of the Son of God,
the rejection of the gospel, and the crimes which precipitated
society into a chaos of anarchy and a reign of terror,
ending in the destruction of the temple, the desolation of
Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation to this day.
Thus, when John began his ministry, the land of Israel,
the city, the temple, and the nation were lying under
the burden of the unexpiated and unrepented crimes of
many centuries. (Matt. xxiii, 29-36.) The covenant was
forfeited and trampled under foot, and the land and the
people were, in every sense, moral and ritual, utterly unclean.
At the beginning of the declension, the prophet
Haggai had been sent to the priests with a lesson out of
the law.—“Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and
with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil,
or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered
and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean
by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?
And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so
is this nation before me, saith the Lord: and so is every
work of their hands, and that which they offer there is
unclean.”—Hag. ii, 11-14. After the cotemporaneous
ministries of Haggai and Zechariah, the Spirit of prophecy
was withdrawn for about one hundred years. Then suddenly,
a trumpet note from Malachi broke the silence, with
a brief and startling call.—“If ye will not hear, and if ye
will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith
the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and
.bn 228.png
.pn +1
I will curse your blessings. Yea I have cursed them already....
From the days of your fathers, ye are gone
away from mine ordinances and have not kept them. Return
unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord
of hosts.—Mal. ii, 2; iii, 7. But they did not return.
Thereupon, God their King withdrew from all communication
with them as a people, for four centuries following.
Such was the situation of that people at the coming of
John. They had the oracles of God, his ordinances, and
his temple; of which Haggai had said,—“I will shake all
nations; and the Desire of all nations shall come, and I
will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.”—Hag.
ii, 7. But all this was as a piece of holy flesh in the
skirt of a garment. It did not purify the nation, while
their uncleanness defiled these and all their hallowed things.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LIV.—The Nature and End of John’s Baptism.
Whilst Israel was thus apostate and excommunicate from
God, the Messenger of his covenant was about to appear,
in that character the aspect of which, as toward the rebellious
and unbelieving, had been especially emphasized in the
prophecies above cited; and the exercise of which resulted in
the desolation of the land, and the dispersion of the nation a
byword and a hissing in all lands. “Beware of him and
obey his voice. Provoke him not; for he will not pardon
your transgressions; for my Name is in him.”—Ex. xxiii,
21. “Who may abide the day of his coming? And who
shall stand when he appeareth?”—Mal. iii, 2. So, John
announced him.—“Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the
garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable
fire.”—Matt. iii, 12. His coming was, to Israel, the great
crisis in their history. Therefore the mission of John.
Said the angel to Zacharias, “He shall go before Him in
the Spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom
.bn 229.png
.pn +1
of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord.”—Luke i, 17.
When the ten tribes had forsaken the worship of God
on mount Zion, abandoned his covenant, and devoted
themselves to the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, Elijah
was sent to them as the vindicator of the forsaken covenant,
and messenger of grace, of warning and of judgment.
His first work was to demonstrate the sovereignty and Godhead
of Jehovah, and the imbecility of their false gods, by
the famine of three years and six months, and by the fire
from heaven consuming both sacrifice and altar on Carmel.
He then executed judgment upon the prophets of
Baal and Ashtoreth, the seducers of Israel, eight hundred
and fifty in number. On this occasion, Israel professed to
recognize and do homage to the God of their fathers. But
Elijah saw too clearly, that it was a conviction without
root in their hearts and affections. When therefore he received
Jezebel’s message of vengeance, his faith failed, and
he fled to the wilderness, where he was fed by an angel and
led forty days and forty nights “to Horeb the mount of
God,” the spot where the covenant was made and sealed
with the twelve tribes. (1 Kings xix, 8, 9.) “And he
came thither unto a cave and lodged there; and behold
the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him,
What dost thou here, Elijah?” The interview held at
that place exhibits the prophet as the ordained champion
and avenger of the covenant. To the foregoing question
twice proposed, he twice responds,—“I have been very
jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel
have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars;
and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I, only,
am left; and they seek my life to take it away.”—vs. 10,
14. Thereupon, he was commissioned to anoint Hazael,
king over Syria; and Jehu king of Israel, and Elisha to
be prophet in his stead;—“And it shall come to pass that
him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay;
.bn 230.png
.pn +1
and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha
slay. Yet I have left seven thousand in Israel, all the
knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth
which hath not kissed him.”—vs. 15-18.
The office thus fulfilled by Elijah, as a messenger of
grace, calling Israel back to the allegiance of the abandoned
covenant; and of wrath, announcing and inflicting its penalty
upon the transgressors, is the key to the closing words
of the book of Malachi.—“Remember ye the law of Moses
my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all
Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will
send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord;” the day, to wit, of
the coming of “the Messenger of the covenant;” “and he
shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the
heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and
smite the land with a curse.”—Mal. iv, 4-6. The same
characteristics of John’s ministry were the occasion of the
statement of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, before cited,
“He shall go before Him, in the Spirit and power of
Elias.” In the points here noticed, we have the explanation
of the scene of the transfiguration, in which Moses,
the mediator of the Sinai covenant, Elijah its vindicator
against apostate Israel,—and Jesus, the mediator of the
new covenant, talked together “of his decease which he
should accomplish at Jerusalem,” on behalf of the true Israel,
and in fulfillment of the terms of the new covenant,
typified in that of Sinai. (Luke ix, 31.)
The same office, of warning and testimony on behalf
of the forsaken covenant, which Elijah exercised toward
the ten tribes, John fulfilled to the Jews. To understand
the full force and significance of his mission, the fact must
be distinctly appreciated that Christ’s humiliation and sufferings,
however momentous in themselves, and however
transcendently important to us, were a mere transient
incident in the work undertaken by him. His coming into
.bn 231.png
.pn +1
the world was a coming to the throne, to which the cross
was a mere stepping stone,—a means to his exaltation,
and to the achievements of his sceptre, in purging the
Father’s floor. In those achievements, justice and judgment
are as conspicuous as grace; and if the latter witnessed
a first signal and glorious display in the scenes of
Pentecost, the former was as signally illustrated in the
destruction and desolation of the city and land that rejected
their King. It was with a view to the crisis thus
created in the history of Israel by the coming of Christ,
that John was sent as his forerunner and herald. John did
not ignore that abasement of Christ which was the antecedent
condition and means of his exaltation and glory.
But his distinctive theme, the subject which filled his
heart and inspired his tongue, was the throne, the kingdom,
the power and justice. Of it he was the official herald,
and from it his preaching and baptism took their form and
significance. His commission was threefold; (1) To announce
the kingdom of heaven at hand, and herald the
coming of the King, the Messenger of the covenant, the
Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire; (2) To identify
and point him out in the person of Jesus; (3) To
prepare the way before him. In fulfillment of the first
and second of these functions, John preached the coming
of “One Mightier than I,” who should baptize Israel with
the Holy Ghost and with fire. He pointed out and announced
the Lord Jesus as that coming One,—“the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sin of the world,”—“the Son
of God.” And by connecting this testimony with his proclamation
and baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins, he anticipated the preaching of the apostles, and
summed and published the gospel of atonement and remission
through the blood of Christ. By this preaching and
by the seal of baptism to those who received his testimony
he fulfilled the third function above mentioned, and “made
ready a people prepared for the Lord.”—Luke i, 17.
.bn 232.png
.pn +1
There were two termini to which John’s baptism sustained
peculiar and intimate relations, and from which his
ministry derived all its significance. The first was that
“day of the assembly” at Sinai, when Israel entered into
the covenant by which she took God as her King and
received the baptismal seal sprinkled by the hand of Moses.
It was the office of John to announce the personal coming
of the King of Israel; to warn them of the penalty
of the violated covenant; announce the remission of sins
and restoration of the covenant, to those who should repent
and return to their allegiance; and to certify this
by the renewal of the broken seal.
The second terminus to which John’s baptism looked
was that day when the covenant King of Israel should
appear in person, assume his throne, and enter on the
functions announced by John, under the figures of the
baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of fire. Of
the former, so conspicuous in the prophecies, the baptism
of Israel by Moses, and that now administered by John,
were alike typical. The grace of the Holy Spirit, administered
by the enthroned Baptizer, was the end and fulfillment
of both.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LV.—The Extent of John’s Baptism.
The public ministry of John commenced about six
months before the baptism of Jesus, and was terminated
by his imprisonment soon after that event. (Mark i, 14;
Luke iii, 20, 21.) At first, his preaching was peripatetic.
“He came into all the country about Jordan, preaching.”—Luke
iii, 3. But as his fame extended and the throng of
his hearers increased, he took his station at Bethabara (or,
Bethany, as the critical editions read), on the eastern side
of the Jordan, and afterward at “Enon, near to Salim,”
where he seems to have been, when arrested by Herod.
During the brief period of his ministry, there “went out
to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round
.bn 233.png
.pn +1
about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing
their sins.”—Matt. iii, 5, 6. The facts as to the
extent of John’s ministry and baptism, are stated in terms
equally strong by Mark and Luke. (Mark i, 5; Luke iii,
21.) Of these statements, we are asked to believe that
they are extravagant hyperbole,—that they only mean
that there were some present from every place in the
regions specified. As “if I should say that in the political
convention of 1840, all Tennessee was gathered at Nashville
to hear Henry Clay, I would not mean that every man,
woman, and child in the State was there; but only that
there were some from every part. Just so, Matthew says
Jerusalem came,—that a great many people from Jerusalem
and Judea and the country round about Jordan came.
That is to say, the country as well as the city was fully
represented in the crowd. Besides, John did not baptize
all who came. He positively refused the Pharisees and
Sadducees, who composed a great part of the Jewish nation.”[69]
This explanation forgets that the language in
question is not the exaggerated statement of excited and
partisan newsmongers; but sober history dictated by the
Spirit of God, and reported to us by “two or three witnesses,”
in concurrent language. As to the assertion concerning
the Pharisees, every thoughtful reader of the gospels
knows that in comparison with the whole body of the
people, they were very few. In all their conspiracies
against Jesus they were constantly embarrassed by fear of
“the people.”
.fn 69
Theodosia Ernest, Vol. I, p. 79. Published by the Baptist
Publication Society.
.fn-
Of the vastness of the multitude who were baptized by
John we have not only the express testimony of the evangelists,
but certain incidents related by them remarkably
confirm it. The first is, that Herod was restrained, for
some time, from the murder of John, by fear of the people,
“because they counted him as a prophet.”—Matt. xiv, 5.
.bn 234.png
.pn +1
Another is, the use made of the same popular sentiment,
by the Lord Jesus. A few days before his betrayal and
death, upon occasion of his second purging of the temple,
the rulers came to him demanding by what authority he
did these things. Jesus answered, “I will also ask you
one thing; and answer me: The baptism of John, Was
it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with
themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will
say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of
men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded
that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they
could not tell whence it was.”—Luke xx, 3-7; Matt. xxi,
24; Mark xi, 29. Such and so strong and universal was
the conviction of the people, that John’s commission was
from God, that neither Herod nor the whole united body
of the priests, scribes and elders,—the great council of the
nation,—dared to antagonize it. This, too, was three years
after the close of John’s ministry.
It may be said that no intimation is here given that
the people spoken of had been baptized of John. But, in
the first place, the evangelists had already expressly stated
the universal fact, in their distinct account of his ministry,
and did not, therefore, need to repeat it; and, in the second,
the issue involved in his ministry was too vital and
sharply defined to allow any to profess, even, to recognize
his divine authority, and yet neglect his baptism. But
there is yet further testimony on the point.
Jesus had been preaching about two years, when John
from his prison sent two of his disciples to ask,—“Art thou he
that should come, or do we look for another? On this
occasion Jesus uttered a testimony concerning John, of
which it is said that, “all the people that heard him, and
the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism
of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the
counsel of God against themselves; being not baptized of
him.”—Luke vii, 29, 30. This occurred in Galilee, which
.bn 235.png
.pn +1
district was not included in any of the statements of the
evangelists, respecting the attendance on John’s ministry.
He does not seem ever to have preached in Galilee. And
yet, from that comparatively distant region, the people had
so flocked to his baptism, that two years the evangelist
could state that all the people had been baptized of
him, the lawyers and Pharisees excepted, and find in this
the explanation of the universal acceptance of Christ’s testimony.
The exception here greatly strengthens the former
clause of the statement, and establishes the fact of the
universal reception of John’s baptism by the common people.
In fact, this conclusion is involved in the very nature
of the circumstances of Israel. However viewed, the
ministry of John created a most momentous crisis in the
history of God’s dealings with that people. John came to
them, the fore-announced,—the last,—the greatest, of all
the prophets. He came on the loftiest mission that had
ever been entrusted to man,—to act as the immediate personal
messenger and herald of the coming King. He came
to Israel, excommunicate from God, to call them individually,
and as a people, to repent and return to the fold
of God’s longsuffering mercy; and to seal the offered grace,
by baptizing those who professed to obey his call. The
alternative which his ministry set before them was plain
and imperative. To absent themselves, or to attend on his
preaching without receiving his baptism, would have been
an open act of treason to the coming King, an express
and aggravated rejection of his authority and of this extraordinary
and final overture of grace to the nation. John’s
ministry thus compelled a decision by which a broad and
public line was drawn among the people. On the one side,
were those who professed to repent and return to the forsaken
covenant and God of their fathers, and to own the
authority of the promised King of Israel; and whose profession
was sealed by the reception of John’s baptism;—on
the other, those who, in rejecting John’s testimony and
.bn 236.png
.pn +1
turning their backs upon his baptism, repudiated the coming
King and spurned his overture of mercy. Of the significance
and importance of all this, the evangelists were
fully aware. To suppose them in such circumstances to
have indulged in a loose and exaggerated style of statement,
asserting that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region
round about Jordan were baptized, when, in fact, not one
in a hundred of the people received the rite, would be a
contradiction of the divine testimony, which nothing but
ignorance and lack of consideration can excuse or palliate.
It is further to be considered that every class of the
people, and both men and women resorted to John’s baptism,
the lawyers or scribes, that is, the Pharisees and
Sadducees, only excepted. (Matt. xxi, 31, 32; Luke vii,
29; xx, 6.)
5. His rejection of the Pharisees is adduced as proof
that “though great multitudes came to John and followed
Christ, yet comparatively few brought forth fruit to justify
their baptism.”[70] But how is it supposed that John could
know any thing, ordinarily, as to the fruits manifested by
those who sought his baptism? It is perfectly evident
that,—as at Sinai, on the day of Pentecost, and on every
other occasion that is on record in the ministry of the
apostles,—so, in the case of John’s hearers,—a good profession
was the sole ordinary condition of baptism. Is it
asked,—How, then, came John to refuse the Pharisees?
That he did, in fact, refuse them, is an assumption, without
proof or probability. He warned them; and that is all
we are told of the matter. As to the occasion of such
warning,—the ruling sin of that sect was self-righteousness.
The pride of it found expression in unmistakable tokens.
Says Jesus, “All their works they do for to be seen of men.
They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders
of their garments.”—Matt, xxiii, 5. The phylacteries were
parchments on which portions of the law were written.
.bn 237.png
.pn +1
They were folded in the form of a cube, and bound to the
forehead or the arm, with ribbands. The borders were
fringes and ribbands of blue, which God directed Israel to
wear on the skirts of their garments, as a memorial of their
covenant relations to him. (Num. xv, 38, 39.) These the
scribes and Pharisees made broad, so as to be seen of men.
The first step therefore toward a true repentance, on their
part, would have been a putting off of these badges of self-righteousness.
And their being worn by any of John’s
hearers was to him an instant and evident token of vain
glory and self-righteousness unabased; whilst putting them
off would have been a manifest fruit and evidence of repentance.
.fn 70
Theodosia Earnest, vol. i, p. 80.
.fn-
The facts, therefore, as set forth in the gospels, clearly
indicate that the ministry of John was attended by an apparent
revival of religion, but little short of that which
occurred at Sinai, when the covenant was first made. And
although, like the tribes in the wilderness, many of those
who received John’s baptism failed to profit, for lack of
true repentance and faith,—many brought forth fruit out
of good and honest hearts. Of such, the college of the
apostles was formed; and of such, no doubt, largely consisted
the firstfruits of the gospel, in Judea and Galilee,—as
we see repeated traces of it in the ministry of Paul,
among the far off Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 24, 25; xviii,
25; xix, 3.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section LVI.—John did not Immerse.
As to the mode of John’s baptism, there are several
circumstances which interpose insuperable objections to the
supposition that it was by immersion.
1. That form would have been utterly incongruous to
John’s office as the herald of the covenant. No rational
account can be given of the origin and meaning of such a
rite, in that connection. The Levitical law was, in all its
ordinances, a testimony to the covenant; and of it John
.bn 238.png
.pn +1
was a minister. But in that law there was but one administered
baptism, and that by sprinkling, whilst there were
no immersions of persons, whatever. It therefore furnishes
no trace of the origin of the supposed form. On the other
hand, it certainly did not originate with John. Baptism,—the
rite which he administered, was in his day, no novelty
among the Jews. The only remaining supposition, if we
assume John to have immersed his disciples, is, that it may
have been borrowed from the inventions of the scribes.
But, in the first place, there is not a trace of evidence nor
of probability that such a rite was then included in the ritual
of the scribes;—and in the second, it is preposterous to
suppose that, in such circumstances and on such a mission,
John would have turned his back on the ordinances of
God’s law, by which for fifteen centuries the covenant had
been sealed, and chosen for the characteristic and seal of
his ministry one of those inventions by means of which that
law was made void and God’s people led astray. (Mark
vii, 6, 8, 13.) This too, when he in the most open and decisive
manner set himself in opposition to the inventors of
those rites, whom he denounced as a generation of vipers!
2. The meaning of the rite, in supposed connection with
John’s ministry, is as inexplicable as its origin. Neither
the law nor the Old Testament Scriptures anywhere give
a clue to it. John in his ministry is equally silent. Or,
rather, his statements are altogether incongruous to the
supposed form.—“He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he
will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into
the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable
fire.”—Matt. iii, 11, 12. Thus, John, announced the
Lord Jesus, not in his character of humiliation and death;
but in his exaltation and royalty, as he appeared at Sinai,
the covenant King of Israel,—as he is now, the enthroned
Baptizer, dispensing his Spirit and grace to his people, and
pouring out the fire of his justice on his and his Father’s
.bn 239.png
.pn +1
enemies. In such circumstances, and in connection with
such a preaching, what meaning could the disciples of John
have discovered in the rite of immersion? Respecting it,
they ask no questions, and John makes no explanation.
If it be supposed to have meant the burial of Christ, this
much at least is certain, that the resemblance was not so
close as to have been self-evident to the people. And even
though understood by them in that sense, it would have
been so far aside from the immediate intent and end of
John’s ministry, and so defective in its testimony, since it
knows nothing of the resurrection, that it would have been
calculated to distract and perplex his hearers, rather than
to serve the object of his preaching. But John was explicit
as to the meaning of his baptism. Whatever its form,
it meant—not the burial of the Lord Jesus, but the baptism of
the Spirit by him dispensed. “I baptize you with water, but
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”
3. The great discomfort, and the gross indecency which
are inevitably involved in the supposition that John immersed
his followers are decisive against it. Neither had
John a water-proof suit in which to officiate, nor were his
auditors supplied with “immersion robes,” nor change of
garments, so needful, now, to obviate the discomfort and
danger of the dripping attire. But this, even, is a less
consideration than the indecent exposure which the supposed
rite would have involved. The garments of the Jews
were of two patterns. That next the person was in the
form of a sleeveless shirt, descending to the knees. A second
garment was of the same shape, but usually of more
costly materials, which reached to the ankles. Over all
were thrown one or two shawls or blankets, large enough
to enwrap the entire person. Beside sandals, which were
not ordinarily worn, except by those in easy circumstances,—these
were the only articles of apparel. Those of
the women were of nearly the same shape; the distinction
of sex appearing mainly in the materials and ornaments.
.bn 240.png
.pn +1
When at rest, the garments were left free. But in preparing
for labor or for travel, they were drawn up to the
knees, and fastened with a girdle at the loins, thus leaving
the lower limbs unencumbered. That, with such clothing
indecent exposure must have been a constant incident to
the extemporaneous and hasty immersions which the Baptist
theory requires, is manifest; and the weight of the
consideration needs no enforcing.
4. The number resorting to John was such as to preclude
the possibility of their having been immersed. When
Israel came out of Egypt, they were “about six hundred
thousand on foot, that were men, beside children; and a
mixed multitude went up also with them.”—Ex. xii, 37, 38.
When about to enter the promised land, the census was
six hundred and one thousand, seven hundred and thirty
men, from twenty years old and upward, beside the Levites,
who numbered twenty-three thousand males from a month
old. (Num. xxvi, 51, 62.) Upon this basis, the whole
number of the people was between three and four millions.
In the days of David, in the enumeration from which the
tribes of Levi and Benjamin were omitted, the number
of fighting men was one million five hundred and seventy
thousand. If we make a proportional addition for the
omitted tribes, it gives a total of one million, eight hundred
and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty-four. These
would represent a population of seven or eight millions.
From two independent statements occurring in Josephus, it
appears that the population, just before the destruction of
the nation, was at least as much as four million souls.[71] If
we suppose John to have stood in the water three hours a
day, during the six months of his ministry, and to have
administered the rite at the rate of one per minute, during
the entire time, the total results of such miraculous labors
and endurance, would have been about thirty-two thousand
seven hundred and sixty persons baptized, that is, one in
.bn 241.png
.pn +1
every one hundred and twenty-two of the people. Without
the intervention of miracle—and John did no miracle—even
this was utterly impossible. And yet, how
entirely it falls short of the statements of the evangelists,
upon any candid interpretation of them, is evident.
.fn 71
Jewish war. II. xiv, 3; and VI. x, 3.
.fn-
That the theory of immersion is encumbered with difficulties
of the most serious nature must be evident to every
candid reader.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LVII.—John Baptized by Sprinkling with unmingled\
Water.
We are now to consider an important feature in the
history of this rite, which has not yet been brought into
distinct notice. It has appeared how thoroughly the
sprinkled baptisms of the Levitical system are identified
in their meaning and office with the prophecies concerning
the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, and the outpouring
of the Spirit, in the days of the Messiah. The point
of present interest concerning those prophecies is, that in
all the expressions referred to, the figure is that of water
alone,—the sacrificial elements never being alluded to in
that connection. A coincident fact appears, with relation
to John’s ministry. In his own announcement he uses
language which seems to be emphatic and exclusive,—“I
indeed baptize you with water.”—Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8;
Luke iii, 16; John i, 26. So, Jesus says,—“John truly
baptized with water.”—Acts i, 5. And Peter refers to it
in the same terms. (Ib. xi, 16.) This form of expression
constantly used, and the antithesis always stated,
between his baptism and that of the Holy Spirit, to be
administered by the Lord Jesus, render it certain that
John baptized with water alone, without any sacrificial
elements. A careful examination of the prophecies above
referred to and a consideration of the subject matter of
John’s preaching, may furnish the explanation of these
facts. The Mosaic ritual was constructed with a view to
.bn 242.png
.pn +1
a very full and systematic exposition of the gospel, in the
symmetry of its parts and proportions. In the baptisms
of that ritual, therefore, provision was made for showing
forth, not only the power and grace of the Lord Jesus in
the bestowal of the Spirit, but, also, the virtue of his
blood, which was the procuring cause of the Spirit’s grace.
But that blood is the token of humiliation and sufferings.
On the contrary, the theme of the prophecies here referred
to is, the exaltation and glory of Christ’s throne, and the
conquests of his saving scepter, after the days of humiliation
and sorrow shall have been forever ended. This was
the distinctive meaning of the water of the Sinai baptisms,
and by the figure of the sprinkling or pouring of
bare water, the prophets represent the same thing.
So, when John came in the spirit and power of Elias,
he did not, indeed, ignore the office of Christ as the atoning
Lamb of God. But his distinctive commission, and
the controlling function of his ministry was to herald the
coming of their covenant King, in his exaltation and power
to an apostate and rebellious nation—to warn them of
the office which he would fill, and the judgment which he
would execute, who should baptize them, not with the
Holy Ghost only, but with fire also. As appropriate,
therefore, to this, his office and message, he dispensed a
baptism of water alone, which spake of authority, power,
and royal grace, and omitted that element which signified
humiliation and death.
Whilst the rite was thus modified—its nature and significance
remained the same. As already indicated, the
quantity of ashes used in dispensing the Levitical baptism
was so small as to be wholly inappreciable to the senses. The
instruction therein conveyed was dependent upon the association
of ideas, and not upon the quantity of the elements
used. The bestowal of the Spirit by the Lord Jesus, of
necessity, presupposes the sacrifice of himself as the condition
and price of his exaltation and power, by which the
.bn 243.png
.pn +1
Spirit is sent and salvation bestowed. What the Levitical
blood and ashes of sprinkling expressed the baptism of
John implied. The two rites thus conveyed the same
instruction, and filled the same office. They were essentially
one and the same baptism. The latter form anticipated
the immediate sending forth of the gospel to the
Gentiles, divested of the sacrificial system and the burdens
of the ritual law. That they were the same in mode will
not be questioned by any who have candidly traced the
foregoing line of investigation. With an enumeration of
some of the points therein involved, we will close this
branch of our subject.
1. Hitherto the Baptist argument has been entrenched
in the definition of baptizo. After the same example we
now plant ourselves on the ascertained meaning and use
of the word, as illustrated in the foregoing pages. We
have found it to be the accepted designation for the administered
rites of Levitical purifying, which, in all their circumstantial
variations, were performed always by sprinkling.
The rite dispensed by John was an administered
baptism. It was, therefore, administered after the example
of the Levitical system, by sprinkling.
2. John was the herald and champion of the covenant,
and the messenger of the Lord Jesus as its surety and
king. His commission, as announced by Malachi, was, in
God’s name, to admonish Israel to “Remember the law of
Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb
for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments;”—Mal.
iv, 4.—“The law of Moses,”—that covenant law by the
acceptance of which Israel became the people of God.
His ministry derived all its significance from the terms of
that covenant, and from the office of its Surety, in purging
his floor with the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of fire.
This was the whole theme of his ministry, as it was the
whole substance of the prophetic terms of his commission.
To seal such a testimony, no rite could have been so appropriate
.bn 244.png
.pn +1
as the perpetuated and familiar form of the Sinai
baptism, the original seal of the same covenant, by which
its scope and intent were so luminously set forth.
3. John preached the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins, in the name of Him whom God was
about to exalt “to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”—Acts v, 31.
In the Levitical baptism the administrator represented the
Lord Jesus in this very function of his grace, and the
sprinkled water represented the Holy Spirit shed by him
upon his people, by whom that repentance is wrought, and
remission conveyed. It was the “purification for sin,” the
symbol of remission. It was thus a visible representation
to his hearers of the very things which John was commissioned
to utter in their ears.
4. At the time of John’s coming, all the thoughts and
conceptions of Israel on the subjects involved in his ministry,
except as perverted by the traditions of the scribes,
had been molded by the Mosaic ritual respecting the purifying
of the unclean, and by the testimonies of the prophets,
uttered in the language of that ritual. John was sent,
not to ignore or obliterate the impress thus made by the
instructions and discipline of fifteen centuries, but to confirm
and build upon it, to reiterate and seal the same testimonies.
To this end, no other rite was appropriate or
congruous, but the old familiar baptism by sprinkling, the
interpretation of which was so abundant in the prophets,
and the meaning of which was known to all Israel.
5. The baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is never
known nor alluded to in the Scriptures under any other
form than that of affusion. It is the antitype of the ritual
sprinklings of the Old Testament, the fulfillment of all the
prophecies of the sprinkling of Israel and the nations, the
outpouring of the Spirit upon them; and its fulfillment is
in the New Testament invariably spoken of in the same style.
To symbolize this, John’s baptism must have been by affusion.
.bn 245.png
.pn +1
6. In the use of this rite, all the difficulties which embarrass
the hypothesis of immersion disappear. As, at
Sinai, all Israel were baptized at once, so, under John’s
preaching the number to be baptized would involve no
embarrassment, exposure, or exhaustion. As many as were
assembled at one time could be baptized in one group, with
the hyssop bush. Thus, no excessive fatigue was involved;
no time was consumed in mere manual labor; no danger
to the health, nor liability to indecent exposure was incurred.
The meaning of the rite was familiar to all, and
in its use congruity and symmetry were maintained in
every part and relation of John’s ministry.
The view thus presented is not inconsistent with the
supposition that many of John’s disciples may have received
the rite while standing in the waters of the Jordan. The
law requiring the use of running water, the propriety of
the one river of Palestine as a type of the river of the
heavenly Canaan, and the necessities of the multitudes
who waited on his ministry, united in bringing him to the
river. And the rite would be performed by the baptist
dipping a hyssop-bush into the stream, and therewith
sprinkling those who presented themselves around him.
That, in these circumstances many of the people would
enter the water is beyond question. The suggestion is to
be considered in the light of eastern habits and modes of
dress. The people were clothed in loose garments, with no
covering to the feet except sandals worn by a few. Coming,
the most of them, from a distance on the rocky roads of that
country,—the feet sore and lacerated, and the climate hot,—no
impulse would have been more natural or more congruous
to custom, than to step into the water, for the sake of
its refreshing coolness. A curious illustration of this occurs
in the Phædrus of Plato. He describes Socrates walking
in the environs of Athens accompanied by Phædrus:—
Socrates. “Here; let us turn aside to the Illyssus,
and, where you prefer, we can recline in quiet.”
.bn 246.png
.pn +1
Phædrus. “For the occasion, as it seems, I happen
to be barefoot, while you are always so. Thus it will be
quite convenient for us, wetting our feet in the shallow
stream, to walk not without enjoyment, especially at this
season of the year and of the day.”[72]
.fn 72
Platonis Phæd., v.
.fn-
It is altogether supposable that Philip and the eunuch
stepped thus into the water, as the most convenient way
of access to it; and it is equally possible that such may
have been the case with many of John’s disciples, and that
Jesus himself may have been thus baptized. Nor is this
a mere fanciful conjecture. Among the remains of Christian
art which have been transmitted to us from the third
and fourth centuries of our era, there are several representations
of the baptism of our Savior, some of them in
bronze bas-relief, and some in Mosaic. In them all, John
pours water on the head of Jesus. In several, Jesus
stands in the Jordan, and John from the bank administers
the rite. In others, both are on dry ground. In no instance
does John appear in the water. At the date of
these representations, immersion is supposed to have been
almost universally prevalent in the church. They, therefore,
the more forcibly demonstrate the strength and prevalence
of the tradition which still survived, representing
John to have baptized in the Jordan, by affusion. In them
the idea of immersion is doubly excluded,—by the direct
representation of the water poured upon the head of Jesus;
and by the fact that the invariable position of John, out
of the water, renders immersion physically impossible, as
administered by him.
.bn 247.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part X. | CHRIST’s$1BAPTISMS AND ANOINTING.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LVIII.—The Meaning of his Baptism by John.
“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade
him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee; and comest
thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him,
Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill
all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”—Matt. iii, 13-15.
Several theories have been advanced, and much discussion
had as to the nature and intent of the baptism of
Jesus by John. Archbishop Thomson,[73] supposes it to
have been, (1.) That the sacrament by which all were
hereafter to be admitted into His kingdom might not want
his example to justify its use. (2.) That John might have
an assurance that his course as the herald of Christ was
now completed by his appearance. (3.) That some token
might be given that he was indeed the anointed of God.
Dr. Dale thinks that it was a public and official announcement
of his entrance upon the work of fulfilling all righteousness.
He strenuously denies that Jesus was baptized
with the baptism of John. “It is one thing to be baptized
by John and quite another to receive the ‘baptism of
John.’ The ‘baptism of John’ was for sinners, demanding
‘repentance,’ ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ 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
.bn 248.png
.pn +1
the ‘baptism of John’ by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and
absurd.” But this baptism was his inauguration into the
office of fulfilling all righteousness. “No one could share
in such an inauguration with a fitness comparable with
that of the great Forerunner. And to this fitness of relationship,
reference is had in the words—‘Thus it becometh
us.’ ‘Thus,’ by baptism, ‘us,’ administered by thee, my
Forerunner, to me the Coming One proclaimed by thee;
‘now,’ entering upon my covenant work, which I now
declare and am ready to begin,—‘to fulfill all righteousness.’
Can there be, in view of the persons, the time, and
the circumstances, any other satisfactory interpretation of
these great words?”[74]
.fn 73
In Smith’s Bib. Dict. article, “Jesus.”
.fn-
.fn 74
Dale’s Christic Baptism, pp. 27, 29.
.fn-
According to another theory, it is held that as the consecration
of Aaron was by baptism, anointing, and sacrifice,
so all these were realized in the priestly consecration of
Jesus. First, He was baptized by John. Then, the heavens
were opened unto Him, and the Spirit of God descended
upon Him, and He was thus “anointed with the
Holy Ghost and with power.” The sacrifice was not till
the end of His earthly ministry, when he offered up
Himself.
This latter is perhaps the most commonly received
theory on the subject. And yet, a more perplexing and
unsatisfactory exposition could hardly be devised. According
to it Christ’s consecration to the priesthood was a confused
imitation of that of Aaron, was partly ritual without
meaning, and partly real, and took place, part of it in the
beginning of his public ministry, and part at its close, so
that until his very death his priesthood was inchoate and
incomplete. Upon this explanation, the baptism of Jesus
was a mere unmeaning form, in supposed imitation of something
in the consecration of Aaron. But Aaron and his
consecration and priesthood were, in every part and aspect
of them, figures of the true,—of the realities which are in
.bn 249.png
.pn +1
Christ. Aaron’s anointing is admitted to have been a
symbol of the real anointing of the Holy Spirit, shed upon
Jesus. The sacrifices offered at the consecration of Aaron,
although by this theory misconceived, are so far correctly
spoken of as that their fulfillment was had in Christ’s one
offering of himself. What then could be meant by Aaron’s
so called baptism, if its antitype is to be found in the
ritual baptism of the Lord Jesus? One rite representing
and setting forth another, which is nothing but a defective
imitation of the first!
In fact, the washing of Aaron by Moses was not a
sacramental baptism at all—a rite, that is, by which blessings
of grace are represented and sealed to the recipient.
It was as we have already explained a symbolical act setting
forth the endowment of the Lord Jesus by the Father
with a sinless humanity.
It is not, however, to this washing of Aaron, that reference
is usually made by the exponents of this theory.
It is said that the priests entered upon their official duties
at thirty years of age, and were then set apart by baptism,
and that hence Jesus, when “he began to be about thirty
years of age,” came to be baptized, and enter upon his
official work; and reference is made to Num. iv, 3; viii, 7.
But the places thus referred to are directions respecting
the Levites, the priest’s servants, and not concerning the
priests at all. Moreover, twenty-five years was the ordinary
age of entrance upon the Levitical service. (Num.
viii, 24.) The age of thirty seems to have been prescribed
with reference to the special labor and responsibility incident
to the carrying of the tabernacle and its furniture
from place to place, during the sojourn in the wilderness.
(See the whole of Num. iv.) Upon such slender foundations
are theories built. The law set no limitation to the
ages of the priests. The rabbins say that they could not
enter on the office until twenty years old. But Aristobulus
the son of Alexander was high priest when less than seventeen
.bn 250.png
.pn +1
years old.[75] On the other hand, while the definition
as to the Levites was, “from thirty years old and
upward even until fifty years old,”—Eli was high priest
when he died at ninety-eight. (1 Sam. iv, 15.)
.fn 75
Josephus’ Antiquities, XV, iii, 3.
.fn-
Christ’s baptism was not his inauguration to the priesthood.
His priesthood was neither Aaronic nor earthly.
For “if he were on earth, He should not be a priest; seeing
that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law;
who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly
things.”—Heb. viii, 4, 5. If any part of the ceremonial
of Aaron’s investiture was a rule of conformity to Jesus,
the whole of it was equally so. But he was made a priest,
“not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the
power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a
priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”—Heb. vii,
16, 17. Christ’s consecration to the priesthood and exercise
of its functions belong to that “true tabernacle which
the Lord pitched and not man.”—Heb. viii, 2. He was
not installed by human hands. “For the law maketh men
high priests which have infirmity. But the word of the
oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated
forevermore.”—Heb. vii, 28.
Dr. Dale understands the Lord Jesus in the above place
to mean,—Thus it becomes us, by a united and public act,
to announce “my entering upon my covenant work which
I now declare, and am ready to begin, ‘to fulfill all righteousness.’”
But, in the first place, that was not the time
of Jesus’ entering on the work of fulfilling righteousness.
Had it been so, it was too late. He was “made of a
woman, made under the law.”—Gal. iv, 4, 5. From the
hour of his birth, he was fulfilling righteousness,—in the
obedience of his childhood, as truly as in the sufferings of the
cross. The work on which he entered, after his baptism and
anointing by the Spirit, was his prophetic office, in which
he announced and offered himself to Israel as her promised
.bn 251.png
.pn +1
King and Savior. So he himself testified in the synagogue
in Nazareth. (Luke iv, 18-20.) But this office will not
fit into the above exposition. Moreover, it would seem
that if any words can express the idea of a thing done as
a duty of righteousness those of Jesus do so. Dr. Dale
says,—“It can not be claimed that the Lord Jesus was
under obligation to undergo this baptism as a part of ‘all
righteousness;’ (1) Because there is no righteousness in it;
(2) Because what there is in it is just what he did not come
to do. He did not come to repent for sinners, nor to exercise
faith for sinners.” The latter argument has the fatal
fault that it proves too much. Upon the same ground the
Lord Jesus should not have been circumcised or purified
with his mother. He should not have kept the passover,
nor any of the Levitical feasts and ordinances. All these
implied and required in others a state of heart and mind
and exercises of repentance and faith which were foreign
to the holy nature of the Lord Jesus.
But is it so that there was no righteousness to be accomplished
by Jesus in complying with John’s baptism?
The answer depends wholly upon the response to be made
to the question which Jesus proposed to the Pharisees,—“The
baptism of John, was it from heaven; or, of men?”
If from heaven, it came with the sanction of the first
clause of the Sinai covenant,—“If ye will obey;” and was
entitled to obedience from every soul. John’s baptism,—Is
it necessary to say it?—washed away no sin. Like all
ritual baptisms, of the Old Testament and the New, alike,
it affected the ritual and outward status, alone, of the party,
as toward the church, and the ordinances. Moreover, his
ministry was not addressed to the ungodly only. But, if
there were any of the people still looking and praying for
the Consolation of Israel, they, as much as others, were
called upon, as being defiled by the contact of the unclean
nation, to receive this baptismal seal of the covenant renewed,
and their acceptance in it with God. Pre-eminently
.bn 252.png
.pn +1
was it true of the Lord Jesus, that he was defiled by contact
with the sinful nation. To ritual uncleanness, he was as
liable as any man, and became thereby subject to the same
obligation of ritual purifying, by which others were bound.
Jesus, therefore, as a true Israelite, came to John’s baptism,
as being an ordinance of divine authority; and in his answer
to John indicates the fact that his omission of the duty
thus resting on him as “made under the law,” would have
derogated from his perfect righteousness.
Nor is this all. John was the herald of Jesus in his
distinctive character as “the Angel of the covenant,”—the
Mediator of that “better covenant” which was enclosed in
the outward form of that of Sinai. (2 Cor. iii, 3-6.) In
that better covenant, and Christ as its Surety, all the
transactions relating to the Sinai covenant had their significance
and end; as they were also the end of John’s ministry.
The repentance which he preached was a call to
apostate Israel to return from transgression to the obedience
required by the covenant, and his baptism was a seal
to its promises, upon that indispensable condition of obedience.
In coming to John’s baptism, therefore, Jesus formally
and publicly came under the bond of the covenant
for obedience, and thus presented himself to Israel as her
Surety therein. The baptism which he received from John
sealed to him its promises on condition of his obedience,
and the descending Spirit and the voice from heaven announced
the Father’s approval and acceptance of him as
Surety for his people, the true Israel of God. It was with
a view to this office of Christ as the Messenger and Surety
of the covenant, and to his own relation as the herald of
Christ in that capacity, that John says, “That he should
be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing
with water;”—John i, 31—that he should be made manifest
to Israel, as her covenant Surety and King; as the
Lamb of God and King of Israel.
The distinction drawn between “the baptism of John”
.bn 253.png
.pn +1
and “baptism by John,” overlooks the profounder aspects
of the subject here indicated. It is true that John’s baptism
addressed to sinners a call to repentance, and announced
remission, on that condition. But this special
form of its message, is no more than the call to obedience,
in terms adapted to the particular case of transgressors.
And the significance and propriety of the baptism depended
upon its own essential meaning as heretofore unfolded. In
the Levitical institutions, the ordinary form of the rite had
its primary relation, as we have seen, to a ritual uncleanness
by contact with the dead, which symbolized the judicial
defilement of the Lord Jesus by contact, through birth
of a woman, with our dead nature, and his consequent
death under the curse. The baptism symbolized the resurrection
of Christ, and of his people with him, in the renewing
of their souls, and the final quickening and rising of their
bodies. Both of these are identified by Paul with the resurrection
of Christ. (Eph. ii, 5; and i, 19-ii, 10; Rom.
vi, 2-5; viii, 11, etc.) It is by virtue of union with him,
by the baptism of his Spirit, bestowed upon and dwelling
in us, that we are enabled to “know the power of his
resurrection” (Phil. iii, 10), by our own death to sin and
life to holiness. This was the signification of John’s baptism.
To the Lord Jesus it was a symbol and pledge of
his own triumph over the exhausted power of the curse,
in his resurrection; and of the deliverance of his people, in
him, from the bondage of sin and death, by his Spirit bestowed
and dwelling in them. Through this they receive
repentance and remission of sins. The same meaning precisely
was signified and sealed to the people by their believing
reception of the same rite.
Thus, on the one hand, Jesus, as being the Son of man,
one of the family of Israel, was as much bound to come to
the baptism which, by the authority of God, John dispensed,
as he was to obey or observe any part of the law,
ritual or moral; as much as was any true son of Israel.
.bn 254.png
.pn +1
On the other hand, by coming and receiving that baptism,
he announced himself, the Surety of the covenant which it
sealed, and was so certified and accepted by John, by the
descending Spirit and by the Father’s voice.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LIX.—The Anointing of the Lord Jesus.
The Scriptures inform us of three distinct bestowals of
the Spirit, upon the Lord Jesus, by the Father. The first,
was that whereby he was begotten through the Holy Ghost,
and his humanity so invested with the Spirits influences,
as to be born and live in perfect holiness, so that he was
designated by the angel, “that holy thing.”—Luke i, 35.
The second was the anointing bestowed at the time of his
baptism by John. And the third was that endowment of the
Spirit, which was conferred on him, at his ascension to the
throne. The intimate relation of his anointing to his baptism
by John, and the close analogy which is traceable
between baptism and anointing, bring the latter within the
purview of the present inquiry.
Immediately after his baptism, as he was praying, “the
heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a
bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from
heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son: in thee I
am well pleased.”—Luke iii, 21, 22. The Baptist adds
some facts:—“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven
like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him
not. But 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 Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record
that this is the Son of God.”—John i, 32-34. This
anointing of the Lord Jesus with the Holy Spirit fulfilled
a three-fold purpose.
1. It was a manifestation to Israel of the long-expected
Messiah,—a confirmation from heaven of John’s testimonies
respecting him, and a designation of him, the coming One,
.bn 255.png
.pn +1
as being Jesus of Nazareth. From the whole account
given in the first chapter of John, it seems evident that
the Baptist and his disciples had distinctly in mind the
language of the second Psalm, which determined the form
of their conclusions, deduced from the scene at the baptizing.
“Why do the heathen rage ... against the Lord,
and against his Anointed?... Yet have I set my King
upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the
Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have
I begotten thee.” The glorious personage here announced
is, thus designated by three titles,—as the Lord’s Anointed,
his King, and his Son. It was as herald of this King that
John came preaching, the kingdom of heaven. And when,
with his own eyes he saw the anointing Spirit descend
upon Jesus, he identified the Anointed with the Son.
He saw and bare record “that this is the Son of God.”
So, John’s disciple Andrew says to his brother Peter, “We
have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the
Christ,”—the Anointed. Not only so, but, at the same
time and by the same token, John recognized in Jesus
“the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world!” Thus fully, by this anointing, was Jesus certified
to Israel; and therein the chief intent of John’s ministry
was accomplished.
2. The anointing was an attestation and seal to him of the
Father’s favor, in view of the spotless righteousness of his
character as already proved in the life which he had lived,
as a private person, the carpenter of Nazareth. Of his
earlier youth, it is said that he “increased in wisdom and
stature, and in favor with God and man.”—Luke ii, 52.
And now, in the fulness of his manhood, in connection
with his anointing, a voice from heaven testifies, “This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”—Matt. iii, 17.
To this, the Psalmist refers his anointing. “Thy throne,
O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom
is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest
.bn 256.png
.pn +1
wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”—Psa. xlv, 6, 7.
“The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh. viii, 10),
said Nehemiah to Israel; and in the joy of his Father’s
favor, testified in the anointing, Jesus fulfilled his ministry
to the close.
3. It was his endowment for the prophetic office, as he
himself testified in the synagogue of Nazareth. “He
found the place where it was written, the Spirit of the Lord
is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that
are bruised.... And he began to say unto them, This
day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.”—Luke iv, 18-21.
From the same source he derived the miraculous powers,
which attested his word. (Matt. xii, 28.) “God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.”—Acts
x, 38. Of the relation of his anointing to the fulfillment
of his priestly office, in view of which John called
him “the Lamb of God,” Paul says that he “through
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.”—Heb.
ix, 14. His anointing was not his consecration to
the priesthood, but his endowment with grace, by which
he was qualified to perform that priesthood, to prepare and
offer an unspotted, sufficient and acceptable sacrifice on the
altar of justice. And, having completed that work, by the
same Spirit was he raised from the dead. (1 Pet. iii, 18;
Rom. viii, 11.)
Such and so signal was the meaning and intent of that
fact from which Jesus derived the name of, the Christ. Its
close relation in many respects to the doctrine of baptism, is
apparent. As to the question of mode, a few points may
here be noted.
1. In it the Holy Spirit was given to the Lord Jesus,
as an indwelling fountain of all gifts for his ministry.
.bn 257.png
.pn +1
2. It came by a descent from the opened heavens.
3. It was in the form of a dove,—beautiful symbol of
the kindness of God, and the “meekness and gentleness,”
the “grace and truth” of the Lord Jesus!
4. It abode on him.
5. As the result, he was filled with the Holy Spirit
(Luke iv, 1), brought under his active control and guidance,
and endowed with his extraordinary gifts, for the
fulfillment of his ministry.
6. The symbol which by divine appointment represented
it was the pouring of oil upon the head and person. (Lev.
viii, 12, 30; 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1, 13; 1 Kings i, 34, 39;
xix, 16; 2 Kings ix, 6.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section LX.—“The Baptism that I am Baptized with.”
It was his resurrection from the dead. We have seen
that the Mosaic baptism was a symbol and seal of the imparting
of life to the dead. We have seen it so referred
to by Paul in his argument in proof of the resurrection.
The fact has been pointed out that the Lord Jesus in receiving
the baptism of John, not only fulfilled the law of
righteousness as a faithful Israelite, but received, therein, a
symbol and seal of his own resurrection and triumph over
death and the curse, under which he was already held.
Twice, in the course of his ministry as reported by the
evangelists, did Jesus refer to his resurrection under this
figure of baptism. Matthew thus records one of these
occasions, “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s
children with her sons, worshipping him.... And he
said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him,
Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy
right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask.
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto
.bn 258.png
.pn +1
them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized
with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on
my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give (all’ hois
ētoimastai), save to those for whom it is prepared of my
Father.”—Matt. xx, 20-23. Luke records a similar expression.
“I am come to send fire on the earth; and what
will I if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to
be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on
earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division. For from
henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three. The father shall be
divided against the son, and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against
the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”—Luke
xii, 49-53. Of these expressions, expositors have proposed
two interpretations. According to one, the cup and the
baptism are equivalent figures meaning the sufferings
and death of the Lord Jesus. Hence, Baptist expositors
would explain it as an immersion in sorrow; but they do
not show by what example or argument the word “baptism”
can be made, thus, of itself, to signify such an
immersion. A conclusive objection lies against this interpretation.
In both the gospels the distinction between the
cup and the baptism is carefully preserved, in Christ’s original
question, and in his rejoinder. “Are ye able to drink of
the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with?” “Ye shall indeed
drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I
am baptized with.” It can not be admitted that a second
clause, so particular and detailed in statement, and so carefully
repeated in the rejoinder, is a mere blank, adding
nothing to the meaning already expressed. But it is agreed
that the figure of the cup indicates all that suffering by
which the Lord Jesus made atonement for our sins.
.bn 259.png
.pn +1
The other interpretation proposed is but a modified
form of that here given. It discriminates between the cup
and the baptism, by interpreting the latter of Christ’s sufferings
viewed as “consecrating sufferings—sufferings by
which he was to be separated unto God’s service as a royal
priest.” “That the reader may understand how Christ
could use such language in the sense which we give it, let
him consider such passages of Scripture as these: ‘Unto
him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own
blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and
his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever,
Amen.’—Rev. i, 5, 6. ‘And Jesus said unto them, verily
I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.’”—Matt. xix, 28.[76]
.fn 76
Armstrong on the Sacraments, pp. 48, 49.
.fn-
The Scriptures cited by this respected author do certainly
prove that the royalty and priesthood of the saints
in heaven are the purchase of Christ’s blood and the gifts
of his love. But they do not even hint at the idea, much
less prove it, in support of which they seem to be cited;
to wit, that the sufferings and death of Christ were his
consecration to the priesthood. On the contrary, they are
in harmony with all the Scriptures, which testify that those
sufferings were an offering for our sins, made by a priest
already consecrated. “For every high priest is ordained
to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that
this man have somewhat also to offer.”—Heb. viii, 3.
Here, it appears that, inasmuch as he was a priest, he
must have an offering; the very reverse of the theory that
his offering was in order to his consecration to the priesthood.
This man who by the word of the oath, was consecrated
a priest forevermore, needed not, like those priests
to enter often into the holy place with blood. “For then
must he often have suffered since the foundation of the
.bn 260.png
.pn +1
world,” the original date of his priesthood. “But now
once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away
sin by the sacrifice of himself.”—Heb. ix, 26. Of Christ’s
sufferings, in their atoning character, the Scriptures are
full and explicit. And, of them, the cup is the undoubted
symbol. But of “consecrating sufferings,” and especially,
of such contradistinguished from the others, as here supposed,
we fail to find a trace. Is it asserted that although
they are the same sufferings, yet are they viewed in a different
light? Still the distinction is without warrant in
the Scriptures. But, even conceding that point, can it be
imagined that the Lord Jesus, in the circumstances of the
case as relating to James and John, would pause upon
and emphasize that distinction, by separate definitions, requiring
distinct consideration and answer, by them, when
at last the sufferings in question were one and the same?
Nothing but an absolute necessity could justify such an
interpretation.
In order to a right solution of the question here considered,
let us ascertain what were the facts and conditions
necessarily present in the mind of the Lord Jesus, in making
his answer to James and John.
1. Their application immediately followed, and was no
doubt suggested by a statement made by our Lord, in
reply to a question from Peter. Upon occasion of the
sorrowful turning away of the young ruler, Peter said to
Jesus, “Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee;
what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them,
Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me,
in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”—Matt. xix, 27, 28.
Here are several indications of the time of enthronement.
(1.) It is the time “when the Son of man shall
sit on the throne of his glory.” This phrase, “the throne
of his glory,” is not used in the Scriptures to designate
.bn 261.png
.pn +1
the invisible throne of majesty and power in the heavens,
now occupied by the Son of man; but that revelation to
men of his glory, of which he said to his disciples, “the
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with
his angels.”—Matt. xvi, 27. To this time he expressly
refers that throne. “When the Son of man shall come
in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall
he sit upon the throne of his glory.”—Matt. xxv, 31. So
Paul declares that the Lord Jesus “shall judge the quick
and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;” and in
view of his own finished course, exults in the fact that,
“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at
that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that
love his appearing.”—2 Tim. iv, 1, 8. (2.) It is the time
of the judgment. The apostles shall sit with him, judging
the tribes of Israel. (3.) It is the period of “the regeneration.”
Some expositors, indeed, refer this word to the
preceding clause, which they read, “Ye which, in the
regeneration, have followed me.” According to this reading,
the regeneration means, the introduction of the gospel,
as being the beginning of a new life to the world. But
others understand, by it, the resurrection of the saints
which precedes the final judgment of the world. According
to this, which I take to be the true interpretation, the
resurrection is called the regeneration, because, in it, the
quickening power of the Holy Spirit, first experienced, in
the renewing of the souls of believers, and in making their
bodies his temples, will then take full possession of the
whole man, quickening and transforming our vile bodies
into the likeness of Christ’s glorious body, and reuniting
soul and body in glory. In like manner, and at the same
time, the work of “restitution of all things, which God
hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since
the world began” (Acts iii, 21), will be accomplished.
Beginning, as it does in the spiritual world, in the preaching
.bn 262.png
.pn +1
and triumphs of the gospel, it will be consummate in the
regeneration of the physical system, in the new creation,
the new heavens and the new earth. That the thrones
promised to the apostles could only be possessed after the
resurrection, is evident from the fact that, physical death
being an element of the curse, the blessedness of the saints
may, indeed, be unspeakable, even in a disembodied state;
but there can be no properly royal triumph, so long as
the bodies are in the bonds of corruption and the grave.
2. While the time of the kingdom of the saints is thus
clearly defined, there are also certain conditions precedent,
revealed with equal clearness and emphasis. “Ye which
have followed me,” says Jesus. Elsewhere he explains
more fully. “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth
after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life
shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it.”—Matt. x, 38, 39. The following must be a bearing
of the cross, with the life in the hand. A pertinent
illustration appears in the life of the apostle Paul. He
thus states the motives and policy which governed his
course.—“I have suffered the loss of all things, ... that
I may win Christ, and be found in him; ... that I may
know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship
of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his
death, if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection
of the dead.”—Phil. iii, 8-11. Paul’s meaning in the
phrase to “know the power of his resurrection,” elsewhere
appears. He prays for his readers, that they “may
know,”—that is, may realize by a blessed experience,—“what
is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward
who believe, according to the working of his mighty power
which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the
dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places.... And you hath he quickened who were dead
in trespasses and sins, ... together with Christ, ...
and hath raised us up together.”—Eph. i, 16-20; ii, 1, 5, 6.
.bn 263.png
.pn +1
In another place, Paul, in view of his finished course
and assured reward raises the triumphant shout,—“I have
fought a good fight! I have finished my course! I have
kept the Henceforth there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge,
shall give me at that day;”—the day, to wit, of “his appearing
and kingdom.”—2 Tim. iv, 1, 7, 8.
It thus appears that the time of the kingdom is the resurrection;—and
that the condition of its possession is not
physical sufferings and death, which are common to all
men; but a conformity to Christ’s sufferings and death,
by being, in him, crucified and dead to the world. With
this condition is inseparably identified the possession of a
part in the resurrection and life of Christ. “If we be dead
with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.”—Rom.
vi, 8. “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I
live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”—Gal. ii, 20. We
can be dead with Christ, dead to sin and the world, only
by being alive to God.
Not only is the resurrection of the saints the time of
their kingdom, but worthiness of part in the resurrection is
stated with emphasis, as the final and conclusive condition
precedent to the throne. “They,” says Jesus, “which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection
of the dead.”—Luke xx, 35. “If, by any
means,” says Paul, “I might attain unto the resurrection
of the dead.” Herein is the propriety of the form of the
question put by Jesus to the two brethren:—“Can ye ...
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”
That is, “Are ye ready to endure and to do all that will
be required of those who would be counted worthy of that
world, and of the resurrection of the dead?”
3. The same word (palingenesia) regeneration, which
Jesus employs, is used by Paul, who describes God’s
mercy as saving us, “by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly,
.bn 264.png
.pn +1
through Jesus Christ our Savior.”—Titus iii, 5, 6.
It is the very grace, therefore, of which, under the Old
Testament as well as the New, baptism with water was
the appointed symbol and seal. And particularly was it
true of the sprinkling of the water of separation, that it
symbolized the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the
third day, and of his people on the seventh, the day of the
Lord. Add to these considerations the fact that from
the time of his tour in the region of Cæsarea Philippi,
where he was transfigured, Jesus had been earnestly endeavoring
to impress on the reluctant minds of the apostles
the fact that “he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer
many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed and be raised again the third day.”—Matt.
xvi, 21. We have already seen that Jesus and the apostles
distinctly recognized and referred to the third day’s
baptism with the sprinkled water of separation as being a
prophecy the fulfillment of which required his rising from
the dead on the third day. “These are the words which
I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me....
Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and
to rise from the dead the third day.”—Luke xxiv, 44-46. In
the law of Moses, concerning the water of separation, and
there only is the third day thus defined.[77]
.fn 77
See above, p. #100#.
.fn-
The points suggested in these considerations are intimately
and inseparably related to the matter involved in
the petition of James and John. They are constantly so
treated by the Lord Jesus himself, in his personal teachings,
and by his Spirit in the writers of the New Testament.
And yet, we are to suppose that, in his response to
the brethren, Jesus absolutely ignored all this, which he
had, just before, emphasized in his reply to Peter; and
that he directed their attention solely to the sufferings
.bn 265.png
.pn +1
which he was to endure, and in which they were to share!
The alternative is, that on the contrary he referred to baptism,
in the meaning in which unquestionably it was used
throughout the Old Testament, as a type and figure of the
resurrection, and thus, by that single word, suggested all
that was involved in the vastly important considerations
above mentioned, as connected with the subject.—“Ye
know not what ye ask. Ye neither appreciate the true
nature of the honors which ye seek, nor the time and circumstances
of their enjoyment, nor consider the conditions
precedent. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall
drink of,—the cup of the crucifixion of the flesh and
the world; and to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with, doing and enduring all that is involved in
attaining to the resurrection of the dead? For it is not
till the resurrection that the thrones which you seek can
be possessed; and only by those who are found worthy of
that world and of the resurrection.”
That such was the meaning of our Savior would seem
to be certain. This is confirmed by the words already
cited from Luke xii, 49-53. “I have a baptism to be
baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.”
The matter present to the mind of Jesus, as the
occasion of this utterance, was that discrimination which he
was to exercise and separation which he was to make, in
purging his floor and dividing between the wheat and the
chaff, bringing division into families and dissolving the
closest and tenderest ties. It is of this that he says, “I
am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I if it
be already kindled?” That is, Why should I wish to restrain
it? “But I have a baptism; ... and how am I
straitened!” He thus indicates a straitening of the full
exercise of that function which he has just described. The
cause of it is an unaccomplished baptism. What then
were the facts out of which this language is to be explained?
(1.) Christ was under judicial condemnation for us from
.bn 266.png
.pn +1
his birth, under the curse and sentence of death. (2.) While
in that condition, a servant to the law and the curse, he
could not fully exercise the prerogatives proper to his royalty.
(3.) Especially must his office as personally the
Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire,—as the dispenser
of grace to his people and wrath to his enemies,—be
in abeyance, till his resurrection and assumption of the
throne. Thus, he was from the beginning straitened and
looking forward to his resurrection as the time and means of
his enlargement. And, hence his saying,—“I have a baptism.”
That baptism was the bestowal upon him, by the
Father, of the Spirit of life, raising him from the dead to
the throne, whence he now dispenses grace and judgment
to the world.
.bn 267.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part XI. | CHRIST THE GREAT BAPTIZER.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXI.—The Kingdom of the Son of Man.
The phrases, “the kingdom,” “the kingdom of heaven,”
etc., have primary reference to that throne and kingdom
to which the Lord Jesus was exalted, when he rose
from the dead, and was set at the Father’s right hand. It
is that militant kingdom of the Son of man, the establishment
of which Daniel saw in vision; the law of which is,
“conquering and to conquer” (Rev. vi, 2); and the history
of which is that “he must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet.”—1 Cor. xv, 25. The phrase is sometimes
used to express the efficiency of Christ’s saving
sceptre in the hearts of believers, as when Jesus says,—“The
kingdom of God is within you.”—Luke xvii, 21. It
is applied to the visible church, as being that society which
by public covenant and profession owns Christ as her King
and his Word as her supreme law. So, it is used to designate
the millennial dispensation, when “the Lord shall be
King over all the earth,” when “there shall be one Lord,
and his name one.”—Zech. xiv, 9. Its duration is by Paul
said to be, until “he shall have put down all rule, and all
authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put
all enemies under his feet.” “Then cometh the end,
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even
the Father.”—1 Cor. xv, 24-28. Of this end and change
of administration Jesus says, “Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”—Matt.
xiii, 43. Of it, he teaches us to pray,—“Thy kingdom
come.”
.bn 268.png
.pn +1
Thus, in all the variety of connection in which it occurs,
the phrase in question derives its propriety and significance
from that dominion with which man was endowed in his creation,
that royalty which is enjoyed in the throne and sceptre
of the Son of man,—its authority that of God the Father,—its
extent the whole universe of God,—its object the manifestation
of the glory of the divine perfections, and the rectifying
of the disorders introduced by Satan,—and its end,
that work accomplished and the sceptre resigned to the
Father, “that God may be all in all.”
His coronation and kingdom were the consummation of
triumph for the Seed of the woman; toward which, from
the beginning, the Spirit of prophecy ever pointed and
hastened with ardent desire. Its realization begun with
the ascension and the day of Pentecost,—its full meaning
of grace, of wrath and of glory, will only then be fully
realized in fruition, in that day when the mighty angel
shall, with uplifted hand, proclaim the end of the mystery
with the end of time. Of its significance, I will now
attempt an indication.
Sin is, in its very existence, an insult to the holiness
and sovereignty of God. Its unclean and evil aspect is a
disgust and abomination in his sight, and a pollution and
deformity on the fair face of his creation. In its first
beginning by Satan, it was an immediate assault upon the
very throne in heaven. Its introduction into the world
was a Satanic device to mock God’s proclaimed purpose of
favor to man, and to insult His love by rendering its
object unworthy of His regard, and loathsome to His holiness.
At the creation of man, God had said, “Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”—Gen.
i, 26. In the eighth Psalm, this decree is anew rehearsed.
(Psa. viii, 4-8.) Again, in the epistle to the
.bn 269.png
.pn +1
Hebrews, Paul transcribes it from the Psalmist, and expounds
it. “For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection
the world to come whereof we speak. But one,”
that is, the Psalmist, “in a certain place testified, saying,
What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the Son of
man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little
lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and
honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.”—Heb.
ii, 5-8. From this language of the Psalmist, Paul
proceeds to argue the extent of the dominion thus given
to man. He insists, (1) that the decree is unlimited. “In
that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing
that is not put under him;” (2) that man does not now
have such dominion. “Now, we see not yet all things put
under him;” (3) that the decree is already fulfilled in the
throne which Christ now fills. “But we see Jesus crowned
with glory and honor;” (4) that to that same glory the
Father is now “bringing many sons,” the brethren of
Christ and co-heirs with him of the kingdom. Vs. 10.
In another place, Paul completes the view, in this direction.
“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But
when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest
that He is excepted which did put all things under him.”—1
Cor. xv, 25-27. It is a legal and common sense rule of
interpretation, as to deeds of grant or conveyance, that an
exception on one point proves the intention of the grant
to be otherwise unlimited. So it is here. The apostle, in
excepting God the Father from the grant of dominion to
the Son of man, leaves all else in the universe under his
subjection. It thus appears that, in the decree of man’s
creation, a dominion was assigned him which in the purpose
of God comprehended all the power which Jesus, the Son
of man, now exercises, over the whole creation of God.
.bn 270.png
.pn +1
How far this extent of the purpose of God was understood
by Satan, we are not informed. But it is evident
from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that the fulfillment
of this decree was the subject on which the serpent joined
issue with God, in the seduction of our first parents, and
his policy toward our race. The issue thus on trial since
the foundation of the world is this: Shall God fulfill his
announced purpose, by exalting man to the promised
throne? Shall he, thereby, vindicate his own wisdom, sovereignty,
truth, and grace, and reveal and glorify all his
perfections? Or, shall Satan triumph over God and man,
thwarting God’s decree, through man’s ruin and bondage?
Shall he succeed in the impious attempt to array the very
attributes of God against each other, so that his justice
and holiness shall forbid the performance of the purpose
which his sovereign love determined and his wisdom and
truth proclaimed? This has been the problem of the ages:
This, the question which has roused intensest interest in all
heaven’s hosts, “Which things the angels desire to look
into.”—1 Pet. i, 12. This is the key to the fact, that,
amid the scenes of human sin and ruin which fill the
pages of God’s word, the doctrine of the kingdom gradually
dominates amid the gloom, looming up into proportions
of grandeur which overshadow earth and heaven. “I beheld,”
says Daniel, “till the thrones were cast down, and
the Ancient of days did sit; whose garment was white as
snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his
throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning
fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before
him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten
thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.... I saw
in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient
of days, and they brought him near before him. And
there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.
.bn 271.png
.pn +1
His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
destroyed.”—Dan. vii, 9-14.
At length, the fullness of time drew nigh when the
mystery of the ages should be disclosed, and the promised
kingdom given to the Son of man. John came, the herald
of its advent, crying, “The kingdom of heaven is at
hand.”—Matt. iii, 2. Soon, Jesus himself went forth uttering
the same announcement, “Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand.”—Ib. iv, 17, 23. And lest his
voice should fail to reach every ear, he shortly sent the
twelve, and then the seventy, to fill the land with the cry.
“As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at
hand.”—Ib. x, 7; Luke x, 9.
But before the kingdom could be established, before
the Son of man might assume the crown, there was a work
for him to do. That crown might not be a gift of God’s
arbitrary grace—a mere assertion of purpose unchanged.
It must be a reward of manifest and glorious merit. Nay,
not even so is it to be a gratuitous endowment; but as a
trophy won by battle and conquest is it to be received and
worn. The Seed of the woman—the Son of man—must
give proof, in presence of all intelligences, both holy and
apostate, of his worthiness of that favor which God, from
the beginning, so openly bestowed. He must display the
mystery of a man walking in the flesh among men, in the
glory of a spotless and untarnished righteousness, amid
the reign of abounding sin. He must be seen—this glorious
man—taking upon his mighty shoulders the vast incubus
of the curse, with which Satan’s malicious fraud had
burdened the world, and bearing it away to a land not
inhabited. He must meet the great enemy himself, whose
impious challenge has raised the issue of the fitness of
God’s choice, and man’s competence to reign—the enemy
who, in insolent contempt of God’s purpose, has chosen
this earth as the seat of his own empire, and here usurped
.bn 272.png
.pn +1
dominion over man. He must subdue Satan, break his
scepter and lead him captive in the train of his triumph,
before he may claim and assume the kingdom and the
glory.
Satan saw, with dread the coming of the champion,
and proposed a compromise.—“Behold the kingdoms of
the world and their glory! Do homage to me, and all
shall be thine!”—Matt. iv, 8, 9. It needs not to trace
the manner of the triumphs of the carpenter’s son, ending
in the resurrection from the guarded sepulcher, and ascension
to the throne in heaven. As the time of the kingdom
came to be immediately at hand, he entered Jerusalem,
amid the exultant Hosannas of his followers, proclaiming
him the King of Israel. He was betrayed and brought to
the council. And when the high-priest adjured him whether
he was the Son of God, his answer, whilst attesting that
blessed fact, held up to equal prominence his royalty as
the Son of man.—“Thou hast said; nevertheless, I say
unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man, sitting on
the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of
heaven.”—Matt. xxvi, 63, 64. And so, they crucified
him, with the accusation written in letters of Hebrew and
Greek and Latin,—“The King of the Jews.”
He had already foretold his apostles that they should
live to see his kingdom established with power. On the
morning of his resurrection, he said to Mary, “Touch me
not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to
my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father
and your Father, and to my God and your God.”—John
xx, 17. The word, “I ascend” (properly, “I am ascending”),
indicates his immediate ascension and reception of
the throne, on the very day of the resurrection. And it is
worthy of notice that John who relates this does not mention
that subsequent public ascension which was made in
the presence of the apostles, as Christ’s official witnesses.
He had already recorded the essential fact. Between these
.bn 273.png
.pn +1
two events, the first and the final ascension, on the occasion
of one of his appearances to his disciples, he expressly
told them that he was now already in possession of the
throne. He “came and spake unto them, saying, All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”—Matt.
xxviii, 17, 18. On the day of Pentecost, Peter testified of
the supreme authority now vested in Him. “Let all the
house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that
same Jesus whom ye crucified, both lord and Christ.”—Acts
ii, 36. Paul more fully states the extent of his dominion.
God “raised him from the dead and set him at
his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all
principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this world, but also
in that which is to come; and hath put all things under
his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to
the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth
all in all.”—Eph. i, 20-23.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXII.—Christ is enthroned as the Baptizer.
The announcement of the coming of the Lord Jesus as
King was made to the Jews, in a very striking and impressive
manner. Clothed in sackcloth of hair and subsisting
on locusts and wild honey, John came in the wilderness
of Judea, crying to an apostate people,—“Repent ye;
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.... He that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the
garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable
fire.”—Matt. iii, 2-12. The baptizing office of Christ, as
thus set forth, was the objective point toward which the
Old Testament baptisms directed the faith and hopes of
Israel; and the theme, as we have seen, of some of the
most exultant strains of prophecy. And to it, the
.bn 274.png
.pn +1
baptism of the Christian church ever looks up and
testifies.
The intent of Christ’s enthronement is here stated to be
that he may “thoroughly purge his floor.” So Jesus himself
explains the parable of the tares. “The Son of Man
shall send forth his angels, and shall gather out of his
kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity;
and shall cast them into a furnace of fire.”—Matt.
xiii, 41, 42. The dimensions of his kingdom, to be thus
purged, we have seen to be coextensive with the universe
of God; over which Paul declares that “he must reign
till he hath put all enemies under his feet.”—1 Cor. xv,
25. The same apostle further states that “it pleased the
Father that in Him should all fullness dwell; and having
made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile
all things unto himself; by him, whether they be
things in earth, or things in heaven.”—Col. i, 19, 20.
In the execution of a work so vast and so momentous,
the baptist states two means to be employed,—the baptism
of the Holy Ghost; and the baptism of fire. By the one,
Jesus gathers his wheat into the garner; by the other, he
will burn up the chaff. We will first consider the baptism
of the Holy Ghost.
In the blessed Triune Godhead there is one nature, one
mind, and purpose, and will; so that all concur, equally,
and freely in the eternal origination of the divine plan, and
in every step of its administrative fulfillment. Yet is there
an essential and native order of precedence and operation
clearly traceable in the Scriptures. In this order, the Father
is the first, of whom the Son is begotten, and from
whom the Spirit proceeds. So, in the executive administration
of the sacred scheme, there is an order of precedence
in the manifestation of the Godhead, revealed with
equal clearness. In it, the Son was sent by the Father to
humble himself under the law, in the form of a servant;
and he so performed the Father’s will as to be designated
.bn 275.png
.pn +1
by him “my righteous servant.”—Isa. liii, 11. In it, the
Father put the anointing Spirit upon the incarnate Son.
(Isa. xlii, 1; Matt. xii, 18.) And, by the Spirit thus given,
was he directed in his entire ministry, until he, “through
the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,” a
sacrifice for sin. (Heb. ix, 14.)
But, upon the enthronement of the Lord Jesus as God’s
great Baptizer, there was a change in this order of administration.
With the sceptre and kingdom of the Father, the
dispensing of the Spirit was given to the Son of man. In
this endowment, two great ends were accomplished. (1.) As
the third Person of the Godhead is essentially the spiritus,
or breath, of the Father (2 Sam. xxii, 16; Job iv, 9; xxxii,
8; xxxiii, 4; Matt. x, 20), “which proceedeth from the
Father” (John xv, 26), so now, being given to the Lord
Jesus, and mediatorially subject to and sent forth by him,
as his Spirit, our Savior is thus constituted a likeness and
revelation of the Father, in that respect also; as he is, in
being robed with the Father’s glory, sitting on his throne,
and swaying his sceptre. This was signified by the Lord
Jesus, when he came to the disciples after his resurrection,
and breathed on them, saying, “Receive ye the Holy
Ghost.”—John xx, 22. Thus, “in him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily.”—Col. ii, 9. (2.) This investiture
with the Spirit, was an essential qualification,
without which it was impossible that the Lord Jesus should
have fulfilled the work assigned him, of purging the
Father’s floor and gathering the wheat into his garner.
Among the Persons of the Godhead, it is the office of the
Spirit to be the author and source of life, by whom only,
therefore, dead souls are quickened and dead bodies raised
to life. Hence, Jesus, in announcing his prerogative respecting
these things, attributes it to the gift of the Spirit
of life conferred on him by the Father. “The Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:
for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the
.bn 276.png
.pn +1
Son likewise.... For as the Father raiseth up the dead
and quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom
he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment unto the Son; that all men should
honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.... Verily,
verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life
in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
and hath given him authority to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man.”—John v, 19-27.
In his last discourse with his disciples, the night of the
betrayal, Jesus was very explicit on this subject. Fully to
appreciate his statements on that occasion, it is necessary
to keep in view the general features of the divine economy
which were about to culminate in Christ’s exaltation.
Inasmuch as Satan, in his insolent scorn of the human
race, sought, through its weakness and ruin to cast contempt
upon God, and to involve his government in
God in the mystery of his glorious love, saw fit, in honor
of the human race, to place his government upon the
shoulders of the child of that very woman whose weakness
Satan betrayed, and to appoint him to redeem her and her
seed from the usurper’s power, and avenge her wrong upon
the betrayer’s head; and ordained him, because he is the
Son of man, to rectify all the evil that Satan has done,—to
baptize this earth and yonder heavens from the defilement
and dishonor that he has wrought, through sin, and
to “reconcile all things to the Father, whether they be
things in earth or things in heaven.” It is manifest that
in the fulfillment of such a plan, the Son of man must
take actual possession of the scepter, before full entrance
can be made upon its manifested execution. It is further
to be remembered that the entire discourse in question was
addressed to the apostles, with distinct reference to their
commission and qualification to proclaim the gospel of the
.bn 277.png
.pn +1
kingdom. The statements and promises therein contained
do not, therefore, have immediate respect to the ordinary
graces of the Spirit, in the hearers of the word, but to his
comforting, enlightening and directing influences in the
apostle-witnesses.
“I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter that he may abide with you for ever; even the
Spirit of truth.... These things have I spoken unto you,
being yet present with you. But the Comforter which is
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.... When
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from
the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from
the Father, he shall testify of me.... It is expedient for
you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him
unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Of
sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because
I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of
judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I
have many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear
them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak,
and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify
me; for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto
you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore
said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto
you.”—John xiv, 16, 17, 25, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7-15.
In these passages, there is a very remarkable order of
progress in the statements concerning the mission of the
Spirit. “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter.” “The Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name.” “The Comforter whom I will send
.bn 278.png
.pn +1
unto you from the Father.” “If I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you: but if I depart I will send
him unto you.” As the Spirit essentially proceeds from the
Father, so, primarily, in the manifestation of the Godhead,
he is sent forth by the Father, and in all his work of grace
to man, is sent through the mediation of the Son. Hence
the form of the first statement:—“I will pray the Father,
and he shall give.” In the next passage, he indicates that
whilst, in the concurrence of the Godhead, the Father is
the primary source of the Spirit, the mission spoken of, is
in the name, and for the purposes of the Son, namely,—to
remind the apostles of his words, and interpret them to
their understandings and hearts. “Whom the Father will
send in my name,”—that is, to do my commission,—to
utter my words. In the next clause he assumes to himself
and asserts the prerogative conferred on him, and
says,—“When the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father.” And since the mission thus
promised was to be a testimony on his own behalf, he goes
on to mark that the testimony of the Spirit is that of the
Father, also, since essentially and eternally, he proceedeth
from and is the Spirit of the Father. “Even the Spirit
of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify
of me; and ye also shall bear witness because ye have
been with me from the beginning.” Compare John v, 36;
Heb. ii, 4.
Next, since the triumphs of the gospel were reserved
to honor the scepter of the Son of man, Jesus declares
that he must ascend to heaven and assume that scepter,
before the apostles could receive the gifts which would
qualify them for spreading those triumphs.—“If I go
not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but,
if I depart, I will send him unto you.” He declares the
Spirit’s offices, toward the world and toward them, whom
he “the Spirit of truth” should “guide into all truth;”
and emphasizes the fact that in fulfilling these offices, he
.bn 279.png
.pn +1
will act strictly as an interpreter. Christ is the Word
of God; and the Spirit sent by him, “shall not speak
of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
speak.”—“He shall glorify me; for he shall take of mine
and shall shew it unto you.” And lest the unlimited purport
of this declaration should not be fully appreciated, he
adds, “All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore
said I that he shall take of mine and shall show it
unto you.” As essentially the Father’s, but given to the
Son;—such is the aspect in which the Spirit shall reveal
them to the glory of the Son.
Such were the testimonies with reference to which Jesus,
after his resurrection, commanded his apostles to “wait
for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”—Acts i,
4, 5. Of it, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, “Being
by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of
the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
forth this which ye now see and hear.”—Acts ii, 33. What
the promise was, Peter, here distinctly indicates. It was
fulfilled in giving the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus, that
he might of his royal prerogative shed down that Spirit
upon his people.
The relation thus existing between the enthroned Mediator
and the Holy Spirit, was very remarkably intimated
by Jesus the night after the resurrection. He came to the
assembled disciples with the salutation,—“Peace be unto
you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And
when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”—John xx, 21, 22.
Thus by anticipation, he interpreted the gift of Pentecost,
as an imparting to them of the Holy Spirit, which was now
given to and dwelt in him, as his Spirit, the breath of
his life.
Dr. Dale, in his invaluable treatises has overlooked the
.bn 280.png
.pn +1
distinction here pointed out, between the endowment of the
Spirit which Jesus enjoyed in the performance of his earthly
ministry, and that which belongs to him as Baptizer on the
throne. Discussing John i, 33,—which he translates,—“This
is he that baptizeth by the Holy Ghost,” he says,
“He upon whom the Holy Ghost descended and on whom
he remained, ‘without measure’ was thus qualified for his
amazing work, and qualified to be [‘o baptizōn en Pneumati
Agiō] the Baptizer who was himself in the Holy Ghost,
and being in the Holy Ghost was thereby invested with
power to baptize by the Holy Ghost.—The Lord Jesus
Christ—‘o baptizōn en Pneumati Agiō,—is ‘the Divine baptizer,
being in the Holy Ghost.’... The passage is to be
understood as announcing the peculiar character of the
Lord Jesus Christ as baptizer. This is done by exhibiting
him in a two-fold aspect: 1. As being personally en Pneumati
Agiō. 2. As a consequence of being en Pneumati
Agiō, being invested with the power of baptizing by the
Holy Ghost.”[78]—In another place he says,—“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.... Does not the Dative and en
announce the Agent in whom the power to baptize resides?”[79]
.fn 78
“Christic Baptism,” pp. 53, 56, 57.
.fn-
.fn 79
Ibid, p. 76.
.fn-
1. The anointing of the Lord Jesus at his baptism did
not qualify him as Baptizer. Else, neither He nor the
apostles need have waited “for the promise of the Father,”
which was fulfilled at the ascension, and demonstrated on
Pentecost. (See Acts i, 4; ii, 33.)
2. As the water is the immediate efficient cause of the
cleansing, in washing, so the Spirit is the immediate efficient
cause of the grace wrought in the spiritual baptism.
But to describe him as the executive Agent of that baptism,
is the same error which should represent the water
in that capacity, in ritual baptism.
3. Jesus was “in the Spirit,” that is under the pervasive
.bn 281.png
.pn +1
influence and control of the Spirit, during his entire
earthly life. But it was precisely herein that he filled the
character of being God’s “righteous servant.”—Isa. liii, 11.
It was characteristic of his humiliation, to be thus subordinate.
But upon his exaltation, the order was reversed.
It is no longer Christ in the Spirit, fulfilling the service
and work appointed him. But it is the Spirit in Christ,
subject to his control, speaking his words and doing according
to the will of Jesus, the Lord. And Jesus does not
baptize by the Holy Ghost doing it for Him, but “with the
Holy Ghost,” as his Spirit and instrument; as he so clearly
intimated, when he breathed upon his disciples and said,
“Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXIII.—Note, on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
In the year 325, the council of Nice condemned the
heresies of Arius concerning the Son, and formulated the
orthodox doctrine on the subject in what is known as the
Nicene creed. In 381, the council of Constantinople, being
assembled on account of the errors of Macedonius, concerning
the Spirit, inserted into the Nicene creed a statement
of doctrine concerning the Third Person, in which
occurred the phrase, “which proceedeth from the Father.”
About the year, 434, the council of Ephesus, being the
third general council, as the before mentioned were the
first and second, determined that no further addition should
be made to this creed. Disregarding this decree, and without
the sanction of any general council, the western or Latin
church, about the end of the sixth century, silently interpolated
the formula of Constantinople, so as to make it
read,—“which proceedeth from the Father and the Son.”
The resulting controversies became one cause of the division
between the Latin and Greek churches. At the reformation,
the Protestant churches generally, without discussion,
accepted the Romish doctrine on the subject, and
incorporated it into their doctrinal formularies.
.bn 282.png
.pn +1
In the foregoing discussion this theory is ignored, in
favor of the primitive doctrine; for the following reasons:
1. The point in question is the essential and eternal
procession of the Spirit. If there is one Scripture, referred
to by any writer, or contained in the sacred volume, which
even seems to describe such procession from the Son, it
has not been my privilege to meet with it, in the course
of a careful and long continued inquiry. The texts usually
cited are, all of them, statements explicitly referring to
the voluntary and temporal mission of the Spirit, coming
into the world; and not to his essential procession, which
is involuntary and eternal. They are John xv, 26; xvi, 7:
Gal. iv, 6. “When the Comforter is come whom I will
send unto you from the Father.”—“If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will
send him unto you. “Because ye are sons, God hath
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying,
Abba, Father.” Will any one pretend that these passages
refer to the eternal procession?
2. The language in which Jesus speaks of this procession
as being from the Father seems designed to be adequate
and exhaustive. “When the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the
Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall
testify of me.”—John xv, 26. That the Father, specifically,
is the one essential and peculiar source of the Spirit,
is here doubly asserted, by the phrase, “whom I will send
unto you from the Father;” and by the further expository
statement, “which proceedeth from the Father.” Should
James and John unite in writing a book, any one who in
speaking of James should say that he wrote it, would be
justly chargeable with carelessness of statement. But if
the book itself and its authorship and origin are the subject
of discussion, it could not be said, with any regard to
truth and accuracy that “This book was written by James.”
And, if the subject of the book were the life of John, and
.bn 283.png
.pn +1
the statement were made that “This book was written by
James, and gives the story of John’s life,” the omission,
which previously might perhaps be accounted an inadvertence,
assumes a character of falsehood and deceit. This,
it seems to me, is a just parallel to the case which is made
by the insertion of the filioque clause, making the procession
to be from the Father and the Son. In the place in
question, Jesus is speaking expressly of the Spirit, whom
he describes with reference to his qualification to be a
witness, on behalf of the Son. Had the whole thought
of the passage been concerning the Father, and in describing
him Jesus had said, “From him proceedeth the Spirit,”
the declaration would seem scarcely reconcilable with a
coincident procession from the Son. But when the Spirit,
himself, and his qualification to be a witness on behalf of
the Son, is the distinct subject of discourse,—the statement
that “He proceedeth from the Father, and will testify
of me,” utterly excludes a like procession from the
Son. This conclusion is strengthened by the remarkable
language on the same subject, uttered by the Lord Jesus
upon another occasion. “If I bear witness of myself, my
witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness
of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth
of me is true.... The works which the Father hath given
me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me
that the Father hath sent me.”—John v, 31-36. Peter
declares that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good.”—Acts
x, 38. Jesus here expressly certifies that the testimony
thus by the Spirit given to his ministry was distinctively
the Father’s testimony and not that of the Son,—a
statement wholly irreconcilable with the supposition that the
Spirit of witness who was the efficient author of those
miracles proceeded alike from the Son and the Father.
3. The phrase,—“which proceedeth from the Father,”—is
explanatory of the language immediately preceding.
.bn 284.png
.pn +1
“When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto
you from the Father.” But why “from the Father,” since
it is Christ that sends Him? Why not “from the Father
and the Son?” Jesus gives the reason,—“Which proceedeth
from the Father.” Either this indicates something peculiar
and exclusive, or words are without meaning.
4. There is undoubtedly a voluntary and temporal bestowal
of the Spirit by the Father upon the incarnate
Son, a bestowal in virtue of which, he, as the Spirit of the
Son, is by the Mediator breathed or shed upon his people.
But if the doctrine in question is true, the Spirit, proceeding
from the Father and the Son, sustains essentially and
eternally the very same identical relation to each, and it
would be just as impossible that he should be given by the
Father to the Son, as on the contrary, by the Son to the
Father. The fact that he is given to the Son shows conclusively
that his relation to the Father is not only primary,
but peculiar, a fact which is the express contradictory
of the theory in question. In fact, by that theory
the voluntary, temporal, and mediatorial mission of the
Spirit, by the Son as incarnate, is necessarily and inextricably
confounded with the eternal procession, which is
essential and involuntary, the Scripture testimony on the
subject is distorted and set at naught, and the whole subject
involved in perplexity and confusion. These considerations,
and especially the fact that there is not even a
plausible pretense of Scriptural authority for the doctrine,
lead me to its rejection.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXIV.—The Baptism of Fire.
Christ’s baptizing office is not all of grace. “He shall
baptize you,” says John, “with the Holy Ghost and with
fire.” John thus, in harmony with the Old Testament
writers, from Moses to Malachi, sets forth two distinct
functions to be exercised by the coming One; the one, of
grace, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the other, of
.bn 285.png
.pn +1
justice and wrath, the baptism of fire. As this interpretation
of John’s language is denied, and the two baptisms
interpreted as signifying essentially one and the same
thing, it is necessary to consider with some care the evidence
on the subject.
1. John, as the context shows, is addressing himself in
terms of earnest admonition to the Pharisees and Sadducees,
and to the Jews, as infected with their leaven. (Compare
Matt. iii, 7, and Luke iii, 7.) He warns them of the discrimination
which the Lord Jesus was about to use, in the
purging of his floor. He begins with the expostulation,
“O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come?” He proceeds to indicate that the
time then current was one of threatening portent. “And
now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.” The
safety of the righteous he leaves to silent implication; but
emphasizes the doom of the wicked,—“Every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into
the fire.” He then modifies the figure, with reference to his
own baptizing office. “I indeed baptize you with water....
But he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire;” and lest there should be any doubt, as to his meaning,
he completes the sentence with an expository detail,—“whose
fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge
his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he
will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” It is certainly
very improbable that in a Scripture so closely knit
together and consecutive, so pervaded with one spirit and
intent, the baptist should have used the word, fire, at the
beginning and end, as a vivid figure of the judicial wrath
of Christ, and in the middle, change it, without notice or
explanation, into a figure of his grace; and this, too, when
the first and third clauses present every appearance of
being parallel to, and expository of the second. The supposition
that the baptism of fire, means an exercise of
grace is, in fact, irreconcilable with the purpose of John’s
.bn 286.png
.pn +1
whole announcement, and renders the passage contradictory
to the context, and false to John’s mission and Christ’s
office and work. This is the only clause in the connection
in which John states in direct terms, to the Pharisees and
Sadducees whom he is addressing, the office of Christ, as toward
them distinctively. And if, while proclaiming in general
terms, His judicial and executive functions, consuming
the evil trees and burning up the chaff, he is to be understood
as saying,—“He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with his gracious influences,” the only justifiable
conclusion would be that those self-righteous sectaries were
the favorites of heaven, and had no reason to fear that
day that should burn as an oven.
2. It is a mistake to suppose the figure of fire to be, in
the Scriptures, arbitrary and variable in its signification.
On the contrary, while constantly resorted to, as a figure
of speech, and as a symbol, both real and ritual, it stands
out with a meaning, fixed and invariable,—a meaning
which springs out of its essential nature and its familiar
phenomena and effects, and is incorporated in the language
and institutions of the Word, by express divine sanctions.
The two most conspicuous phenomena of fire are its consuming
power, and the torture which its contact inflicts
upon sentient beings. Hence, with constant reference to
the final fiery day, it is everywhere employed as the appointed
symbol of the divine wrath, arrayed against sin.
In this character, it appears in such real symbols as the
flaming sword of the cherubim, at Eden’s gate,—the fire
of God which was rained down upon the cities of the
plain, thus “set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire” (Jude 7), and the fire in which
God descended on Mount Sinai. In the same sense was
the ritual use of fire which continually burned on the
altars of the Old Testament, from the beginning of man’s
history, to the desolation of Jerusalem. Thus, as conspicuous
as were the temple, and the altar, and incorporated
.bn 287.png
.pn +1
in the very heart of the ritual system, was this
symbol of God’s avenging wrath, the fierceness of fire.
As a figure of speech, it is constantly used to express the
inflicted wrath of God. And, in fact, it is never employed
in any sense incongruous to this. It is true, that processes
which are dependent on the use of fire are sometimes
employed as symbols of the manner in which the divine
grace is exercised. Says Malachi,—“He is like a refiner’s
fire, and like fuller’s soap; and he shall sit as a refiner
and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi,
and purge them as gold and silver.”—Mal. iii, 2, 3. But,
even here, the fire is not the Spirit, but the inflictions
which the Savior employs and which by the Spirit he
sanctifies to his people. Of this we have the divine certificate.
“I have refined thee; but not with silver; I
have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.”—Isa.
xlviii, 10. But, while the figure is thus used, and while
it is further true, that phenomena of fire, such as light,
and heat, are used as figures of particular graces, it may
with confidence be asserted that fire, itself, is never employed
to represent the Spirit or his fruits.
3. It is impossible, here to examine all of the multitude
of passages in which the figure occurs. It will be sufficient
to notice those which are most commonly appealed
to in proof of such use as is here denied. On the words
of John, Dr. Addison Alexander thus remarks:—“With
fire,—not the fire of divine wrath, as in verse 10; but the
powerful and purifying influences of the Spirit; so described
elsewhere. (See Isa. iv, 4; lxiv, 2; Jer. v, 14;
Mal. iii, 2; Acts ii, 3.)[80] Other writers add Isa. vi, 6;
Zech. xiii, 9; 1 Cor. iii, 13, 15. These are the most pertinent
passages referred to, in support of the exegesis given
by Dr. Alexander. How entirely perfunctory and really
inapposite these references are, appears in the fact that of
the places cited by Dr. Alexander two occur in the prophecy
.bn 288.png
.pn +1
of Isaiah, and one in the Acts of the Apostles, on which
books the church is enriched with commentaries from the
pen of that distinguished divine; and that in those commentaries
he, in every instance, ignores and excludes the
interpretation implied in his above-cited references. Thus;
Isa. iv, 4,—“the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning,”
he explains as “the judgment and burning of the
Holy Spirit, with a twofold allusion to the purifying and
destroying energy of fire; or rather, to its purifying by destroying;
purging the whole by the destruction of a part,
and thereby manifesting the divine justice[81] as an active
principle.” In Isa. lxiv, 2, the figure of the ebullition of
water, represents the agitation of the ungodly nations in
the presence of God’s justice, delivering and avenging Israel;
and so it is expounded by Alexander. “O that thou
wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down,
that the mountains might flow down at thy presence; as
when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters
to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that
the nations may tremble at thy presence.” In Isa. vi, 6,
the cherub takes a coal of fire from off the altar, and applies
it to the lips of the prophet, saying, “Lo! this hath
touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy
sin purged.” It would seem evident, that, by the coal from
off the altar, is meant the atoning merits of the Lord Jesus,
of whose sufferings the fire of the altar was the appointed
symbol. Or, if the language be interpreted of the
golden altar of incense, the fire of which was kindled from
the altar of burnt offering, the meaning is the sweet savor
of Christ’s intercession grounded on the merit of his sufferings.
By no legitimate exegesis can it be made to mean,
the Spirit of God. Jer. v, 14 needs only to be recited.
“Behold I will make my words in thy mouth, fire, and this
people, wood; and it shall devour them.” The destruction
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the captivity of the
.bn 289.png
.pn +1
land, in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy, sufficiently expound
this language. Remarks already made are sufficient
as to the next citation:—Zech. xiii, 9. “I will bring the
third part through the fire and will refine them, as silver
is refined, and will try them as gold is tried.” With this,
the interpretation of Mal. iii, 2, is identical. The reference
to Acts ii, 3, looks to the “cloven tongues like as of
fire,” of the day of Pentecost. But, we shall presently see
that not burning but brightness,—illumination as of a lamp
was the phenomenon of that day. Says the Psalmist,
“The entrance of thy word giveth light.” The day of Pentecost
was, to the nations, the entrance of God’s word,—the
beginning of the gospel; and its appropriate symbols
were tongues of light and voices of praise in many languages.
As little pertinent is the next passage: 1 Cor. iii,
13-15.—“Every man’s work shall be made manifest, for
the day shall declare it; because it [the day], shall be
revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work,
of what sort it is.... If any man’s work shall be burned,
he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so
as by (dia, through) fire;”—that is,—“so as passing
through the fire, with a bare escape.” That fire here
means the judicial and punitive agencies of the last great
day, in the discovery and punishment of sin, is clear.
.fn 80
Alexander on Matthew.
.fn-
.fn 81
The italics are his own.
.fn-
Such are the most pertinent Scriptures to which I find
reference made, to prove that, by fire, John meant, the
Holy Spirit, or his gracious influences. That they wholly
fail to establish the point, is evident; and a further independent
examination induces the conviction that no others
more pertinent are to be found.
4. A comparison of the four evangelists on the language
of the baptist strongly confirms the interpretation here
maintained. Mark and John, in giving account of the
baptist’s preaching, direct attention more particularly to
the gospel aspect of his mission; as he was the herald of
the atoning Lamb of God. Neither of them, therefore,
.bn 290.png
.pn +1
mentions his impressive warnings to the Pharisees and Sadducees,
respecting the trees cast into the fire and the
threshing floor purged by burning. And, while they both
record the testimony of John concerning Jesus, as he that
should baptize with the Holy Ghost, they are both silent
as to the baptism of fire. (Mark i, 8; John i, 33.) But
Matthew and Luke enter more into the sterner aspects of
John’s office, as coming in the spirit and power of Elias,
to announce judgment as well as mercy. They both, therefore,
report his words of warning to a generation of vipers,
words which the others omit. They both tell of the axe
laid to the roots of the trees, and the threshing floor purged
with fire; and both of them interpose between these passages
the announcement of the two baptisms, “with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire.” The omissions of Mark and
John, and the harmony of Matthew and Luke show that
the baptism of fire belonged to the judicial and avenging
aspect of Christ’s mission, as emphasized by the latter evangelists,
but only lightly touched by the others.
5. The inseparable relation of these two functions of
Christ’s office as the enthroned Son of man is certified in
all the Scriptures. It is prominent in those which had
immediate relation to the coming of John, and the purposes
of his ministry. We have seen this, as to the first
announcement made of the Angel of the covenant, to
Israel at Sinai. On the one hand, he was described as the
Guide and Deliverer, who should bring them into the
promised land. On the other, they were warned to “Beware
of him.... Provoke him not; for he will not pardon.”—Ex.
xxiii, 20, 21. In the second Psalm, the terrors of
the Son are almost exclusively signalized, in warning to the
rebellious nations. “Thou shalt break them with a rod of
iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, O ye
judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice
with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye
.bn 291.png
.pn +1
perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” Especially
does Malachi emphasize Christ’s two contrasted functions.
A careful examination of the third and fourth chapters
of that prophecy, particularly the latter, will satisfy the
intelligent reader that not only do they contain John’s
commission, as the forerunner of Christ, but give the keynote
and substance of his preaching. He is there announced
as the Lord’s herald, to go before the face of the
Messenger of the covenant, who is described as coming to
execute two opposite but inseparable functions. On the
one hand, he is to be the refiner and purifier of the sons
of Levi; on the other, a swift witness and avenger against
the wicked. (Mal. iii, 2-5.) Particularly did John have
in his mind the fourth chapter, the first verses of which
are thus given in the admirable translation of Dr. T. V.
Moore. “For behold! the day comes! burning like a furnace!
and all the proud, and all the doers of evil are
chaff! and the day that comes burns them, saith Jehovah
of hosts, who will not leave them root nor branch. And
then shall rise on you the sun of righteousness, and healing
in his wings; and ye shall go forth and leap as calves
of the stall. And ye shall trample down the ungodly; for
they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet, in the day
which I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.”[82] The “stubble”
of Malachi and the “chaff” of John refer to the same thing.
The threshing floor was a spot in the field which was
beaten hard and smooth. The grain was threshed by the
treading of cattle, or by dragging over it “a sharp threshing
instrument with teeth.” The process of winnowing with
the fan separated the grain into one heap, and the broken
straw or “stubble” and “chaff” into another. To clear
the floor, the latter were burned. From this custom was
derived the vividness and beauty of the prophet’s imagery.
He represents the wicked as thus separated and consumed,
.bn 292.png
.pn +1
and the righteous, like calves let forth from the stalls in
the brightness of the morning, skipping over the fields
where the threshing floor lay, and thus treading among
and trampling under foot the ashes of the wicked. Compare
Rev. vi, 10; xi, 18; xv, 3, 4. It was with a view to
the portentous character of the day thus described, that
Malachi announces the commission of John to preach repentance
to Israel. “Behold I will send you Elijah the
prophet, before the coming of that great and dreadful day
of the Lord.” From the prophecy, which sets forth in such
vivid colors, the tremendous issues depending on his ministry,
John derived the imagery of his own warning, which
is, in fact, a running paraphrase of Malachi.
.fn 82
The Prophets of the Restoration, by Rev. T. V. Moore, D. D.
.fn-
“Behold,” says Malachi, “the day cometh.” “It is now
immediately at hand,” says John. “It shall burn as an
oven,” says the prophet, “and all the proud and all that
do wickedly ... the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither
root nor branch.” John responds: “The axe is laid at
the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.”
Says Malachi, “All the proud and all that do wickedly
shall be chaff, and the day that cometh shall burn them
up.” John repeats and develops the figure. “Whose fan
is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and
gather his wheat into the garner; but will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Thus thoroughly are the thought and language of John
imbued with the conceptions and imagery of the prophet,
concerning “that great and dreadful day of the Lord,”
the description of which derives all its vividness and terror
from the manifest and accepted meaning of fire, as an intense
figure of God’s consuming wrath. In the presence
of these facts, the supposition is at once incredible and
revolting that, into the very midst of the prophet’s tremendous
portraiture of that fiery day, with the awe and
.bn 293.png
.pn +1
dread of which he had so successfully striven to fill the
imaginations and the hearts of his hearers,—John should
have injected, abruptly, and without the shadow of explanation
or reason, a phrase, in which the same figure is
employed in a sense wholly foreign to that in which it is
used by Malachi,—foreign to its ordinary meaning in the
Scriptures, and to the whole spirit and tenor of the connection
alike of the prophet, and of the baptist.
The words of John are, in themselves incapable of being
forced into coincidence of meaning. “He shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Here are two
distinct affirmations connected by the copulative, “and.”
The latter, uttered through the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, purports, upon the face of it, to be additional to the
former. And the more critically it is examined, the more
thoroughly it will be found to vindicate that character. It
can not be a mere repetition. It can not be explained as
interpreting the first clause. What then does it mean, but
to announce a baptism of fire, in addition to the baptism
of the Holy Ghost?—a baptism of justice and wrath, as
well as one of renewing and grace?
Appeal is sometimes made to phraseology employed by
the Lord Jesus, in his interview with Nicodemus, as being
similar in construction.—“Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of
God.”—John iii, 5. But the resemblance disappears, upon
a moment’s examination. With Nicodemus, our Savior
first employs the ritual figure of water, which was or
should have been familiar to the Jewish ruler. But then,
to avoid the possibility of mistake on a point so vital, he
explains himself literally by naming the Holy Spirit, of
whom water was the symbol. But, in the words of the
baptist, the Spirit is first named, in literal terms, which
neither needed explanation, nor could be made clearer by
it. But the second clause is a supposed explanation of
that which needs none; an explanation less intelligible
.bn 294.png
.pn +1
than the words to be explained,—an illustration by a figure,
used in a sense directly the reverse of its familiar meaning
in the Scriptures, the meaning in which it is used in the
same immediate connection, both before and after the clause
in question,—an illustration, therefore, at once obscure and
embarrassing, shedding no ray of light upon the subject,
but involving it in darkness, and turning to weakness, not
to say, platitude, the stern energy of the baptist’s warning
cry. “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and
with his gracious influences.”
Whilst the interpretation in question is without precedent
or authority in the Scriptures, the arguments in its
behalf are of no appreciable force. First, it is said to be
“harsh” to understand the baptism of fire to mean Christ’s
judicial administration as toward the wicked. As I must
confess myself unable to understand the meaning and force
of this argument, if argument it be, I leave it without
note or comment. Another plea assumes the form of
assertion that “the idea of baptism does not admit of any
reference to punishment.”[83]
.fn 83
Ebrard, in Olshausen, on the place.
.fn-
It may be allowed that baptizo would not admit of such
interpretation, if found alone and disconnected from any
modifying or explanatory word or expression. But, that,
in such connection and with such modifying words and
statements as occur in the text of John, it can not be so
interpreted, is by no means self-evident, and is supported
by no sufficient or probable argument. The fact has already
been indicated that the Hellenistic use of the word
was predicated upon its employment among the Greeks
to express a condition changed by a pervasive and controlling
influence. It remains to be proved that the Jews
had entirely forgotten this, which was to them the radical
meaning of the word; so that, in their vocabulary, it could
never have been used in that sense. In fact, however, a
remarkable proof remains to us that the reverse of this is
.bn 295.png
.pn +1
the truth. Says Isaiah, the prophet,—“My heart panted;
fearfulness affrighted me: the night of my pleasure hath
he turned into fear unto me.—Isa. xxi, 4. Alexander,
with the later Germans, understands this as a personification
of Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, on that night
when the handwriting on the wall proclaimed his judgment
and doom. This, however, is unessential to the present
purpose. Whether the prophet spoke of himself or of
some other man, the fact of present interest is, that in the
Septuagint Greek, the phrase, “Fearfulness affrighted me,”
is rendered, “My iniquity baptizes me.” By this language,
the Jewish translators express the agonies of remorse seizing
and controlling the speaker, and turning the pleasure
of the night into fear. Thus he was baptized, by sudden
terrors by which he was controlled and brought into a new
state of anguish and despair. So will the judgment of the
final day seize upon the wicked and control and bring
them into a like new condition by the baptism of fire.
Moreover, the connection in which John uses the expression
in question, is such as to constitute abundant
ground for the vindication of his language, even though
baptism were restricted to the sense of purification. The
purpose of Christ’s mission, as set forth by John, was, to
“thoroughly purge his floor;” by “his floor,” meaning,
primarily the people and land of Israel; but, in its ultimate
intent, the world and the universe. In order to
accomplish this object, not only must the wheat be garnered,
but the chaff must be burned. And, as washing
with water is none the less a purifying, because it does
not cleanse or transform the filthiness, itself, but only removes
it,—so, none the less is the baptism of fire a baptism,
because it does not cleanse, but punishes the wicked.
In so doing, it will purge the race, and cleanse the world,
which it inhabits. That the baptism with the Holy Ghost
is a real baptism, and that to it in the strictest and most
peculiar sense the word belongs, can not be denied. But
.bn 296.png
.pn +1
in that baptism we see the separating of the righteous and
the wicked. It is as much the exclusion of the latter as
it is the reception of the former. If the one is taken, it
means, separation; it means that the other is left. Neither
in conception nor in realization, is it possible to separate
these two things, nor to eliminate the rejection and punishment
of the wicked from that function by which the
righteous are called and saved. By both alike, and by the
one as much as the other, is the commission of the great
Baptizer fulfilled and his floor purged.
Not without a significant bearing upon the present
question is the language in which the Lord Jesus himself
speaks of the discrimination which he is to exercise and
the judgments which he is to inflict in the exercise of his
royal authority. “I am come to send fire on the earth;
and what will I if it be already kindled?... Suppose ye
that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay,
but rather division.”—Luke xii, 49, 51. That fire, here,
is no symbol of grace, is manifest; as it is, also, that the
theme of Malachi and John is the subject of these words
of Jesus. Nor is the fact to be forgotten that, in the Levitical
system, fire was distinctly recognized, along with
water, as a purifying element. See Num. xxxi, 10; and
compare Isa. xlviii, 10, and Mal. iii, 2, 3.
From all this it is evident that the baptism of fire is
the exercise by the Lord Jesus of his judicial function, in
the separation and punishment of the wicked.
Whilst it may be admitted that no absolute conclusion
concerning ritual baptism, is to be deduced from the facts
set forth in the Scriptures, as to the manner of this
baptism, yet are they not unworthy of consideration as
one element in the mass of evidence. (1.) The diluvial
purgation of the world, in the days of Noah, was by means
of rain. “The fountains of the great deep were broken up,
and the windows of heaven were opened; and the rain was
upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”—Gen. vii,
.bn 297.png
.pn +1
11, 12. (2.) Sodom and Gomorrah suffered a destruction,
typical in its intent, and “are set forth for an example
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”—Jude 7, and 2 Pet.
ii, 6. Its manner is thus recorded. “Then the Lord rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
the Lord out of heaven.”—Gen. xix, 24. (3.) The final
destruction of the wicked is predicted under the same
form. “Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and
brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion
of their cup.”—Psa. xi, 6. (4.) More than thirty
times the figure of outpouring is used in the Scriptures to
indicate the infliction of God’s wrath. It is a pouring out,
of wrath, of indignation, of vengeance, of anger and fury.
Thus, in the Revelation, the seven last plagues are inflicted
by the outpouring of cups or bowls (phialas) of wrath from
heaven upon the earth. (Rev. xvi.) (5.) The final destruction
of Gog and Magog, is described as being by fire
which “came down from God out of heaven and devoured
them.”—Rev. xx, 9.
The analogy of all these facts and expressions with
those concerning the baptism of the Spirit, as designed to
indicate the exaltation of the Son of Man, and point to
his throne as the source of the indignation poured out, is
apparent. On the other hand, the fact is to be observed,
that the eternal state of those wicked is represented under
the figure of dwelling in the lake of fire,—a figure which
corresponds with the primary classic meaning of baptizo,
in that there is no resurrection.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXV.—The Baptism of Pentecost.
Before his crucifixion, Jesus had assured his disciples
that they should see the kingdom of God come with power.
After his resurrection, in visits manifestly preternatural,
“he was seen of them forty days, speaking of the things
pertaining to the kingdom of God; and being assembled
together with them, he commanded them that they should
.bn 298.png
.pn +1
not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of
the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For
John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.”—Acts i, 3, 4.
He moreover told them, “Ye shall receive power, after
that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be
witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,
and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the
earth.”—Ib. 8. For ten days after his public ascension
they awaited the promised baptism. “And when the day
of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord
in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto
them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each
of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance.”—Acts i, 1-4. They were inspired with
divine courage, zeal, and power, and in presence of those
who had cried, “Away with him!” and of the rulers, who
had condemned him to the cross, proclaimed the kingdom
and glory of the man of Nazareth. And, on that day,
three thousand, a few days afterward, five thousand, and
daily multitudes of believers added to the church, were
the trophies of the power of Christ’s baptizing scepter,—the
firstfruits and pledge of the baptism of his Spirit which
still continues to pour from on high its floods of salvation
upon the world.
Such was our Savior’s entrance on his office, as the
royal Baptizer,—such the first administration of his baptism
of grace. There are four things concerning it which
demand attention. These are,—the manner in which the
baptism was dispensed,—the new spirit then given to the
church,—the accompanying signs,—and, the baptism of
repentance, which then and thenceforth accompanied the
preaching of the gospel.
.bn 299.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXVI.—The Manner of the Pentecost Baptism.
In all the expressions and statements concerning the
baptism of Pentecost, there is a prominence given to the
manner of it which can not be casual, nor devoid of special
significance. The attendant phenomena are described as
“a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,”
which “filled all the place where they were sitting.”
“Cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon each of them.”
“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” The facts
are by Peter described as a fulfillment of the prophecy,—“I
will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.”—vs. 17. He
further tells the assembly, that Jesus “shed forth this which
ye now see and hear.”—vs. 33. Of the similar scene in the
house of Cornelius, it is stated that “the Holy Ghost fell
on all them which heard the word,” and that “on the Gentiles
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”—Acts x,
44, 45. Peter also, in giving account of this scene to the
church at Jerusalem, stated, with reference to these facts,
that as he began to speak, “the Holy Ghost fell on them,
as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word
of the Lord, how he said, ... Ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost.”—Acts xi, 15, 16.
After the same conception is the language of Paul.—“According
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.—Tit.
iii, 5, 6. “Hope maketh not ashamed, because the
love of God (ekkechutai en) is poured out on our hearts (dia)
through the Holy Ghost given us.”—Rom. v, 5. In these
places, the words, “shed,” and, “poured,” which are interchangeably
used in the translation, represent one in the
original.
The first point, here, is the manner in which the phenomena
of the occasion were introduced. “Suddenly there
came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,
.bn 300.png
.pn +1
and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” That
this was designed to be a significant sign, would seem certain
in the presence of all the other significant features of the occasion.
And its meaning is not obscure. From the Greek
verb, pneo, to blow, are derived two nouns, pneuma and
pnoē. These words are nearly identical in meaning, except
that pneuma is by the sacred writers appropriated to designate
the Holy Spirit. It, and the Hebrew ruagh, which
is appropriated in a like manner, both mean, primarily,
the air, the wind; and hence, the breath, the soul of man,
a spirit, the Spirit of God. In all these significations,
they are found, the one in the Hebrew Scriptures of the
Old Testament, and the other in the Greek of the Septuagint
version. We have seen how largely the figure of water
is used as a symbol of the Spirit. Its chief propriety as
thus employed appears in its effects upon the earth and the
creatures, penetrating and fertilizing the soil, washing away
defilement, and refreshing the thirsty; while as rain from
heaven, it traces the descent of the Spirit from the throne
of God. In wind, or air in motion, or the breath, we have
another symbol, familiar in the Scriptures, and equally interesting
and significant. Its peculiar fitness consists in its
relation to its source, as representing the Third Person as
the Spiritus or breath, “which proceedeth from the Father;”
and in its nature, as essential to sustain life in the
animate creation. Says the Psalmist, “By the Word of the
Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by
the breath (tō pneumati, by the Spirit) of his mouth.”—Ps.
xxxiii, 6. The word, pnoē, is that which designates
the “rushing, mighty wind” of Pentecost. It is used in
the Septuagint in the sense of wind, stormy or violent wind,
the breath, the soul, the spirit. Its relation to pneuma
may be seen in such places as follow.—“He that giveth
breath (pnoē) to the people upon it and spirit (pneuma) to
them that walk therein.”—Isa. xlii, 5. “The spirit
(pneuma) should fail before me, and the souls (pnoēn)
.bn 301.png
.pn +1
which I have made.”—Ibid. lvii, 16. “At the blast (pnoēs)
of the breath (pneumatos) of His nostrils.”—2 Sam. xxii, 16.
“All the time my breath (pnoēs) is in me, and the Spirit
(pneuma) of God is in my nostrils.”—Job xxvii, 3. “The
Spirit (pneuma) of God hath made me, and the breath
(pnoē) of the Almighty hath given me life.”—Job. xxxiii,
4. In the New Testament, we have the words of Jesus to
Nicodemus,—“The wind bloweth (pneuma pnei, the Spirit
breatheth), where it listeth.”—John iii, 8. And in this
same book of the Acts, is the testimony of Paul to the Athenians
that—“He giveth to all, life and breath (pnoēn), and
all things.”—Acts xvii, 25. Significant to the same purpose
is the word, theo-pneustos (God breathed), which describes
the Scriptures as the dictate of the Spirit in the
prophets. (2 Tim. iii, 16.) Turning now to another
word,—says Dr. Alexander, “The word (pheromenē) translated
rushing, is a passive participle, meaning borne, or
carried, and is properly descriptive of involuntary motion,
caused by a superior power; an idea not suggested by the
active participles, rushing, driving, or the like; which seem
to make the wind itself the operative agent.”[84] Compare 1
Peter i, 13,—“The grace that is to be brought (pheromenēn)
unto you;” and 2 Peter i, 21.—“Holy men spake as they
(pheromenoi) were moved by the Holy Ghost.” With these
notes, let us compare that action of Jesus, in which he
breathed on his disciples, and said to them, “Receive ye the
Holy Ghost.”—John xx, 22. This we must understand as
designed by him for an interpretation of Pentecost. It can
mean nothing else. For not till then was the Spirit to be
given.
.fn 84
Alexander on the Acts, in loco.
.fn-
The same figure is fully developed in the prophecy of
Ezekiel (xxxvii, 1-14), of the valley of dry bones. “There
were very many in the open valley; and lo, they were very
dry.” At the divine command, Ezekiel prophesied to
them,—“O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.
.bn 302.png
.pn +1
Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones, Behold, I will
cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live....
And as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a
shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up
upon them, and the skin covered them above; but there
was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy
unto the wind.... Come from the four winds, O breath,
and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I
prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came
into them and they stood up upon their feet, an exceeding
great army.” The vision is interpreted to the prophet.
“These bones are the whole house of Israel.... Thus
saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open
your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves,
and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know
that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O
my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and
shall put my Spirit in you and ye shall live.” Ezek.
xxxvii, 1-14. Throughout this passage, the words,
“wind,” “breath” and “Spirit,” are in the original the
same (Hebrew, ruāgh, Greek, pneuma), and the word,
“breathe,”—“Come from the four winds, O breath, and
breathe upon these slain,”—is the same that describes the
action of the Lord Jesus, just referred to. If now, in the
light of these illustrations, we return to the account of
the Pentecostal scene, we read that “suddenly there came
a sound from heaven as of an outbreathed, mighty breath,
and it filled all the house where they were sitting....
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” Thus was
signified the Spirit of Christ, as the breath of His life, by
Him breathed into His disciples. So distinctly and profoundly
was this idea impressed on the mind of the primitive
church, that it became the occasion of one of the unwarranted
forms which were at an early age added to the
Scriptural rite of baptism. After the interrogation and immediately
.bn 303.png
.pn +1
before the baptism, there was an exorcism, with
an insufflation or breathing in the face of the person baptized;
which Augustine calls a most ancient tradition of
the church.[85] It was meant to signify the expelling of
the evil spirit, and the breathing in of the good Spirit
of God.
.fn 85
Augustinus de Nupt. et Concup. II, 29.
.fn-
In the outbreathing of Pentecost we have the only
phenomenon of the day, that was expressive of the actual
performance of the baptism by the Lord Jesus. It was
the specific symbol of the manner of it. Comparing it with
the various other statements above quoted, it appears that
of that baptism, the element was the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus; the administrator was Jesus seated on the throne of
glory; the manner of it was an outbreathing from him; its
coming was by descent,—a shedding down from the height
of his throne to his disciples in Jerusalem; in its reception,
it was a falling upon them; and the result was that they
were all filled with the Holy Spirit, as the breath of their
lives. For, in the symbol as described, they were surrounded
as it were with an atmosphere of the Spirit. “It
filled all the house where they were sitting;” so that they
could breathe no other breath.
In this account, the chief interest centers on the source
of the outpouring. And, in fact, the very purpose of the
forms of expression used and of the sensible phenomena
which they describe was to direct the attention of all, upward
to that source. To the same effect, was the whole
argument of Peter’s discourse to the multitude. Each position
in it, has this as the end.—“Ye men of Israel, Jesus
of Nazareth ye know, for him ye crucified. Him God
raised from the dead and exalted to his own right hand,
and gave the Spirit in all fullness to him. That Spirit
hath he shed down upon us, as ye now see and hear, and
thus is shown his exaltation and power. Therefore let all
the house of Israel know, assuredly, that God hath made
.bn 304.png
.pn +1
that same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ,—both
sovereign over all and that Anointed One who was
promised to David, and heralded by all the prophets, as
he that should sit on David’s conquering throne.”
We have seen how Paul labors to exalt our imaginations
to some proportionate conceptions of the unapproachable
height of the throne of Christ’s glory. And now, in
our times, from the day of Pentecost unto the end, it is
signalized in the exercise by him of that highest prerogative
of God, the sending forth of the infinite Spirit. It is
shed down by him from yonder height to this low earth,—down
to us worms in the abyss where we lay, strown in
the upas valley of death, to breathe life into the dead and
give salvation to the lost. And to signalize that height
of his exaltation, the depth of his condescension, and the
measureless immensity of his matchless love, the Baptism
of Pentecost was given, its miracles were wrought, and its
myriad trophies of salvation gathered. All these point
upward and cry,—“Behold! on high! Far above all
powers and dominions, Jesus fills the throne! Thence he
breathes forth the Spirit of God! Thence he sheds down
salvation!”
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXVII.—The New Spirit Imparted on Pentecost.
The previous announcements which heralded the baptism
of Pentecost, and all the attendant facts and statements
unite to indicate that in the very nature of the gift
then conferred there was something essentially new and
different from any previous endowments bestowed on the
church,—something by which peculiar honor was reflected
on the baptizing office of the Lord Jesus, upon this its
first assumption and exercise. It is a question to be considered,—What
were the new characteristics of grace now
first imparted to the church?
The Holy Spirit was no novelty, now first bestowed.
At the coming of Christ, the Jews were familiar with the
.bn 305.png
.pn +1
doctrine of the personality and offices of the Third Person
of the Godhead. Of this the evidence is conclusive,—in
the story of John’s birth,—in the theme and style of John’s
preaching,—in the facts stated as to the birth, anointing,
and ministry of Christ,—in His manner of reference to
the subject in his teaching,—and especially in his warning
as to the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is only explicable
upon the supposition that the doctrine of the Spirit
was familiar to the Jews. The knowledge thus evinced
had its source in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
So full are they on the subject that there is scarcely an
aspect in which it appears in the New Testament which
has not its counterpart in the Old. In them his agency
is distinctly and fully recognized, both in the inspiration
of the prophets, and in the gifts and graces which have
been common to God’s people in all ages. See for example,
Psa. li, 11-13; cxliii, 10; Isa. lxiii, 10, etc. The
graces which Paul testifies to be the fruits of the Spirit
(Gal. v, 22; Eph. v, 9), and which are in the above cited
places, by the Old Testament writers referred to the same
source, were abundantly displayed in the saints of the
former dispensation, insomuch that Paul holds them up as
ensamples to us. (Heb. xi and xii, 1.) The Psalms,
which gave expression and nourishment to their graces,
are never exhausted by the profoundest attainments of
Christian experience. And with all the lamentable facts
of unfaithfulness and apostasy which darken the pages of
Israel’s history, there were periods of fidelity, in which the
church shone in the beauty of holiness, fair and comely in
the eyes of God. In fact, with all the disposition which
we sometimes realize to dwell on the unbelief and apostasies
of the twelve tribes, and lamentable as they were, it
is certain that the New Testament church is in no condition
to boast herself against Israel. If we survey the
nominally Christian church, in its various sections—the
communions of Rome and of the east, and of the various
.bn 306.png
.pn +1
Protestant churches in Europe and America—a just judgment
will pronounce them, on the whole, scarcely less unfaithful
and surely more inexcusable than was Israel.
Assuredly, there is no such difference in our favor as to
indicate the absence of the Spirit from the latter, and his
peculiar presence with the former.
In what then did the peculiarity of the day of Pentecost
consist? To this question, Peter in his discourse on
the occasion, gave an explicit answer. “This is that which
is spoken by the prophet Joel:—And it shall come to pass,
in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit
upon all flesh.”—Acts ii, 16, 17. In this citation of prophecy,
and in the discourse which followed, Peter defined the
peculiarities of the occasion as consisting in three things:
First, that the outpouring of that day was made by the
Lord Jesus in person. Second, that the miraculous phenomena
attending it were designed to attest the fact that
He, being risen from the dead and exalted to God’s
right hand, was endowed with supreme and universal authority.
Third, that the gifts of salvation by him dispensed
were adapted and designed not for Israel only but
for “all flesh,”—for the world. Thus was implied a change
in the whole aspect of grace, in the hearts of God’s
people.
We have formerly seen that God’s entrance into covenant
with Israel, at Sinai, implied a temporary withdrawal
of his overtures from the nations,—“suffering them
to walk in their own ways,” (Acts xiv, 16), but with a distinct
assertion of a reserved right, inserted in the covenant
itself,—“For, all the earth is mine.” So long as God
“winked at” the wickedness of the Gentiles, the church
had neither commission nor call to labor for their salvation,
nor impulse of grace to look for it. The doors of salvation
and of the church were held open to all, and the
word and ordinances maintained in Zion were an invitation
to the world to enter freely. But, beyond that Israel was
.bn 307.png
.pn +1
not called to go. On the contrary, she was discouraged
from all active or intimate contact or intercourse with the
apostate nations. Her primary and paramount office and
obligation it was to keep her own self pure, and to preserve
and transmit the oracles and ordinances of God faithfully,
until the time of the Messiah. In the meantime, since the
operations and graces of the Spirit can not but be in harmony
with the will and purpose of God, his influences in the hearts
of Israel, corresponded with the purpose thus indicated
concerning the nations. For, grace is nothing but harmony
of affections and will with the character and will of God.
Grace, in Israel, was therefore without disseminating zeal
or power, as toward the Gentiles. It contained no impulse
to seek their salvation. But, knowing them as apostate
and enemies to God and to his people, and as the
objects of his indignation and wrath, it concurred in that
indignation, and at times gave expression to it, in forms
which offend a shallow and unsanctified criticism. Yet are
they no more incongruous to the active enjoyment and exercise
of the profoundest and most abundant measure of
the Spirit’s graces, than is the absence in heaven’s blest
inhabitants of zeal for the welfare of Satan, and their
adoring approval of God’s justice in his doom. All this was
rather confirmed than modified by the fact that the Spirit
of prophecy constantly indicated that a day was coming
when all the ends of the earth should see and share in the
salvation of God. The more distinctly it was revealed as
the purpose of God for the future, the more clearly was it
seen to be not of the present.
But, now, the time had come. The Son of man, the
Prince Messiah, to whom was reserved the ingathering of the
Gentiles (Gen. xlix, 10), had assumed the scepter and received
the Spirit of life for the nations. The sanctifying
grace of that Spirit must be essentially the same in all
ages and times. But there was now a change in its aspect
to the Gentiles, coincident with the change of the divine
.bn 308.png
.pn +1
attitude toward them. Instead of the old passive sentiment
concerning the world’s ruin,—instead of the former ardor
of indignation against its ungodliness,—the apostles and
the church were now inspired with a divine pity and beneficent
love,—with an active and aggressive zeal for the conversion
of men. While the enclosed water of the laver at
the tabernacle was the symbol of the Spirit’s influences,
under the former dispensation, the increasing river of
Ezekiel’s vision is their representative in the New Testament
times. Flowing forth out of Zion, with a widening
and deepening current, it pours its living waters into the
dead sea of our apostate humanity, to the healing of the
waters. This difference in the nature of the Spirit’s influences,
now, and of old, is beautifully exhibited in two
figures employed by our Savior, the distinctive features of
which should not be overlooked because of the points of
analogy. Speaking to the woman of Samaria of the personal
blessings which the Spirit bestows, he tells her,—“Whosoever
drinketh of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting
life.”—John iv, 14. A well, within; living, active,
but confined. But, at Jerusalem, at the festival of the
pouring of water, which anticipated the giving of salvation
to the Gentiles,—“In the last day, that great day of the
feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let
him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me,
as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water.”—John vii, 37, 38. “Out of his
belly shall flow.” Here is grace, not enclosed and restricted
in its sphere, but outflowing and aggressive, disseminating
itself without stint or limit. Hence the explanation which
the evangelist adds:—“This spake he of the Spirit which
they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified.”—Ib. vs. 39. Hence, also, the selection made by
.bn 309.png
.pn +1
Peter, in explanation of the Pentecostal scene. Among the
prophecies, there are many in which the outpouring of the
Spirit is spoken of. But of them all the apostle selected
that which, in the briefest and completest manner, indicates
the breaking down of the wall of partition. “I will
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” This he afterward
explains. “For the promise is unto you, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call.”—vs. 39.
But there was another point, equally important, in the
endowments bestowed on that memorable day. Heretofore,
not only had commission to the Gentiles been withheld
from the church, but gratuitous labors by her in that behalf
would have been necessarily futile, for lack of power
accompanying the word. But, said Jesus to the apostles,
“Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come
upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth.”—Acts i, 8. What was the
nature of the power thus given, Paul tells the church of
Corinth. “God who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”—“And
my speech and my preaching were not with enticing
words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom
of men, but in the power of God.”—2 Cor. iv, 6, 7;
1 Cor. ii, 4, 5. This illuminating, convincing, and converting
power of the Spirit of God attending the word, remains
the perpetual endowment and authentication of the Christian
ministry. In addition to the zeal and power thus
conferred, the apostles were by this baptism invested with
those gifts of courage, wisdom, inspiration, and miracles,
which had been promised by the Savior, and were requisite
.bn 310.png
.pn +1
to qualify them for their special office and to attest their
ministry. (Mark xvi, 17, 18; Luke xxi, 15-19; John
xiv, 26; xvi, 13-15.)
Such was the change wrought by the baptism of Pentecost;
such the new gifts by it conferred. With the
coming of God’s set time of mercy to the world, it awakened
in the hearts of his people a zeal for souls of every
class and nation. And it imparted to the word of the
gospel a demonstration and power of converting grace,
correspondent to the breadth of the new commission, and
to the saving purposes of our blessed God, toward an
apostate race. In proportion as we, in these latter days,
have part in the baptism and Spirit of Pentecost, will we
share in the same ardor of zeal for the spread of the gospel
and the conquest of the nations to the banner of Christ.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXVIII.—The Tongues like as of Fire.
Jesus had foretold his disciples that miraculous signs
and wonders should accompany and attest the word of the
gospel published by them (Mark xvi, 17, 18), and the subsequent
history gives abundant illustration of the fulfillment
of this promise, in the healing of the sick, raising the dead
and other miracles of power. But the only signs mentioned
on the day of Pentecost are the “rushing mighty wind,”
the “cloven tongues like as of fire,” and the gift of “other
tongues.” The first of these has been already considered.
We will now inquire into the “tongues like as of fire.”
“There appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of
fire; and it sat upon each of them.” Says Alexander,
“Cloven should rather be, distributed, so that one sat on each
of them. (Vulg. linguæ dispertitæ.) The common version,
which implies that each tongue was divided into two or more,
is at variance with the usage of the Greek verb (diamerizomenai),
which sometimes denotes moral separation or
estrangement (Luke xi, 17, 18; xii, 52, 53), but never,
physical division. Its usual sense of distribution, or allotment,
.bn 311.png
.pn +1
may be seen by a comparison of Matt, xxvii, 35;
Mark xv, 24; Luke xxii, 17; xxiii, 34; and Acts ii, 45.”[86]
“There appeared unto them distributed tongues like as of
fire, and one sat on each of them.” Such is the literal
meaning of the evangelist. These tongues “appeared,”
“like as of fire.” Not burning, but brightness or illumination
was their characteristic. They had thus the appearance
of burning lamps, and seem evidently to have been
symbols of that divine illumination which through the
ministry of the gospel was about to be given to the Gentiles.
In the tabernacle and temple stood the seven
branched golden candlestick, with its seven lamps, which
were by the priests daily replenished with oil, and kept
burning continually. In the opening of the vision of the
Apocalypse, John saw seven golden candlesticks, or lampstands,
in the midst of which was one like the Son of man,
in whose right hand were seven stars. These stars were
the burning lamps of the lampstands. (Compare Rev. i,
12, 13, 16, 20; iii, 1; and iv, 5.) They were explained to
him. The candlesticks were the seven churches of Asia,
and the stars were the angels of the seven churches.
There has been some question among expositors, as to the
form of church government contemplated in this vision.
But the most are agreed that, whatever was the form, the
angels were the ministry, conceived as lamps of light upborne
by the churches. By this interpretation, we are led
to the same understanding as to the golden candlestick in
the tabernacle and temple, since the scenery of the Revelation
is a recognized transcript from the temple, which
was a pattern of the heavenly things. The seven lamps
shining as stars in the darkness of the sanctuary, through
the continual supply of oil ministered by the priests, were
a beautiful type of the ministry and ordinances of the
church of God, shining amid the moral darkness of the
world, through the gifts and graces of the Spirit poured
.bn 312.png
.pn +1
upon them by Jesus, the great high Priest. The day of
Pentecost had been predicted of old, as the time of the
shedding of light upon the Gentiles by the awakened
church. “Arise, shine; for thy light is come and the
glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For behold the
darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the people;
but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory
shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to
thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.”—Isa.
lx, 1-3. By Zacharias, at the birth of John, and by Simeon,
at the presentation of Jesus in the temple, He had
been described in this character,—“The dayspring from on
high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness
and in the shadow of death; to guide our feet into the
way of peace.”—Luke i, 78, 79. Says Simeon, “Mine
eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared
before the face of all people,—a Light to lighten the Gentiles,
and the glory of thy people Israel.”—Ib. ii, 30-32.
John, in the beginning of his gospel speaks in the same
manner,—“In him was life and the life was the Light of
men, and the Light shineth in darkness.”—John i, 4, 5.
Jesus had described the ministry of John, under this figure.
“He was a burning and a shining light.”—John v, 35.
He had distinctly foretold his disciples that they were ordained
to be the light of the Gentiles. “Ye are the light
of the world. A city that is set on a hill can not be hid.
Neither do men light a candle (luchnon, a lamp), and put
it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light
unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine
before men that they may see your good works and glorify
your Father which is in heaven.”—Matt. v, 14-16. And
now, upon them waiting and expectant, He sheds down
the oil of the Spirit’s grace, kindles a light upon every
brow, and inspires them to utter God’s praises in the
tongues of every land; thus, to them signifying that the
time was come to “Arise and shine,” and to others announcing
.bn 313.png
.pn +1
that the Light of the Gentiles had risen upon
the world.
.fn 86
Alexander on the Acts.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXIX.—The Gift of Other Tongues.
The nature of this gift, and all the circumstances attending
it unite in investing it with a character of peculiar impressiveness,
significance and propriety among the miracles
which attested the gospel. Devotional in its nature, and
exercised in celebrating “the wonderful works of God,” it
was an indication of the reception and enjoyment by those
on whom it fell of a large measure of the sanctifying graces
of the Spirit. The report of it, spreading over Jerusalem,
was the attraction which assembled together that vast company,
of whom three thousand were converted that day.
The prophetic nature of the sign demonstrated the identity
of the occasion with that predicted by Joel. And the significance
of the scene,—God’s praises uttered in many languages,—as
the anticipation of a world-wide acceptance of
the gospel,—brings this sign into intimate accord with the
new spirit of missionary zeal, and the tongues as of fire,
which were the other principal phenomena of the day. It
exhibited, in a figure, all the tribes and tongues of men,
till then immersed in idolatry and darkness, uniting with
sudden harmony in a glad burst of praise to God for the
wonderful works of his grace.
The conspicuous position occupied by this gift amid
the scenes of Pentecost and the relation which it sustained
to the outpouring of the Spirit, as being the most observable
gift thereby bestowed, occasioned a manner of expression
on the subject in the book of the Acts, which has
led to some misconception and error. It consists in the use
of the name of the Holy Spirit, and of phrases respecting
his falling on the disciples, being received by them, etc.,
when the subject spoken of is, not his renewing and invisible
graces, but the sensible phenomena which attested the
preaching of the apostles. Thus, Peter, on the day of Pentecost,
.bn 314.png
.pn +1
having assured the multitude that what they saw
and heard was the fulfillment of the promise, “I will pour
out of my Spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your
daughters shall prophecy,” and explained that Jesus having
received of the Father the promised Spirit, had shed
forth this “which ye now see and hear;” exhorted his hearers
to repent and be baptized, “and ye shall receive the
Holy Ghost. For the promise (by Joel), is to you and to
your children (‘your sons and your daughters’), and to all
that are afar off (‘all flesh’).” Here, the assurance of receiving
the Holy Ghost, upon condition of repentance and
baptism, as well as the quotation from Joel, shows that
Peter did not speak of the renewing gift of the Spirit;
which precedes and gives repentance, but of the miraculous
gifts which followed, and which they saw and heard.
Again, upon the mission of Peter and John to Samaria,
it is stated that they prayed for the Samaritans, “that they
might receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was fallen
upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Ghost.”—Acts viii, 14-17.
Here, no distinct mention is made of miraculous endowments.
But the manner in which the gift was imparted,
the fact that they were already believers, and especially
the proposal of Simon magus, on the occasion, show that
it was miraculous gifts that were conferred. The sorcerer
would have offered no money for the invisible renewing
and sanctifying graces of the Spirit. “Simon saw that
through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy
Ghost was given.” And what he saw was what he sought
to purchase. These perceptible and miraculous signs were
therefore the things intended in the expressions used, as to
the receiving of the Holy Ghost, and his falling upon the
disciples.
The same manner of expression is seen in the account
of Paul’s interview with certain disciples of John at Ephesus.
.bn 315.png
.pn +1
(Acts xix, 1-7.) Paul asked them, “Have ye received
the Holy Ghost, since ye believed?” So reads the
common version. But it should be,—“(Elabete, pisteusantes),
Did ye, upon believing receive the Holy Ghost?”
The question had reference to the time of their first reception
of the gospel. The apostle predicates his question
upon the assumption that these men were believers; and
he elsewhere testifies that faith is one of the fruits of the
Spirit. It is thus evident, as the sequel also shows, that
it was not the ordinary graces of the Spirit of which Paul
inquired, but his extraordinary gifts. Such being the purport
of his question, the answer is to be interpreted in accordance
with it. “They said unto him, We have not so
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” That
is, We have not heard of the miraculous gifts. “And he
said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
they said unto him, Unto John’s baptism.” So intimately
was Christian baptism related to the baptism and miracles
of Pentecost, that Paul could not imagine any one to have
received the former, and yet remain ignorant of the latter.
To suppose, as do some, that these disciples of John meant
to declare themselves ignorant of the existence of the Third
Person of the Godhead, is little short of a contradiction in
terms, in view of the essential place which was given to
the Spirit in John’s teachings,—even were we to ignore the
Old Testament testimonies, of which John’s disciples can
not have been ignorant. What they meant, is manifest
from the whole tenor of the narrative. In the result, the
Holy Ghost was bestowed on them by the laying on of
Paul’s hands, “and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
That was the subject of Paul’s inquiry,—the subject
on which they were ignorant. And the form of expression
is another example of the style of language which
we have seen running through the pages of the Acts on
the subject.
In striking coincidence with the relation of this sign, as
.bn 316.png
.pn +1
representing the dissemination of the gospel to the nations
of the Gentiles was the order of its manifestation. The
command of Jesus was that the gospel should be preached
“in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost parts of the earth.” Precisely this was the
order of manifestation of the gift of tongues. First, it was
given to the disciples assembled in Jerusalem and representing
all Judea, on the day of Pentecost. Then Philip
having preached in Samaria, to the conversion of many,
Peter and John were sent thither; and by the laying on
of their hands, the gift was conferred upon the Samaritans.
(Acts viii, 12-17.) Afterward, Peter was called to the
house of the Gentile, Cornelius, and upon his preaching,
“the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word,”
and they spake with tongues and magnified God. (Acts
x, 44-47.) Beside these, there is but one other account,
in which the manner of the gift is indicated. It is the
case already mentioned, of the disciples of John in Ephesus.
Respecting this sign, the following points are to be
noticed.
1. As to its nature, it came under the general designation
of prophecy, being an inspired utterance of the praises
of God (Luke i, 67, 68), in which in the beginning at
least, all the assembly, men and women united. (Acts i,
14; ii, 1, 4, 11; 1 Cor. xi, 5.) As such, Peter declared
it to be a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. “Your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy.... And on my
servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out of my
Spirit, and they shall prophesy.”—vs. 17, 18. In this exercise,
while the hearts and affections of the speakers were
edified by the Spirit, in connection with the utterances
thus inspired, their understandings did not ordinarily apprehend
the meaning. (1 Cor. xiv, 2, 4, 13, 14, 18, 19, 28.
Compare Rom. viii, 26, 27.) It was in “another tongue”
than that which was native to the speaker, and usually to
him an “unknown tongue.”
.bn 317.png
.pn +1
2. It was not, therefore, designed to facilitate the labors
of the apostles, by enabling them to preach in foreign
languages; and there is no reason to believe that it was
ever so used. The Scriptures are silent on the subject,
and the traditions of the primitive church to that effect
are worthless. Its design seems to have been two-fold,—the
edifying of those upon whom the gift was bestowed;—and,
for a sign to the hearers. (1 Cor. xiv, 22.) Of what
it was a sign, intimation has been, already, given. It was a
token that henceforth the Spirit of all grace would be
bestowed as freely, and work as effectually, in the hearts
of Gentiles, as of the Jews; and that God’s praises thus
inspired would be equally acceptable to him in every tongue
and from every people.
3. Being intended as a sign of the ingathering of the
Gentiles, it seems at first, and until the minds of the disciples
had become fully imbued with that idea, to have been
very abundantly bestowed, and especially at Jerusalem,
the centre whence the healing waters, were to flow. In
fact, its value as a great public sign depended materially
upon the abundance of the gift, whereby, as on the first
occasion, it presented a figure of all nations uniting in the
worship of the true God and our Savior. But as the idea
became familiar to the mind of the church, and the churches
of the Gentiles multiplied, this gift seems to have fallen
gradually into a subordinate place, among the many with
which the church was endowed. (1 Cor. xii, 1-10.) The
occasion of its importance as a public sign having passed
away, its chief value now consisted in the spiritual edification
which was ministered to the possessors themselves, in
its exercise (Ib. xiv); and it gradually disappeared from
the church.
4. As the apostles were the official witnesses, appointed
by the Lord Jesus to testify of his resurrection and exaltation
to the baptizing throne, this sign was at first given in
immediate connection with, and confirmation of, their personal
.bn 318.png
.pn +1
testimony. It was also, with a like intimate relation
to their witnessing office, conferred by the laying on
of their hands, upon disciples who had been gathered in
by the ministry of others. Apart from the personal presence
and ministry of the apostles, in one or other of these
forms, there is no Scriptural intimation, nor reason to believe,
that it was ever bestowed.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXX.—The Baptism of Repentance for the Remission\
of Sins.
We have yet to contemplate the chief and crowning
glory of Pentecost. The endowments conferred on the
apostles, and the new spirit infused into the church, were
but subsidiary means; glorious indeed; but only as they
ministered to a more glorious end. The signs and wonders
of the day were but an index hand which pointed away
from themselves, and directed all interest and attention to
that end. It appears, in the baptism of repentance, then
first administered by the ascended Savior from his throne;
the first fruits of which were the three thousand converts
of that day, and the harvest of which still coming in, will
only then be complete, when all his redeemed shall have
been gathered from every nation and kindred and people
and tongue.
The baptism of John is called “the baptism of repentance.”—Acts
xix, 4. But it was so, only as the rock in the
wilderness was Christ; only as the bread and cup of the
supper are the body and blood of the Lord. “The baptism
of repentance, for the remission of sins” which he
preached (Mark i, 4), was not his own. He preached
“saying that they should believe on him that should come
after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”—Acts xix, 4. He
confessed his own weakness, and the emptiness and futility
of his own baptism, which was only a symbol, calling men
to repentance, but without power to confer it. “I, indeed
baptize you with water, unto repentance; but he that cometh
.bn 319.png
.pn +1
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”—Matt.
iii, 11. Jesus, after his resurrection, told his disciples,—“Thus
it is written and thus it behooved Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance
and remission of sins should be preached in his name,
among all nations.”—Luke xxiv, 46, 47. A few days after
the baptism of Pentecost had been received, Peter, in the
presence of the rulers of Israel, testified.—“Him hath God
exalted with his right hand; a Prince and Savior, for to
give repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of sins.” Acts
v, 31. “The forgiveness of sins,” here, is the same in the
original, as “the remission of sins,” in the other places,
and especially in the statement concerning John’s preaching.
This identity of language is undoubtedly designed to
indicate identity of subject. The baptism which John
preached,—that of which his own was the figure,—was the
true baptism of repentance and remission, which Jesus was
enthroned to dispense,—the baptism which, on the day of
Pentecost, he bestowed, by the outpouring of the Spirit,
whose office it is to work repentance and to seal remission.
The doctrine concerning this baptism, may be thus briefly
summed. By it, as given by the Lord Jesus, the Spirit is
breathed into the subjects of grace, entering them as a
Spirit of life. This is regeneration, the immediate effect
of which is a new nature formed after the image of God in
righteousness and true holiness. The indwelling Spirit and
the new nature, inspired by him, lust against the flesh and
loathe sin; and by consequence induce a true repentance
and turning from it, and a pursuit after holiness. At the
same time, the Spirit with which they are baptized, being
in Christ as the head and source of life to all the body,
and in them as members, unites them to Him by such a
tie,—the tie of the one infinite Spirit common to both; so
that they are, with him, one body, and therefore, in him, partake
in the merits of his righteousness, and in it are justified.
.bn 320.png
.pn +1
In that last discourse of our Savior, to which we have
already so fully referred,—that discourse which was an immediate
anticipation and prophecy of Pentecost,—this subject
is presented in a form of great interest and prominence.
In fact, the thoughtful reader will find that entire
discourse to center upon the two correlative ideas of the
unity of the Persons in the Godhead, and the unity of
believers, in Christ. Moreover, these two doctrines are
presented as sustaining the most intimate relation to each
other. In answer to Philip’s request, “Lord show us the
Father,” Jesus emphasizes with reiteration his own unity
with the Father, and exhorts the disciples, “Believe me
that I am in the Father and the Father in me.” Then,
having promised to secure for them the presence and illumination
of the Comforter, he says, “Yet a little while and
the world seeth me no more, but ye see me; because I
live, ye shall live also. At that day, ye shall know that I
am in my Father, and ye in me and I in you.”—John xiv,
8-11, 19, 20. This he illustrates by a parable. “I am
the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me,
and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without
me (severed from me) ye can do nothing.”—Ib. xv,
1-8. In the wonderful prayer which closed that discourse,
Jesus recurs to this theme, in language which from any
other lips would have seemed profane, so closely does
he identify us with the glory of the Godhead. “Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect
in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent
me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.”—Ib.
xvii, 20-23. The “glory” which the Father gave the
.bn 321.png
.pn +1
Son and Jesus gives his people, “that they may be one,”
is the Holy Spirit, who is called “the Spirit of glory and
of God,” who rests on his people (1 Peter iv, 14), and
“the glory of the Father,” by whom Christ was raised
from the dead. (Rom. vi, 4. Compare viii, 11; and 1
Peter iii, 18.)
Such is the relation which by the baptism of the Spirit
is established between Christ and the Father and believers.
Touching the manner and process of it, the following are
the most important points.
1. Each Person of the Godhead severally co-operates in
this work of grace. The Father is its Author and source,
by whom the Son was commissioned for its execution and
the Spirit given him to that end. Hence, this gift of the
Spirit to the people of God, whilst made through the Son,
is constantly referred to the Father, as being primarily and
essentially his gift. The Son, having purchased salvation
through the blood of his cross, is commissioned as sovereign
administrator, to dispense it to the redeemed,—“to give
eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him.”—John
xvii, 2. In fulfilling this office, he, as the Father’s
representative and likeness, “can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do.” And as the Father,
having life in himself, has given to the Son to have life in
himself, and to quicken whom he will (John v, 19-30), he
bestows his salvation and quickens his people, by shedding
on them that Spirit of life which the Father shed on him.
The Spirit, thus given, dwells in the believer in his own
proper character, as being the efficient cause of life and
holiness.
2. All is postulated upon the fact that the Spirit, as
given to and dwelling in all fullness in the Lord Jesus, is
the principle and spirit of his life; by which he was born
of the virgin; by which he lived in holiness, and offered
himself a spotless victim to justice; by which he was
quickened and rose from the dead, and which, as his Spirit,
.bn 322.png
.pn +1
the breath of his nostrils, he now breathes into whom
he will.
3. In baptizing his people, he imparts to them the same
Spirit which is thus in him, to be in them the Spirit of
life, making their bodies his temples and instruments
(1 Cor. vi, 19; Rom. vi, 13); and their souls the subjects
of his pervasive and transforming power. (Rom. viii, 4, 5.)
4. In this baptism, the Holy Spirit is not sent as an
outside messenger or agent,—a third party coming from
Jesus to the objects of his grace. To impress us with the
height of his throne and the exaltation of his majesty, he
says, “I will send him unto you.” But, in the same discourse,
he also says, “At that day ye shall know that I
am in my Father, and ye in me and I in you;” and moreover
promises, that “If a man love me, he will keep my
words, and my Father will love him, and we will come
unto him and make our abode with him.”—John xiv, 20, 23.
The Father and the Son are just as nigh the believer as is
the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to attest their presence
and interpret their communications to the soul. Since the
Spirit is “the Spirit of Christ,”—is given to him and
remains in him in all fullness, it follows, that only in him,
can any one receive or enjoy the indwelling and graces of
the Spirit. Hence, the style in which, in the narrative of
Pentecost, the baptism is spoken of, not as the sending
of a person, but the shedding down of an element. “He
hath shed forth this.”[87] Hence the manner in which, in
Peter’s quotation from Joel, it is repeatedly said, “I will
pour out of my Spirit.”—Acts ii, 17, 18. And hence the
interpretation which Jesus, by anticipation, gave to the
Pentecostal baptism; when he breathed on the disciples
and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost;” and the sign
of the outbreathed mighty breath. Hence Paul’s testimony,—“Your
life is hid with Christ in God;” and his
declaration as to himself,—“I live; yet not I, but Christ
.bn 323.png
.pn +1
liveth in me.” Christ and his people breathe one Spirit
and live one life. Baptized by that one Spirit into one body,
and all made to drink of that one Spirit, they are thus one
with him, “members of his body, of his flesh and of his
bones.”—Eph. v, 30. This union is only less close and intimate
than that of the Father and the Son. (John xvii, 21.)
On it depends the whole process of justification and grace.
.fn 87
[Greek: Touto], in the neuter gender.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXI.—Paul’s Doctrine of this Baptism.
Paul, in one brief sentence gives a comprehensive view
of the manner and results of this Baptism. “After that
the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which
he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior;
that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs,
according to the hope of eternal life.”—Titus iii, 4-7.
Here, an amendment is proposed, in the fifth verse, so
as to read,—“the laver (loutrou) of regeneration. Bishop
Ellicott declares this rendering to be “indisputable.”[88]
Other expositors favor it, and the Committees of revision
.bn 324.png
.pn +1
of the New Testament have honored it by inserting the
word, in the margin of the Revised Version, here, and in
Eph. v, 26. A rendering thus importunate and intrusive,
necessitates a critical examination. The first point to be
noticed is that the word, laver, is ambiguous; and in the
sense which is assumed in its insertion in the text, is without
warrant in the Greek language or customs. “We
know very little of the baths of the Athenians during the
republican period; for the account of Lucian, in his Hippias,
relates to baths constructed after the Roman model.
On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing,
we never find any thing corresponding to a modern
bath, in which persons can stand or sit; but there is
always a round or oval basin (loutēr or loutērion), resting
on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing
are represented standing undressed and washing themselves,
as seen in the following wood-cut, taken from Sir. W.
Hamilton’s vases.”[89] The vessels used by the Greeks in
bathing were, (1) the asaminthos, in which, sometimes, the
bather sat, while the water was poured over him, as we
have seen in the bath of Ulysses; (2) the loutēr, the laver,
a vessel neither in size nor proportions adapted to the purposes
of immersion, nor ever so employed, but designed
and used as a containing vessel for the water; (3) the
pitcher or dipper (arutaina), with which water was taken
from the laver, and poured over the bather. There was
no bath tub, nor provision of any kind for immersion.
The mode of bathing appears in the story, in Theophrastus,
of one who entered the bathroom (balaneion), and not being
promptly waited on, dipping the ladle, (arutaina), poured
it over his own person, and declared himself bathed, “no
thanks to you.”[90]
.fn 88
Ellicott’s Commentary, on Eph. v, 26. On the mode of
baptism, circumstances detract greatly from the authority of
divines of the English church. The doctrine of that body on
the prerogative of the church to ordain rites and ceremonies
has a double effect. On the one hand, it takes away the motive
to a thorough study of the Scriptural evidence on the subject.
On the other, it induces a sense of satisfaction in admitting
that the apostolic mode of baptism was by immersion, and then
pointing to the contrary form now in use, as an illustration of
the exercise of the church’s authority over the matter. When
to this is added the veneration cherished for “the primitive
church” of the third and fourth centuries, in which immersion
had gained extensive footing, and the recognition of that form
in the rubric for baptism, hereafter quoted (below, p. #354#), we
will be justified in looking farther before accepting, as conclusive,
the judgment, however pronounced, of divines of that
church.
.fn-
.fn 89
Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
article, “Balneæ.” The engravings referred to, will be found
on pages 200, 207, above.
.fn-
.fn 90
[Greek: Ba/psas a)ry/tainan, au)tos e(auton katache/asthai, kai\ eipen o(\ti le/loutai.]
Theophrastus, Char. 16 (9).
.fn-
.bn 325.png
.pn +1
The word loutron was used, (1) for the water of the
bath. In Athenæus, the question is asked, why hot springs
(therma loutra), appearing out of the ground, are by all
declared sacred to Hercules, if warm bathing was an unmanly
luxury, as some asserted.[91] To the same point, in
Aristophanes, the question occurs,—“Where did you ever
see cold Heracleian baths (loutra)?”[92] In Sophocles, Œdipus
directs his daughters “to bring a bath (loutra) of running
waters.”[93] Homer represents the curly headed Hecameda
heating a warm bath (loetra).[94] And Euripides describes
Antigone pleading to be allowed “to pour waters (loutra)
over the corpse” of Polynices;[95] that is, to bathe it for
burial. In this use of the word, together with the mode
of bathing by the pouring of successive dippers, or waters,
over the person, is explained the fact that the word is
very rarely found in the singular number, and in Homer,
the oldest of the classics, never; although in its plural
form (loetra, contract, loutra), it frequently occurs in his
poems. This fact is very strongly against the supposition
that the word contained any allusion to the bathing vessel,
which would demand the singular number.
.fn 91
Athenæus, Deipnosoph. xii, 6 (512).
.fn-
.fn 92
Aristophanes, Nub. 1051.
.fn-
.fn 93
[Greek: Ê(nô/gei r(ytô~n y(da/tôn e)nenkei~n loutra\]. Soph., Œd. Col. 1598.
.fn-
.fn 94
[Greek: Ei)so/ke therma\ loetra\ e)ϋplo/kamos E(kamê/dê thermê/nê.]—Iliad xiv, 6.
.fn-
.fn 95
[Greek: Sy\ d’ a)lla\ nekrô~| loutra\ peribalei~n m’ e(/a.]—Eurip., Phoen. 1667.
.fn-
The word designated (2.) the washing which was accomplished
by the water. In the comedies of Aristophanes,
the women in revolt, warn the men who threaten to assail
them,—“If you happen to have soap, we will give you
a bath (loutron);” which they do, by dashing buckets of
water over them. Thereupon, the men run to the police,
complaining,—“Do you not know what a washing (loutron)
these have washed us, just now, and that in our clothes,
and without soap?”[96] The idiomatic expression here (“to
.bn 326.png
.pn +1
wash a washing”), indicates how very close is the relation
between the verb louo, to wash, and its derivative, loutron,
a washing. The one expresses the action, or doing; the
other, the thing done. The same idiom presents itself in
Antigone’s account of the obsequies of her slain brother
Polynices. “Washing it a pure washing (lousantes agnon
loutron),” they gathered leaves, and burned “the poor
remains.”[97]
.fn 96
[Greek: Ou)k oi~)stha loutro\n oi~(on ai(/d’ ê(ma~s e(/lousan a)/rti].—Aristophanes,
Lysist. 377, 469.
.fn-
.fn 97
Sophocles, Antigone, 1201.
.fn-
As bathing was performed by the outpouring of water
on the person, the word was thence used (3.) to designate
libations, performed by a like outpouring of water, in honor
of gods or heroes. Thus, Agamemnon having been murdered
at the instigation of his wife Clytemnestra, Orestes
pours (loutra) libations at his father’s tomb;[98] and Electra
dissuades her sister Chrysothemis from fulfilling her mother’s
commission, to offer libations at the same place,
as a means of averting coming vengeance.[99]
.fn 98
[Greek: Patro\s che/ontes loutra/]. Sophocles. Elect. 84.
.fn-
.fn 99
[Greek: Ou)de loutra\ prosphe/rein patri/]. Ib. 434.
.fn-
The word designates (4.) a bathing place. Plutarch
describes Alexander as speaking of “having washed off
the sweat of battle (loutrō) with the bath of Darius.”[100] In
such passages, the controlling idea is not a supposed bathing
vessel, but the cleansing water of the bath; as is here
indicated by the form of the participle “(apolousamenoi), having
washed off;” and by the instrumental dative “(loutrō),
with the bath;” which show that, whatever the construction
of the bathing place of Darius, the Greek mode was present
in the mind of Alexander. The idea of loutron is
further illustrated by its compounds. At Athens, before
a marriage, the bride was bathed with water brought from
the fountain of Callirhoe, by a young girl, who was hence
called (hē loutrophoros), “the bath-water carrier.” So,
.bn 327.png
.pn +1
the fee for the privilege of the bath, was, epiloutron,—for
the bath.
.fn 100
[Greek: I)ô~men, a)polousa/menoi to/n a)po tê~s machê~s i(drô/ta tô~| Dareiou~ loutrô~|].
Plutarch, Alexand. 20.
.fn-
The voice of the classics is clearly against the rendering
in question. The fact that the Greeks are entirely silent
as to a washing by immersion, or any vessel for the purpose,—the
distinct name of loutēr given to the only vessel
that contained water,—the bathing performed by pouring,—the
use of loutron to express such bathing, and to designate
the water itself, where there was no vessel, and libations,
in which there was water poured out, but no laver, nor
bathing,—the primitive and peculiar employment of the
word in the plural number,—and the derivatives formed
from it, all inure to the one conclusion. At least, in classic
Greek, loutron does not mean, a laver, but water for washing,
and the washing accomplished by it; and that, with intimate
reference to its affusion on the person.
Nor does the Hellenistic Greek utter a different testimony.
In the Song of Songs, it is said,—“Thy teeth are
like a flock, shorn, which came up from the washing (apo tou
loutrou).” So reads the Septuagint. From Ecclesiasticus
(above, p. #169#) we have the proverb, “He that is baptized
from the dead, and again toucheth the dead, what availeth
his washing (loutrō)?” Here, cleansing by the sprinkled
water of separation is called loutron, a washing. So Philo
(above, p. #175#) describes the purifying rites, the washings
(loutra) and the sprinklings, of the Jews. Josephus says
of the two springs of Machærus, near the Dead Sea, the
one hot, and the other cold, that “when mingled together
they make a most pleasant bath (loutron).”[101] And Paul,
himself, writes that Christ gave himself for the church,
“that he might cleanse it, purifying it with the washing
(tō loutrō) of water.” Here the new version must
either make nonsense of the passage, or do violence to the
Greek. Either it must read, “purifying it with the laver,”
that is, with the bath tub, not the washing; or, “in the
.bn 328.png
.pn +1
laver,” a rendering forbidden by the instrumental dative
(tō loutrō.)
.fn 101
Jewish War. VII, vi, 3.
.fn-
On the other hand, in more than a dozen places,—wherever
the lavers of the tabernacle and the temple are
mentioned, the Septuagint is loutēr,—the same word, in the
same sense in which it was used by the Greeks to designate
the containing vessel. In a word, neither in the
classics, nor in Hellenistic Greek, is loutron ever found in
the sense of a laver, or bathing vessel. Or, if it is so used,
the Lexicons ignore it; Stephanus, in his great Thesaurus,
knows nothing of it; and the advocates of that rendering
do not adduce it. And were such example found, it would
be wholly insignificant as to the interpretation of Paul, in
presence of all these facts.
If now, we ask for the evidence in favor of the new
version, the answer presents two points,—first, that certain
versions of the New Testament,—the Vulgate, Claromontanus,
Syriac, and Gothic,—have so translated loutron; and
second, that in accordance with Greek usage, the termination,
on (loutron), justifies the assumption that the word
designates an instrumental object. As to the first consideration,—it
may be asserted with confidence that we are
as fully possessed of the means of determining the question
as were the unknown authors of those versions; and the
growing prevalence at that time, of a ritualistic spirit in
the church, and the consequent introduction of the form
of immersion, sufficiently account for the rendering, apart
from any critical considerations. Respecting the termination,
on, the number of examples in which it is found in
words that designate instrumental objects is too few to establish
a rule. But were it accepted as decisive, the whole
weight of its authority is against, instead of being in favor
of the proposed amendment. A laver, and especially a
Greek laver, is no instrument of bathing. Perhaps the
arutaina, the dipper, might be so called. But the water
and the washing, each are instrumental causes of the cleansing,
.bn 329.png
.pn +1
the salvation; of which, in the text, the apostle says,—“he
saved us (dia loutrō) by means of the washing.” Nor
do the classics ignore this relation. Plato (above, p. #181#)
asks concerning “the washings (loutra) and sprinklings,”—“Are
they not effectual to one end, to render a man pure,
both as to body and soul?”
In the text, loutron means, the washing, but with intimate
reference to the water as the means,—a sense which
we have just seen illustrated from the classics. Strictly,
the regeneration is the washing, of which the water is the
instrument. The figure thus used, the apostle immediately
explains. “The washing of regeneration, even the renewing
of the Holy Ghost.” As water is the instrument of
washing, so the Spirit shed down by Jesus Christ is the instrument
of that spiritual work which is indicated alike
by the two identical words, regeneration, and renewing.
Paul then proceeds with the pronoun “which,”—equally
appropriate, in the construction of the original, to the water
(loutrou), or to the Holy Spirit, as its antecedent; and,
in fact, referring to both, as identified in one,—“which
water, even the Spirit, he shed on us abundantly (dia) by
the hand of Jesus Christ.” Orestes speaks of himself and
companions “(cheontes loutra) pouring water” of libation at
the tomb. So Paul speaks of “(loutrou hon execheen) the
water of cleansing which He shed forth on us.” In the
latter case, the prefix, ex, emphasizes the source of the
outpouring, but otherwise the conception and action of the
two passages is the same. By the hand of his Son, God
the Father from on high sheds his Spirit, and baptizes us
with his renewing power. Thereby united to the Lord
Jesus, we are thus invested with his righteousness, and so,
says the text, “are justified by his grace.” And since by
the same union we share his relation as Son;—“if sons,
then heirs,” “according to the hope of eternal life.”
This baptism of the Spirit is the theme of frequent discussion
in Paul’s writings. He particularly dwells on it as
.bn 330.png
.pn +1
being the instrumental cause of that intimate unity which exists
in the body of Christ, and of equality in privilege among
all the members, Jews and Gentiles. “As the body is one,
and hath many members, and all the members of that one
body, being many are one body, so also is Christ. For, by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all
made to drink one Spirit.... Now ye are the body of
Christ, and members in particular.”—1 Cor. xii, 12-14, 27.
Here, the figure of baptism is followed up by the expression,
“have been all made to drink one Spirit;”—literally,
“have been all watered with one Spirit.” The preposition,
(eis) “into one Spirit,” is rejected by the critical editors as
spurious; and the verb (potizo) means, to apply water,
either externally or internally,—to water, to cause to drink.
Compare in the same epistle, 1 Cor. iii, 2, “I have fed you
(epotisa) with milk;” and 6-8,—“Apollos watered (epotisen).”
The same point is set forth in another epistle—“Endeavoring
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace. 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. But unto every one of us is
given grace, according to the measure of the gift of
Christ.... That we henceforth be no more children, ...
but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in
all things, which is the Head, even Christ, from whom the
whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual
working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of
the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.”—Eph. iv,
3-16.
That the “one baptism” here spoken of is that wherein,
“by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body,” is manifest
from the connection and the analogy of the other passages
here presented above and below. To suppose it to be water
.bn 331.png
.pn +1
baptism, would be to make the apostle exclude that spiritual
and real baptism of which water baptism is the shadow,
and to which, in all his writings, he constantly gives so
much importance as the means of the union which he here
discusses.
In another place, the apostle represents this baptism as
merging all other relations in the one tie of identity with
Christ. “As many of you as have been baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither
male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if
ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according
to the promise.”—Gal. iii, 27-29. Here, again, it
is clear that the baptism spoken of is that of the Spirit.
The oneness with Christ, thus complete by this baptism,
Paul uses as a powerful argument of the duty of his
people to be dead to the world that crucified him, dead to
sin and all the works of the old man, and alive only to
God. (Rom. vi, 3-6; Col. ii, 9-11.) These passages will
receive special consideration hereafter.
The unity of conception which pervades these Scriptures
is manifest, and makes it evident that they all contemplate
one and the same baptism, that in which by one
Spirit all Christ’s people are baptized into one body, the
spiritual body of Christ.
Touching the nature of this baptism, the following are
the chief particulars:
1. The entrance of the Spirit shed down by Jesus is
regeneration, or the new birth. It is the imparting of new
life to the soul,—the introduction of a principle of grace,
“the new man,” which, like its source, the eternal Spirit,
is immortal and supreme wherever it exists; and which,
sustained and nourished by the indwelling Spirit, will grow
and expand until it gains full and exclusive possession of
all the faculties and powers, making the soul its seat, the
body its temple, and the members its instruments.
.bn 332.png
.pn +1
2. Coincident with this is the death of the old man,
the destruction of the controlling principle and power of
evil in the soul. Hitherto, it reigned supreme. But now,
slain; and, cast out, it remains, a “body of death” in the
members; offensive in its corruption, and by its loathsomeness
acting as a stimulus to the opposing principle of
grace. (Rom. vii, 24.)
3. The result is, that whereas, formerly, the sinful affections
“did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death,” “now, being made free from sin and become servants
to God,” his people have “their fruit unto holiness.”—Rom.
vii, 5; vi, 22.
4. The Spirit thus given is not a transient influence;
but is within the believer, a well of living water, springing
up unto everlasting life;—a well, from which it is his
privilege at all times to drink of that one Spirit. Thereby,
“to every one of us is given grace according to the measure
of the gift of Christ;” so that we “grow up into him
in all things which is the Head, even Christ.”—Eph. iv,
7, 15. Thus grace is nourished, in preparation for glory.
5. While such are the effects of this baptism on the spiritual
condition of the redeemed, equally important are its
influences on their external relations. The first is their
justification. United to the Lord Jesus, as members of his
body, the consequence is that their sins are laid to the
charge of their Head, and satisfaction for them credited to
the blood of his cross. On the other hand, his righteousness
is recognized as theirs, and in it they stand, not only
pardoned, but justified; approved, and entitled to the inheritance
of glory. They are “accepted in the Beloved; in
whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
of sins according to the riches of his grace.”—Eph. i,
6, 7.
6. Another result is their reception to the relation and
privileges of children of God. Born of the Spirit,—born
of God, they are thus by inheritance children. Members
.bn 333.png
.pn +1
of Christ,—the first-born, the eternal Son,—they share in
his relation, and are in him sons; and if sons then heirs;—heirs
of God, and joint heirs with Christ.
7. The final result is the resurrection unto glory. “If
the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell
in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in
you.”—Rom. viii, 11.
Such is the one baptism, of which all ritual baptisms
are mere shadowy symbols,—the baptism which Paul proclaims,—“One
Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv,
5), a baptism, one and alone from its very nature, as dispensed
by the one only Mediator, in the bestowal of that
one Spirit, which belongs to and is therefore imparted by
him alone. Thus have we the perfect antitype of the baptisms
of the Old Testament,—the administrator, Jesus the
great High Priest; the element, that living water, the
Holy Spirit; the mode, his outpouring upon us from heaven;
the effect, washing to the corrupt,—life to the dead. By
this means, does our Baptizer bestow on his people all
grace for the present time, and the resurrection and glory
in the end.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXII.—Noah Saved by Water.
Beside the places before cited, one remains to be noticed.
It is 1 Peter iii, 17-22. There are some various readings
in the MSS., although none that materially affect the interpretation.
Adopting what seem the best, the passage is as
follows:—“It is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer
for well doing, than for evil doing. For Christ, also, once
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring
us to God, being put to death as to the flesh, but quickened
as to the Spirit. By which also he went and preached
to the spirits in prison, formerly disobedient, when the
longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the
ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight, souls were
.bn 334.png
.pn +1
saved by water. You also now antitype baptism saves
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but [conformity
to] the demand of a good conscience toward God);
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; who is
at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels
and authorities and powers being subjected to him.”
Both Peter and those to whom his epistles were addressed,
were familiar with Paul’s writings. (2 Peter iii,
15, 16.) In the passage here cited, the preacher of the
day of Pentecost speaks of that Spirit baptism the beginning
of which he had then witnessed, in a style which constantly
reminds us of the language and manner of Paul, on
the same subject. If Peter speaks of Christ as having been
“quickened by the Spirit,” or rather “quickened as to the
Paul tells us that thus he became, “a quickening
spirit.”—1 Cor. xv, 45. If Peter states that “antitype
baptism now saves us,” the baptism, that is, of the Spirit,
of which water baptism is the type,—Paul says that “He
saves us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through
Jesus Christ.”—Tit. iii, 5. Peter represents this baptism
as saving us “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead;” and Paul, to the same effect, testifies that “even
when we were dead in sins God hath quickened us together
with him and hath raised us up together” (Eph. ii, 1,
4-6); and that we are “buried with him in the baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of
the operation of God who hath raised him from the
dead.”—Col. ii, 12. To the account which, on the day of
Pentecost, Peter gave of the exaltation of the Lord Jesus
to God’s right hand, he here adds,—“angels and authorities
and powers being subject to him,”—language in which
we recognize the style of Paul’s repeated descants on the
same theme. (Eph. i, 20, 21; Col. i, 16; ii, 10.) As Peter’s
language is so thoroughly imbued with the style of thought
and expression of Paul, we need not hesitate to interpret
.bn 335.png
.pn +1
the passage by the doctrine of the great apostle of the
Gentiles.
The design of Peter is, to encourage the people of God
in the endurance of injustice and persecution for righteousness
sake. His first argument is the example of Christ, who
suffered patiently the just for the unjust, “being put to
death as to the flesh,” that is, “as to his natural life,”
“but quickened as to the Spirit,” inasmuch as his death
was to him the exhausting of the curse under which he
died, and was, therefore, the release of the Spirit of life
which was in him, from all restraint upon his quickening
energies, by which, therefore, he rose from the dead. Thus,
the very sufferings of his death were his door of entrance
into life. Unexpressed, but latent in the apostles’ argument
is the fact which, on the same subject, he states, in his
second epistle, that “the longsuffering of the Lord is salvation”
(2 Peter iii, 15), that having so pitied the ungodly
as to die for them, praying for his enemies on the very
cross, he now spares the persecutors of his people, if possibly
they may repent (2 Peter iii, 9), and that, in the end,
“the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations”
(or persecutions), “and to reserve the unjust unto
the day of judgment to be punished.”—Ib. ii, 9. This, he
illustrates by the case of Noah and the old world. The
question as to “the spirits in prison” (Vs. 19), does not
belong to the present inquiry. The point of interest is
the eight souls “saved by water.”—Vs. 20. To understand
this, it is necessary to keep it distinctly in mind that
the point to which the apostle’s argument is directed is,—the
righteous suffering persecution, and the persecutors
spared. He assumes what can not but have been the fact,
that during the one hundred and twenty years of the
building of the ark, Noah, “a preacher of righteousness”
(2 Peter ii, 5), was exposed to bitter persecution. If we
consider that “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen.
vi, 11-13), that Noah’s preaching could not but be exceedingly
.bn 336.png
.pn +1
offensive to those whose wickedness he reproved, and
that his holy life, as “he walked with God,” and his building
of the ark, by which he “condemned the world” (Heb.
xi, 7), combined to intensify the hostility, it must be evident
that nothing but the almighty protection under which
he was sheltered could have saved him and all his from
speedy destruction. It also seems to be implied by the
language here, and by the connection in which Peter elsewhere
introduces the same matter (2 Peter ii, 5-9), that
when the flood came, the enmity and hatred had reached
a crisis; so that the call to enter the ark was like the
bringing of Lot out of Sodom, a rescue from present destruction
by the wicked. Thus, the very waters which
purged the world by sweeping away the ungodly, were
the salvation of the eight persons, who shut up in the
ark, were upborne upon their bosom. They were “saved
by water,” while, as it rose, the world ready to perish
would, in mad and impotent despair, have wreaked a blind
vengeance upon the prophet and his family, for the terrible
judgment of God; like Ahab with Elijah, in the days
of the famine. But “the Lord shut him in” (Gen. vii,
16), and the waters bore them up, safe amid their perishing
enemies.
Peter next points out that analogous to this is the salvation
of Christ’s people,—that as the waters of the deluge
were the destruction of the old world, but life to the new,
to Noah, and his house,—so the baptism of the Spirit is
death to the old man, but life to the new, through union
with the Lord Jesus and participation in his life. “You
also, now, antitype baptism saves, by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead. Forasmuch then as Christ
hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the
same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh” (that is,
as stated immediately after, he that hath become “partaker
of Christ’s sufferings”), “hath ceased from sin.”—Ch. iv,
1, 13. Here we recognize perfect identity of thought and
.bn 337.png
.pn +1
argument with what has already appeared in Paul’s writings.
“So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ,
were baptized into his death. Therefore, we are buried
with him by the 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.”—Rom.
vi, 3, 4.
The conclusion of Peter’s argument is found, a little
farther on,—“Beloved, think it not strange concerning
the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange
thing happened unto you. But rejoice, inasmuch as ye
are partakers of Christ’s sufferings, that when his glory
shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding
joy.”—1 Peter iv, 12, 13. So Paul says, “If so be that
we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”—Rom.
viii, 17. It is evident that the two great
apostles are perfectly united in their testimony concerning
this baptism and its relations to the plan of salvation.
In the foregoing exegesis, I have regarded both forms
of the pronoun in the beginning of the twenty-first verse,
as alike spurious; at the same time that the language of
that verse is understood as containing a reflex allusion to
Noah and his family “saved by water.” The phrase “antitype
baptism” does not, it is true, necessitate the previous
mention of a type baptism. But it certainly does invite
us to look for, and expect such mention, an expectation
confirmed by the presence of the particles, “also, now.”
“You, also, now, antitype baptism saves.” Here seems to
to be an allusion to something in the past, corresponding
to the antitype baptism of the present. And when we
find the immediately preceding mention of the salvation
by water of Noah and his family, we can not be mistaken
in recognizing this as the type to which, in the phrase
“antitype baptism,” Peter refers. The salvation, therefore,
of Noah by the waters of the deluge was a baptism. Dr.
Dale asserts the ark and not the water, to have been the
.bn 338.png
.pn +1
instrument of the salvation, and quotes examples to justify
the translation of dia hudatos, by “through the water,” as
a medium and not an instrument. But (1.) it is, of course,
true that this is one meaning of dia. (2.) One of his examples,
“faith tried by fire” (1 Peter i, 7), shows that it
may also express instrumental relations. (3.) More pertinent
would have been a citation of the parallel clause
which immediately follows the phrase in question. As
Noah is stated to have been saved “by water” (dia hudatos),
in the typical baptism, so “antitype baptism saves us by
the resurrection (dia anastaseōs), of Jesus Christ.” The
parallel, here, between type and antitype, requires that in
both clauses, the preposition should be understood in the
same sense; and, as in the antitype, dia certainly points
out the resurrection of Christ, as being the instrument or
means of our salvation, so in the type, must we understand
it to designate the waters of the flood as the means
of Noah’s deliverance.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXIII.—Christ’s Baptizing Administration.
Thus Jesus fills the throne in the heavens, and possesses
all power and prerogative for accomplishing the purposes
of the Godhead, concerning the human race—the redeemed
and the lost; concerning Satan and his angels, and the
whole universe of God, moral and physical, as inseparably
connected with the moral history and destinies of these.
And thus, in every aspect of his work, as it progresses,
from the day of Pentecost to the final consummation and
glory, he is in the exercise of that office wherein he was
announced by his herald John, as he that should baptize
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,—that office of the
gracious aspects of which as toward his people, the baptism
of water has been, for all ages, the symbol and seal. For,
on Pentecost, Jesus only began to fulfill the prophecy and
promise,—“I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh.” Not
even yet is the breadth of its meaning accomplished. He
.bn 339.png
.pn +1
will continue to breathe his Spirit into his people, till all
are gathered in. So, of them, individually, the purifying,
although assured by the first baptism which they respectively
receive, is brought to fruition only through the daily
breathings of Christ’s life in them, the influences of his
Spirit quickening them continually; as the leper was not
cleansed by one affusion, but was sprinkled seven times. And
while the idea of baptism has special reference to the first
act of grace in bestowing the Spirit, it views that act as
comprehensive of the whole process of grace, which is
potentially involved in, and secured by it.
It is not for us to know the times and seasons “which
the Father hath put in his own power.”—Acts i, 7. But,
respecting some things of vital interest as to the order and
issue of coming events, in the history of Christ’s baptizing
office, we do know by the testimony of God.
1. Whatever, to our limited and carnal apprehensions,
may be the mysteries of the past history of the gospel in
the world, there has been no lack of power in the baptizing
scepter of Christ, nor mistake in its exercise. The Baptizer
is that Son of man in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily, and who is the personal Wisdom of God,
and the Power of God. His blood paid the price of salvation.
His arm overcame and his heel crushed the serpent,
during the days of his humiliation in the flesh. And now,
enthroned in power, he doeth in his wisdom according to
his pleasure. If the heathen of old could say, “The mills
of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine,” well
may we confide in our King, that he need not make haste,
in the fulfillment of his purposes. “Beloved, be not
ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”—2
Pet. iii, 8. Four thousand years rolled by, before the
promise made to the fallen woman in the garden was fulfilled,
in the virgin birth of the babe of Bethlehem. And
now, “the vision is yet for an appointed time; but at the
.bn 340.png
.pn +1
end it shall speak and not lie; though the promise tarry
wait for it; because it will surely come; it will not tarry.”—Hab.
ii, 3.
It does not fall in with the purposes of the present discussion
to enter into the prophetic question, as to the time
and manner of the future developments and glory of the
Redeemer’s kingdom. Respecting it, one thing is certain.
The past has been a time of the hiding of his power; but
the light of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will
yet cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. The
Branch of Jesse “shall stand for an ensign of the people;
to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his rest shall be glorious.”—
2. Every soul to whom the grace of God has come,
from the day of Pentecost to this hour, has received it from
the immediate hand of Jesus, baptizing him with the Holy
Ghost. And so it will be to the end. Thus, each one so
redeemed is a new proof and pledge that Jesus fills the
throne,—that Satan and all the powers of darkness are
under his feet; and that the hearts of men are in his
hands, to give eternal life to as many as the Father hath
given him.
3. When the end shall come, and the mystery of God
shall be finished, it will appear that in every aspect of the
issues joined with Satan, triumph and glory crown the head
of the Son of man. Nor will it be the mere force of physical
omnipotence crushing the feebler powers of Satan.
But the glory of perfect righteousness, of wisdom and understanding,
of counsel and might, of knowledge and fear
of the Lord, in the Head and leader of the salvation,—a
perfection, not merely of moral excellence but of all gifts
and endowments, tried and proved, first, in the form of a
servant under the law, in obedience and sufferings, amid
the temptations of the world and the flesh, the wiles of the
devil, and the inflictions of God,—a perfection then shown
upon the throne of glory, in administering with perfect
.bn 341.png
.pn +1
wisdom and perfect skill the vast and various affairs of
God’s boundless empire, thwarting and turning to confusion
the plots and policies of Satan and his angels, rectifying
the disorders wrought by the enemy, and vindicating God’s
glory impeached through man.
It will be a moral triumph revealed in each one of the
redeemed, once a prostrate slave of Satan and sin, baptized
and quickened, and aroused to struggle for liberty, and
made more than conqueror, in the conflict, through the
grace and Spirit of Christ, over Satan and all his powers
without, and indwelling sin and corruption,—each one
scarred with the wounds of battle, but all—the crushed
serpent writhing beneath their feet,—wearing the white
robes of triumph and waving the palms of victory;—all
clothed in the righteousness of One, and each grown to the
stature of Christ, in the perfection of holiness and beauty,
after the image of God.
It will be the moral triumph of the whole ransomed
host, by one Spirit baptized into one body, her garments
of wrought gold and needle-work, received and revealed,
spotless and complete in all divine perfections,—the bride
of the Lamb, the glory of her husband, as he is the image
and glory of God. (1 Cor. xi, 7.) In them shall the
principalities and powers in the heavenly places behold and
study and admire the reflected likeness of the unapproachable
glory of the infinite Invisible.
It will be the triumph involved in all this revelation of
glory and blessedness in contrast with the spectacle of
Satan and his followers and work, exposed before all intelligences,
in shame and everlasting contempt;—his achievements
seen in discord and darkness, in sin and suffering
and sorrow, in lamentation and woe, in the loss to him and
to his of all the divine perfections in which they were created,
and in distortion, deformity and discord, possessing and
pervading them all; his confident wisdom and power turned
to imbecile folly, and his conspiracies and wiles made the
.bn 342.png
.pn +1
occasions and means of fulfilling God’s plan which he opposed,
and crowning the Son of man with glory.
The true dignity and significance of the rite of baptism
can only then be adequately realized when we appreciate
this comprehensive extent and grandeur of the baptizing
office of Christ, signified by it. In the fulfillment of that
office he now orders all things; and its exercise must be
continuous to the end. The Great Baptizer must breathe
the Spirit of life into all that mighty multitude, out of
every generation and race, whom the Father has given
Him. He must send fire upon the earth, and divide between
his people and his enemies, and vindicate the Father’s
sovereignty and grace in all his dealings with the
wicked. He must, at last, by the quickening virtue of the
baptism of His Spirit, raise up his saints,—their bodies
glorious as his own glorious body, and their souls perfect
in holiness,—and place them on the throne of judgment
with himself; judge and cast the wicked out of his kingdom;
confirm the holy angels in rectitude and blessedness, and
cast Satan,—thwarted, defeated and bound in chains of
darkness,—into the gulf of fire,—him and his angels and
followers. He must purge the earth and heavens with
fire, from the defilement which Satan and sin have wrought,
and out of them create and adorn the new heavens and the
new earth, the abode of righteousness, the home of the
holy and the blessed,—where the many sons shall dwell
with God and the Lamb. He must make all things new.
Then may the triumphant Son of man proclaim his
work accomplished, and his office ended. Then may he,—not
now from the cross, but from the throne,—cry, “It is
finished!” “The former things are passed away, and behold
I have made all things new.” Sin and the curse are abolished;—tears,
and death, and sorrow, and crying, and pain
are no more; and in life and immortality the earth-born
sons of God possess the glory.
“It is done!” The floor is purged; the garner filled;
.bn 343.png
.pn +1
and the chaff burned. The baptism is accomplished. Then
shall the Son, his commission fulfilled, deliver up the kingdom
to God even the Father, and shall himself also be
subject to Him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all. (1 Cor. xv, 24, 28.)
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXIV.—Argument from the Real to Ritual\
Baptism.
Thus is Jesus revealed in characters of unspeakable
grandeur, as the true and only Baptizer,—his the real baptism,
of which all others are mere shadows. His baptizing
office is the very end of his exaltation, the peculiar and distinguishing
characteristic of his throne and scepter. As
the cross of Christ is the symbol of the whole doctrine of
his humiliation, sorrow and death, so his baptizing scepter
represents the whole doctrine of his exaltation his kingdom
and glory. And, as the sacrament of the supper shows
forth his abasement and atonement for sin; so, that of baptism
proclaims the glory and power of his exaltation, and the
riches of salvation and grace which he sheds on his people
from on high. The ritual ordinance therefore if true to
its office, must be true to the similitude of the real baptism,—must
represent and proclaim those very things which
are realized in the office and work of the great Baptizer.
But what has the real baptism to do with the humiliation
of Christ, in any of its aspects? And, especially, what has
it to do with the burial of his dead body? With the throne
of his power, the prerogatives of his scepter, the grace,
the grandeur and the glory of his achievements to the end,
its relations are intimate and from them inseparable. But
with humiliation and shame, with death and the grave, it
holds no relations but those of boundless distance and infinite
contrast.
Here then, at the culminating point in the history of
baptism and the plan of God’s grace, as identified with it,
the divergence of the immersion theory from the statements,
.bn 344.png
.pn +1
conceptions and principles of the Scriptures on the subject
interposes between them a widening and deepening gulf,
broad, profound and impassable. Whilst the Scriptural
rite points exultingly upward to Christ’s high throne, and
calls us to lift up our heads and admire and adore the
height of his majesty and the grace and grandeur of his
baptizing work,—the immersion theory constrains its votaries,
with bowed heads and stooping forms, to grope among
the graves, in the vain endeavor to trace some fanciful resemblance
between the rite which they espouse and the
form and manner of the burial of the dead,—a burial,
too, which, as thus imagined, the crucified One never
received!
The doctrine of the real baptism is thus utterly incongruous
to that of immersion. Equally irreconcilable with
that form are all the phenomena and expressions used in
connection with the administering of Christ’s baptism.
The sound from heaven as of an outbreathed mighty
breath poured down, and filling all the place, was the only
phenomenon of Pentecost indicative of form or mode.
And its mode was affusion, or outpouring, and descent from
above. The language in which the transaction is everywhere
described and referred to is equally specific and invariable.
It was a shedding down—a pouring down—a
falling upon—a filling of the disciples;—a style of expression
used, not on the occasion, only, but in every subsequent
allusion to the subject. So, the cited by
Peter is an express definition of this as the mode. “I
will pour out of my Spirit.” But, more than this, it identifies
the outpouring of Pentecost with all those Old Testament
prophecies, in which the gift of the Spirit is spoken
of in terms of pouring and sprinkling. All these, again,
as we have formerly seen, are intimately associated with
the baptisms of the Levitical system. Those baptisms
represented in ritual form the things which the prophets
set forth in analogous figures. If Christian baptism departs
.bn 345.png
.pn +1
from the Old Testament mode, it to the same degree
departs from the form in which the grace of Pentecost is
uniformly predicted, represented, described, and referred to.
The attempt is made to evade the force of these facts
by the assertion that the “sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind,” “filled all the place where they
were sitting;” and that the disciples were immersed in it.
But (1.) the immersion thus imagined is, an inversion of
the Baptist theory. The result of an admitted affusion,
it is an application of the element to the person, and by
a sustained analogy, on Baptist principles, would require
that the grave should have been brought and put about
the body of Jesus, and that, in water baptism, the element
should be poured over the subject, until he is covered,
although drowning would be the inevitable result. (2.)
There is, in fact, no analogy, except in the jingle of words,
between an immersion in water, which is immediately and
inevitably fatal to life, and an immersion in the vital air,
which is the very breath of life, the withdrawal of which
is fatal. (3.) If Christian baptism sustains any real relation
at all to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which Christ
administers—as it assuredly does—it is that of type to antitype—of
a similitude to the reality. Both the form and
the meaning of the rite must be derived from the nature
of the reality, of which it is the symbol. If then the
immersion of the disciples in the wind or breath of Pentecost
is the antitype symbolized in the outward form of
baptism, the ordinance means, not the burial of Christ’s
dead body, but the imparting of his Spirit of life to his
people. Thus the Baptist theory of the form and meaning
of the ordinance is exploded, since the two ideas can not
stand together. They are mutually destructive and the
incongruity is fatal to the whole scheme, which can not
stand without an immersion on Pentecost; and can not
endure the crucial test of the only immersion which they
can pretend to discover there.
.bn 346.png
.pn +1
The alternative is inexorable. If that which Christ
dispenses is the normal, the antitype, baptism, then by it
the ritual baptisms of both economies are to be interpreted;
and their signification is to be found, not in the sepulchre,
but on the throne—in the Spirit thence poured out, and
the life and salvation thence dispensed;—and the form of
the ordinance must needs correspond to its meaning. If,
on the other hand, immersion in water is the normal baptism,
and the burial of the body of Jesus, its meaning,
then the baptism of Pentecost with all its phenomena and
doctrine is to be struck from the record, as no baptism at
all. If that which Christ dispenses is baptism, immersion
is not.
.bn 347.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part XII. | THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXV.—Baptizo and the Resurrection.
The argument in proof that the disciples of John and
of Christ were immersed comprehends four essential
propositions. (1) That baptizo means, to dip, to plunge,
to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of these, and nothing
else; (2) That the prepositions, eis, en, ek, and apo, as
used in the New Testament, in connection with baptizo,
require and enforce that meaning; (3) That the resort of
John to the Jordan, and to Enon, “because there was
much water there,” is conclusive to the same effect; (4)
That Paul, in saying that we are “buried with Christ in
baptism,” refers to the form of immersion; (5) It is, moreover,
held that the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian
eunuch shows it to have been by immersion. The
last point will be considered further on.
As to baptizo, enough has already appeared to render it
certain that the definition heretofore insisted on by Baptists
is untenable, and that the word, in itself, determines
nothing as to form. It was formerly maintained as unquestionable,
that bapto and baptizo are strictly equivalent;
and that the meaning is, “to dip, and nothing but dip.”
This assumption may now be considered obsolete. It is
definitely abandoned by the ablest representatives of immersion.
Dr. Conant having been appointed thereto by
the American (Baptist) Bible Union entered into an elaborate
investigation of “The Meaning and Use of Baptizo.”
In a treatise published under that title, he thus states the result.
“The word, immerse, as well as its synonyms, immerge,
.bn 348.png
.pn +1
etc., expresses the full import of the Greek word, baptizein.
The idea of emersion is not included in it. It means simply
to put into or under water; without determining whether
the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the
liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined,
not by the word, itself, but by the design of the act, in
each particular case. A living being, put under water without
intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately
withdrawn from it; and this is to be understood, whenever
the word is used with reference to such a case. But the
Greek word is also used where a living being is put under
the water for the purpose of drowning, and of course is
left to perish in the immersing element.”[102] It is of the primary
meaning of the word that Dr. Conant here speaks.
As we have already seen, he also recognizes a secondary meaning,
the importance of which he entirely ignores. As to the
former, the admission here transcribed is conclusive, although
obscured by ambiguous and impertinent explanations. No
verb can “determine” any thing subsequent to the completion
of its own proper action. The healed paralytic, “departed
to his own house.” “Paul arose and was baptized.”
“John came baptizing.” He that should explain that “departed”
does not of necessity imply that he never returned,
that Paul may have sat down again; and that for all the
meaning of “came” John may afterward have gone away,
would be held guilty of puerile trifling. Of course, baptizo
determines nothing but its own action. The explanation
of Dr. C. that the word does not determine whether the
object sinks to the bottom or is immediately taken out, is
not trifling, because open to a more serious charge. It is
a diligent, although undoubtedly unconscious obscuring
the subject, induced by the instinctive recoil of the
author’s own mind from the picture drawn by his definition.
He is therefore impelled to retire it into the background
and veil its nakedness in the drapery of explanations, by
.bn 349.png
.pn +1
which he is as much confounded as are his readers,—explanations
wholly impertinent to the question in hand,
which is the meaning of baptizo. That word, in its primary
classic sense, as here defined, expresses a definite and completed
act. When by one continuous process a person or
thing is put into the water and withdrawn, it is not a baptizing,
in the classic meaning, but a bapting, a dipping. It is
true the word does not determine “whether the object immersed
sinks to the bottom or floats in the liquid, or is immediately
taken out,” provided that by “immediately,” is not
to be understood, instantaneously,—provided that by the
baptism, the object is deposited in the water and left there.
The emersion, if it take place at all, must be a distinct and
subsequent act, and can not be performed as a part of the
baptizing. This, Dr. Kendrick, professor of Greek in the
Rochester University, and a member of the American
Committee of Revision on the New Testament, in his review
of Dr. Dale, most emphatically concedes, with italics and
emphasis none the less significant because of the intense
irritation which breathes in his article. “Granting that
bapto, always engages to take its subject from the water
(which we do not believe), and that baptizo never does
(which we readily admit), we have Mr. Dale’s reluctant
concession that it interposes no obstacle to his coming out.”
Baptizo “lays its subject under the water; it does not
hold him there a single moment. Its whole function is
fulfilled with the act of submersion. It offers no shadow
of an obstacle to his instant emergence from his watery
entombment. We have the utmost confidence in the kindly
purpose of baptizo, and of Him who has made its liquid
grave the external portal to his kingdom. Neither it nor He
intends to drown us. We let baptizo take us into the water,
and can trust to men’s instinctive love of life, their common
sense, their power of volition and normal muscular
action, to bring them safely out.” “The law of God in
revelation sends the Baptist down into the waters of immersion;
.bn 350.png
.pn +1
when it is accomplished, the equally imperative
law of God in nature brings him safely out.” “As between
the two [baptizo and bapto], baptizo is the appropriate word,
partly from its greater length, weight and dignity of form,
and still more from its distinctive import. It is not a dipping
that our Lord instituted, but an immersion. He did not
command to put people into the water and take them out again;
but to put them under the water, to submerge them, to bury
them, symbolically, in the grave of their buried Redeemer;
like him indeed, not to remain there, but with him to
arise to newness of life. This arising, though essential to
the completeness of the transaction, could not be included
in the designation of the rite, any more than the rising of
the Redeemer could be included in the words denoting his
crucifixion and burial.” “We repeat with emphasis, for
the consideration of our Baptist brethren; Christian baptism
is no mere literal and senseless ‘dipping,’ assuring the
frightened candidate of a safe exit from the water; it is a
symbolical immersion, in which the believer goes, in a
sublime and solemn trust, into a figurative burial, dying to
sin for a life with Christ; and just as far as Mr. Dale’s
distinction holds good (which even thus far he has not
established), baptizo, and not bapto is the only suitable
designation of the baptismal ordinance. The early Israelites
were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
They emerged indeed, and were intended to emerge at last.
But it was in their wondrous march, through that long and
fearful night, with the double wall of water rolled up on
each side, and the column of fiery cloud stretching its
enshrouding folds above them,—it was in this, and not in
the closing emersion that they were baptized into their
allegiance to their great Lawgiver and Leader.”[103]
.fn 102
The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, p. 88.
.fn-
.fn 103
Review of Dale’s Classic Baptism, in the Baptist Quarterly,
.fn-
Of the baptism of Israel, we shall take notice hereafter.
In these passages, it is evident that the distinguished professor
1869, pp. 142, 143.
.bn 351.png
.pn +1
is as much disturbed at the apparition of his own
raising as is Dr. Conant. At first he seems determined to
face it squarely, and calls upon his Baptist brethren to
look and see that it is nothing dangerous. But suddenly,
he crosses himself, and starts back in a hurried talk of the
resurrection of Christ and the rising of his people to newness
of life; all of which is very true and precious, but,
has no more to do with the question in hand, himself being
witness, than has the doctrine of original sin. The
question is, the meaning of baptizo, and the professor admits
that it has no part in the resurrection. The very
perplexing position in which he found himself, is some
apology for the confusion of ideas and the incongruities
which appear in his statements. He is discussing the relative
merits of the two words bapto and baptizo. The former,
in its primary and ordinary meaning, he can but
acknowledge, engages both to put its subject into the water
and take him out again; while baptizo only puts him in.
The latter, says the professor, was chosen because of this
its distinctive import, because the command was, not “to
put the people into the water and take them out again;
but to put them under the water,—to submerge them.”
But before he is done, we are told that the coming out,
“though essential to the completeness of the transaction
could not be included in the designation of the rite.”
Does “the transaction,” here mean the life saving operation
which he confides to the “instinctive love of life, common
sense,” etc? Or, are we correct in supposing it to
mean that baptismal rite which he is discussing? And if
the latter be the design, how is the statement to be reconciled
with the reason just before given for the employment
of baptizo, because it does not take the subject out of the
water, while bapto does? Waiving this difficulty, the question
occurs,—Why the rising “could not be included in
the designation of the rite,” seeing bapto was ready to add
that very idea to the meaning of baptizo? The question
.bn 352.png
.pn +1
is anticipated by the professor, and the answer given. It
is because the latter word has “greater length, weight, and
dignity of form!” The meaning of the words was a secondary
consideration! Bapto has but two syllables, while
baptizo has three. It has the advantage, therefore, in a
greater length, and a buzzing zeta, to add to its “weight
and dignity of form!” Or, perhaps, the superior “weight”
of the one word over the other consists in the fact that
while bapto accurately expresses the hasty resurrection
which the instinct of life and other influences specified so
happily, though not invariably, connect with the administration
of the rite, baptizo maintains a dignified silence on
that part of the subject. But the professor drifts back
again to his first position. He insists that the baptism of
Israel into Moses was received in their “wondrous march”
enclosed between the walls of water, and enshrouded in
the cloud, “and not in the closing emersion.” And yet,
even here, his protest that bapto itself would not have
given absolute assurance of exit, looks like a disposition to
weaken the force of “the distinctive import” of baptizo.
However these “dark sayings of the wise” are to be
interpreted, the facts remain, that, confessedly, the word
chosen by the Savior to designate the rite of baptism does
not include in it the idea of emersion, typical of resurrection,—that
it was chosen in preference to a kindred word
which does distinctly express that idea,—and that the best
reasons suggested by Baptist scholarship for this remarkable
fact are, that burial and not resurrection was the doctrine
symbolized; and that baptizo sounds best! Such are
the results of the elaborate researches of the scholarly
Conant, confirmed by the eminent learning of Kendrick,
divines than whom the Baptist churches have had none
more zealous or more competent. Essentially the same is
the definition reached through the exhaustive studies of
our own departed Dale.
Thus, according to the Baptist rendering of the gospel
.bn 353.png
.pn +1
commission, we are to go into all the world and submerge
every creature,—a command which neither contains nor
implies authority in any one to neutralize it by a systematic
rescue of its subjects from the “liquid grave.” A result
of the most serious import to our Baptist brethren follows
from these facts. The definition, to dip, for the sake of
which they have so long separated themselves, in translating
the Scriptures into the languages of the heathen, is
demonstrably and confessedly false, and the result is a corrupting
of the word of God.
The force of these facts against the very foundations of
the immersion fabric is utterly destructive. But the matter
does not rest even here. Dr. Conant recognizes in baptizo
a second meaning. The word does not even limit itself to
“submerge and nothing but submerge.” It also “expressed
the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which
one was, as it were enclosed or swallowed up, so that temporarily
or permanently he belonged wholly to it.”[104] Thus,
the man who is brought under the control of a passion of
anger, fear, or love, or who is overcome with wine or sleep,
was by the Greeks said to be baptized with these things.
So, in the Scriptures, he who is under such control that he
is “led of the Spirit,” is said to be “baptized with the
Spirit.” This meaning of baptizo no candid scholar can
deny; and in it we have already seen abundant relief from
all the perplexities of the immersion theory. Respecting
it, however, a caution is necessary. A mere momentary
impulse or influence by which one is seized, but, instantly,
released, is not a baptism, in the classic sense. The word
expressed a control which not only seizes but holds its object.
It brings him “into a new state of life or experience.”
This use of the word flows from the primary meaning,
to submerge, as expressive not of comprehensive control,
only, but of continuance. Nothing analogous to a momentary
dipping was known to the Greeks as a baptism.
.fn 104
“Meaning and Use of Baptizein,” p. 158.
.fn-
.bn 354.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXVI.—The Prepositions.
In the common English version of the New Testament,
the translations which occur in connection with baptism are
such as to show an evident bias on the part of the translators
in favor of immersion. In fact they were, all of
them, immersionists, if not by personal conviction, then, by
constraint of law. They were members, and with a few
exceptions clergymen of the church of England, by law
established. That church had incorporated among
its ordinances, baptism by trine immersion. By the parliamentary
revision during the reign of Edward VI, the
book of prayer was so altered as to require but one immersion.
The rubric for baptism was and is to this day in
these words:—“Then the priest shall take the child in his
hands, and ask the name; and naming the child, shall dip
it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done, saying,
‘N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ And, if the child
be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying the
aforesaid words.”[105]
.fn 105
“The Two Books of Common Prayer,” set forth by authority
of Parliament, in the reign of King Edward VI, edited by Edward
Cardwell, D.D., Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, 1852.
.fn-
As to the bearing of the prepositions on the present argument,
a brief illustration may make it clear to the English
reader. In the following citations, the words in
italics answer to the Greek prepositions under which respectively
they are cited.
1. En. “And were all baptized of him (en) in Jordan.”—Matt.
iii, 6. “John did baptize in the wilderness.”—Mark
i, 4. “John was baptizing in Enon.”—John
iii, 23. “These things were done in Bethabara, beyond
Jordan, where John was baptizing.”—John i, 28. “The
tower in Siloam.”—Luke xiii, 4. “Elias is come, and they
have done unto him whatsoever they listed.”—Matt. xvii,
.bn 355.png
.pn +1
12. “Turn the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.”—Luke
i, 17. “Lest they trample them with their feet.”—Matt.
vii, 6. “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word
is truth.”—John xvii, 17. “They that take the sword
shall perish with the sword.”—Matt. xxvi, 52. “There is
none other name ... by which we must be saved.”—Acts
iv, 12. “He will judge the world ... by that man whom
he hath ordained.”—Ib. xvii, 31. “Now revealed by the
Spirit”—Eph. iii, 5. “That at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow.”—Phil. ii, 10. From these illustrations
two deductions are manifest (1.) En does not always mean
in. It may mean with or by, instrumentally. “With the
sword.” “The name by which,” etc. It may mean by a
mediate agent. “Revealed by the Spirit.” “He will judge
the world by that man.” It may mean at, by, or in, locally.
“In Enon.” “At Siloam.” It may be used in a yet more
general signification, as, “At the name.” Other meanings
might be stated, but these are sufficient (2.) If, by reason
of the phrase “in Jordan,” we must understand that John
immersed his disciples into the Jordan, it of necessity follows
that he also immersed them “into Enon,” and “into
the wilderness.” In short, the expression indicates that
the Jordan was the place at which the baptizing was done:—this,
and this only. Why it was done there, we shall presently
see.
2. Eis. “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and
was baptized of John (eis) in Jordan.”—Mark i, 9. “They
went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch
and he baptized him.”—Acts viii, 38. These passages mutually
illustrate each other and show that the going into the
water was not the baptizing. “He came and dwelt in a
city called Nazareth.”—Mat. ii, 23. “He cometh to a
city of Samaria,” but he remained outside, at the well,
while the apostles went “into the city,” whence the Samaritans
“went out of the city and came to him.”—John iv,
5, 8, 28, 30. “He loved them to the end.”—Ib. xiii, 1.
.bn 356.png
.pn +1
“I speak to the world.” Ib. viii, 26. “If thy brother
trespass against thee.”—Matt, xviii, 15. “Therefore” (Literally,
to this) “came I forth.”—Mark i, 38. “What are
they among so many.”—John vi, 9. “The Son which is
in (on) the bosom of the Father.”—John i, 18. “He went
up into (to, or, on,) a mountain.”—Matt., v, 1. “Depart unto
the other side.”—Ib. viii, 18. “Fell down at his feet.”—Ib.
xviii, 29. Eis is even used in express contrast with entrance
into. “The other disciple did outrun Peter, and first
(ēlthen eis) came to the sepulchre, ... yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him and (eis-ēlthen eis)
entered into the sepulchre.”—John xx, 4-6. This illustrates
a usage concerning eis. When entrance into is to be expressed
by the mere force of the word, it must be doubled.
See Matt. vi, 6; x, 5, 12; Luke ix, 34, etc. The same
remark applies to ek, in the sense of out of. But neither
of these words is ever used in duplicated form, with reference
to baptism. It is evident that the word of itself determines
no more as to the mode of the baptism of Jesus
than does en. The ordinary office of eis is to point to the
terminus of a preceding verb of motion. When it is said
that Jesus came and dwelt (eis) in a city called Nazareth,
en would have been the proper preposition to express the
in-dwelling; but eis is preferred because the city was the
terminus of the coming “He came (eis) to a city.” So
Mark above uses the same word, not because of its appropriateness
to the baptizing, which is always elsewhere expressed
by en, but because the Jordan was the terminus
(eis) to which he came from Galilee.
3. Ek. “And when they were come up (ek) out of the
water.”—Acts viii, 39. In his gospel, Luke the author of
this account thus uses the preposition. “Saved from our
enemies.”—Luke i, 71. “Every tree is known by its own
fruit, for of thorns men do not gather figs; nor of a bramble-bush
gather they grapes.”—Ib. vi, 44. “He cometh from
the wedding.”—Ib. xii, 36. “All these have I kept from
.bn 357.png
.pn +1
my youth up.”—Ib. xviii, 21. So far as this word determines,
Philip and the eunuch may have come up from the
water, without having been in it, at all.
4. Apo. “Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway
(apo) out of the water.”—Matt. iii, 16. Apo never
means, “out of,” as here translated; but, “from,” “away
from.” “When Jesus was come down from the mountain.”—Matt.
viii, 1. “From whom do kings take tribute?”—Ib.
xvii, 25. “Cast them from thee.”—Ib. xviii, 8.
“Beginning from the last unto the first.”—Ib. xx, 8.
From these illustrations, which might be multiplied indefinitely,
it is evident that the prepositions will not bear
the stress put upon them by the Baptist argument. Not
only are they, in themselves, insufficient to constitute a
reliable basis for the conclusions sought; but the statements
to which they belong have respect, not to the mode of the
baptism, but to the places of it. They are defined by the
phrases, “in Jordan,”—“in Enon,”—“in Bethabara.”
Recent Baptist writers have had the courage to follow their
principles to the result of translating John’s words,—“I
immerse you in water, but he shall immerse you in the
Holy Ghost and in fire,”—a rendering from which the
better taste, if not the better scholarship, of the translators
of King James’s version revolted. The thorough
consideration already given in these pages to the baptism
of the Spirit justifies an imperative denial of the correctness
of this translation. If any thing in the Bible is clear,
it is that the baptism administered by the Lord Jesus is
not an immersion, but an outpouring.
On the question of the prepositions in this connection,
light is shed by an expression of the apostle Paul. “By
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, ... and
have been all made to drink one Spirit.”—1 Cor. xii, 13.
Of this passage we have already indicated that “into,” as
found in the last clause, in the common version (“to
drink into one Spirit”), is spurious, and that potizo (“made
.bn 358.png
.pn +1
to drink”), properly signifies, to apply water or other fluid,
whether externally or internally, to water, to cause to
drink. In this passage, we have both the prepositions, en
and eis, each dependent on the one verb, baptizo, but each
having its own distinctive subject. “Baptized (en), in
one Spirit (eis), into one body.” Into which of these
media does the immersion take place? Shall we follow
the Baptist interpretation of the words of John, “He shall
immerse you in the Holy Ghost?” But in the first place,
we have seen that this is false to the real manner of the
baptism in question; which consists in a shedding down
of the Spirit. In the second, how then, in harmony with
Baptist principles, are we to understand the other clause
of the passage,—“Immersed in one Spirit, into one body?“
Are there here two immersions by one act? the one subject
put at one and the same time into two different media?
Moreover, the language with which the apostle closes the
passage, while it is in perfect accord with the true mode
of the baptism of the Spirit, is altogether incongruous to
the Baptist interpretation. If we are baptized with or by
the Spirit, shed upon us, we may consistently be said to
drink (or, to be watered with) the Spirit. For, the earth
and its vegetation drink the rain that falls upon them.
But if we must be immersed in the Spirit, Paul’s language
implies that in order that men be caused to drink they are
to be immersed in the water. “Immersed in one Spirit,
and all made to drink one Spirit.”
But the phrase, en heni Pneumati, does not mean “in
one Spirit.” As we have seen, the preposition may and
often does mean “with,” or “by,” the Spirit, as the agent
or instrument. Especially by Paul, the writer of the passage
in question, is the phrase so used,—“Through Him
we both have access (en heni Pneumati), by one Spirit unto
the Father.”—Eph. ii, 18. Here is the very phrase in
question. Through the Lord Jesus, the Mediator, by his
Spirit as the instrument, who, being sent by him helpeth
.bn 359.png
.pn +1
our infirmities, in prayer (Rom. viii, 26), we have access
to the Father’s presence. Again,—“On whom,” as the
chief corner stone, “we are builded together, for an habitation
of God (en Pneumati), by the Spirit,” who is the
efficient builder of the spiritual temple. Again, the apostle
tells of the mystery which is “now revealed unto His
holy apostles and prophets (en Pneumati), by the Spirit”
(Eph. iii, 5), and exhorts us, “Be not drunk with wine,
wherein is excess, but be filled (en) with the Spirit” (Ib.
v, 18), and to “pray with all prayer and supplication (en)
by the Spirit.”—Ib. vi, 18. So in the text,—“With, or,
by one Spirit,” the instrument and agent of grace shed on
us abundantly by Jesus Christ “are we all baptized”—brought
into a new state of incorporation “into one body,”
which he pervades and controls as the Spirit of life. Into
it we are not immersed; but, united by his common in-dwelling
power, are made daily “to drink of that one
Spirit,” which is in us, “a well of water springing up into
everlasting life.”—John iv, 14.
It is not necessary to the present purpose to dwell
further on the signification and bearing of the prepositions.
The moment baptizo ceases to mean, to dip, and nothing
else, the prepositions lose all determining force upon the
questions at issue. If John’s disciples were dipped or submerged
in Jordan all is plain, and discussion is at an end.
But if John baptized in Jordan, the question still remains,—How
did he baptize? This is very clearly illustrated by
the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, if we accept the immersion
rendering of the prepositions. “They went down
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch.” They
have now reached the place, in the water, if you will.
But the baptism is yet to be performed.—“And he baptized
him.” But how did he do it? The baptism is now
ended; but both are still in position “in the water;” out
of which they are then stated to have come. (Acts viii,
38, 39.)
.bn 360.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXVII.—“There was much Water there.”
Appeal is made to the fact that John baptized “in
Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there.”—John iii, 23. Enon (Aenōn), is the plural form,
a word which means a spring or fountain. In a few places
it is translated, a well of water. But it signifies a flowing
spring. The name, therefore, means, The Springs near to
Salim. All attempts to trace a town or city of that name
have failed; and the whole manner of John’s ministry and
statements of the evangelists indicate him to have selected
a retired spot, rather than a town or city, as the place of
his preaching and baptism.
The phrase, “much water,” is not a correct translation
of the original (polla hudata), which means, many waters,—that
is, many springs, or streams. The phrase occurs nine
times in the Greek of the Old Testament, and four times
in the New, beside the place in question. It is never used
in the sense of unity,—“much water,”—but invariably expresses
the conception of plurality. In several places, it
designates the waves of the sea in a tumult. Thus, Psa.
xciii, 3, 4,—“The floods have lifted up, O Lord, the floods
have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves.
The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters;
yea, than the mighty waves of the sea.” See, also, 2 Sam.
xxii, 17; Psa. xviii, 16; xxix, 3; Isa. xvii, 12, 13; Ezek.
xliii, 2; Rev. i, 15; xiv, 2; xix, 6. In these places the
noise of many waters, is the sound of the waves, as they
toss in the fury of a storm, or thunder upon the shore.
Again, it is used to designate many streams, and even the
rivulets which for the purposes of irrigation were carried
through vineyards and gardens. Thus, “Thy mother was
as a vine, and as a shoot planted by a stream, by waters;
the fruit of which, and its sprouts were from many waters.”—Ezek.
xix, 10. See, also, Num. xxiv, 7, and Jer. li, 13.
In the last of these passages, Babylon is described as dwelling
.bn 361.png
.pn +1
“upon many waters,” meaning, not the Euphrates,
only; but the four rivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Chaboras and
Ulai, and the many canals of irrigation, vestiges of which
continue to this day, to which Babylonia was indebted for
its fertility, and the city for its wealth and power. Compare
Psalm cxxxvii, 1, “By the rivers of Babylon, there
we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion.”
In the text of John, the phrase coincides with the name
of Enon, to indicate that the peculiarity of the place was
a number of flowing springs. The bearing of these upon
the question as to the mode of John’s Baptism is inappreciable;
as, for the purposes of immersion, he did not need
more than one.
But, we recur to the challenge, so confidently urged.
If John did not immerse, why his resort to the Jordan, and
to the “much water” of Enon? We reply by another question.
Why did the Lord Jesus concentrate his ministry upon
the shore of the Sea of Galilee? Why did he, after the
close of his labors in that part of the land, take up his
abode at that very “place where John at first baptized?”—John
x, 40. A comparison of the evangelists shows that,
as did John (Luke iii, 3), so Jesus began his ministry by
journeying through the country and villages preaching the
gospel. But, as his fame spread abroad and the concourse
of his hearers increased, he was accustomed to resort to the
shores of the Sea of Galilee and the slopes of the mountains
which enclose it on the west. A comparison of the evangelists
shows the sermon on the mount to have been uttered
from one of those mountains. (Matt. v, 1; Mark iii, 7-13.)
In the brief narrative of Mark, that sea is six times spoken
of as the scene of his labors; and these are evidently mere
illustrations of the habit of his ministry. Thus, the first
such mention states that “he went forth again by the sea
side, and all the multitude resorted unto him and he taught
them.”—Mark ii, 13, and see iii, 7; iv, 1; v, 21; vi, 31-33;
vii, 31; viii, 10. Here, he fed the five thousand men,
.bn 362.png
.pn +1
beside women and children, with five barley loaves and
two small fishes; and here, the four thousand, with seven
barley loaves and a few small fishes. Afterward, when his
ministry in Galilee was finished and he would preach in
Judea, he found himself beset, before his time, by the
machinations of the scribes and rulers. He therefore withdrew
beyond Jordan, to “the place where John at first
baptized, and there he abode, and many resorted to him, ...
and many believed on him there.”—John x, 39-42, and
Mark x, 1. It is evident that the facts here referred to were
not casual nor fortuitous. They constitute one of the most
prominent features of the story of our Lord’s ministry. It
is also manifest that these and the facts concerning the
places of John’s ministry belong to the same category; so
that no explanation can be sufficient which does not account
for all alike.
The Baptist theory is not thus adequate. They will not
pretend that it was to immerse his disciples, that Jesus resorted
to the lake and to Bethabara. We may, therefore,
conclude that the explanation of John’s places of baptism
is to be sought upon some other principle. A candid consideration
of the circumstances will discover it; and customs
peculiar to this country may confirm the solution.
The assemblies that attended on the ministry of John and
of Jesus were essentially similar to our camp-meetings, with
the only difference, that the simpler habits of the people of
Judea and Galilee rendered any preparation of tents or
booths unnecessary. On one occasion we casually learn
that the people remained together three days (Mark viii,
2); and the circumstances indicate that generally they were
“protracted meetings.” For example, at one time, Mark
states that “Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to
the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee, followed him,
and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and
from beyond Jordan, and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great
multitude, when they had heard what great things he did,
.bn 363.png
.pn +1
came unto him.”—Mark iii, 7, 8. Luke in one place speaks
of “an innumerable multitude of people (tōn muriadōn tou
ochlou, the tens of thousands of the throng) insomuch that
they trode one upon another.”—Luke xii, 1. See, also, the
descriptions of John’s audiences. In choosing the place for
a camp-meeting, three things are recognized as of the first
necessity. These are, retirement, accessibility, and abundance
of water. Why these are essential, needs no explanation.
As to the last, food may be brought from a distance;
but if abundance of water, for the supply of man
and beast, is not found on the spot, its use for such a purpose
is manifestly and utterly impracticable.
The argument applies with double force to the thirsty
climate of Judea. As heretofore stated, there are very few
running streams in the land. The requisite supplies for the
people in the towns and villages in which the population
was concentrated were obtained from wells. There is scarcely
a single perennial stream flowing from the west into the
Jordan, in its whole course from the sea of Galilee to the
Dead Sea. Its affluents are “mere winter torrents, rushing
and foaming during the continuance of rain, and quickly
drying up after the commencement of summer. For fully
half the year, these ‘rivers,’ or ‘brooks,’ are often dry
lanes of hot white or gray stones; or, tiny rills, working
their way through heaps of parched boulders.”[106] In a word,
the banks of the Jordan, the shores of the sea of Tiberias,
and some such exceptional spots as The Springs near Salim,
presented the only sites in Palestine in which the three
requisites above indicated were to be found united. Suppose
the multitudes that were gathered to our Savior’s ministry,—four
and five thousand men, beside women, children
and cattle; and those of John’s preaching were, without
doubt, as numerous,—to have been assembled with an improvident
forgetfulness of the prime necessity of water!
.bn 364.png
.pn +1
The alternative would have been a vast amount of suffering
and the dispersion of the assembly, or miraculous interposition.
But this does not meet the case of John’s congregations;
for “John did no miracle.”
.fn 106
Mr. George Grove, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article,
“Palestine.”
.fn-
It is plain that we need no immersion theory, to account
for the places chosen by John and Jesus for fulfilling their
ministry. The necessities of their numerous audiences were
decisive, and were in harmony with the requirement of the
law that the sprinkled water of purifying should be living
or running water.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXVIII.—“Buried with him by Baptism into\
Death.”
The principal remaining Baptist argument is derived
from two expressions of the apostle Paul which are supposed
to show by implication that baptism was administered
by immersion. These are;—Rom. vi, 4,—“Buried
with him by baptism into death;” and Col. ii, 12,—“Buried
with him in baptism.” In our common English version as
here quoted, there is a repeated neglect of the definite article,
where it occurs in the original, which obscures the
meaning. This defect being rectified, the first passage reads
thus:—Rom. vi, 1-11. “What shall we say then? Shall
we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.
How shall we that are dead by 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 by the baptism into the 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.
For, if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
knowing this, that our old man (sunestaurōthē) was
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,
that henceforth we should not serve sin. For (ho apōthanōn)
he that died is freed (dedikoiatai, is justified) from
.bn 365.png
.pn +1
sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we will
also live with him.... For in that he died (tē hamartia)
by sin he died once: but in that he liveth he liveth (tō
theō) by God” (that is, “by the power of God.”—2 Cor.
xiii, 4.) reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed by sin, but alive by the power of God, through Jesus
Christ our Lord.”
In the present state of our argument, it might seem
almost needless to discuss this passage. But this and the
parallel text sustain relations to the subject, which clothe
them with an importance in the discussion, such as attaches
to no other Scriptures whatever. In them is contained
and exhausted the entire evidence in behalf of the assumption
that the form of baptism represents the burial of the
Lord Jesus. Confessedly, that supposition, if not established
by these two phrases of Paul, is without warrant
anywhere in the Bible. But to prove the interpretation of
the rite, they must of necessity, first, establish its very existence,
which as yet is more than problematical. That
they are not likely to prove adequate to the task thus laid
upon them, will be apparent to the reader upon a moment’s
consideration. It is evident, and admitted by all, that the
immediate subject of discussion in them is the baptism of
the Spirit, and not ritual baptism, in any form. If the
latter is referred to, at all, it is by mere allusion. That,
this is true, as to the text to the Romans, is indicated alike
by the form of expression, “baptized into Jesus Christ,”
and by the phenomena and results which are attributed to
that baptism. It will hereafter appear that the two
phrases, “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and “baptized into
the name of Christ,” are those by which, in the Scriptures,
the real baptism, and the ritual, are discriminated from
each other. The one unites to the very body of Christ,
the true, invisible church. The other unites to the name
of Christ, and to that visible body which is named with
his name. That it is of spiritual phenomena, and not of
.bn 366.png
.pn +1
ritual forms, that Paul speaks, is moreover evident, from
the purpose and tenor of his argument. His object is to
repel the suggestion that free grace gives liberty to sin.
His fundamental point in reply to this is, that God’s people
“are dead by sin,” in such a sense that it is impossible
they should “live any longer therein.” To prove this, is
the whole intent of his argument. First, in designating
the subjects of his statements, he uses phraseology which
emphasizes the difference between a mere outward relation
to Christ and the church, and that which is established by
the baptism of the spirit. “Know ye not that so many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” It is those who are
truly one with Christ by a real spiritual union, and only
those, whom he describes, and of whom he predicates what
follows.
“Baptized into Jesus Christ.” This is the one only
baptism of the passage, the effects and consequences of
which the apostle proceeds to set forth. Or, are we here
to recognize three baptisms,—into Jesus Christ,—into his
death,—and into his burial? The first effect of the baptism
into Christ Paul indicates by the phrase, “baptized
into his death.” In the baptism into Christ, “by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” the body of
Christ, “and are all made to drink one Spirit.” But it
was by that Spirit that he offered himself without spot to
God, and “died by sin,” it being the meritorious cause of
his death; and that Spirit being in us by virtue of the
baptism, will cause the same hatred of sin, and induce in
us a sense of its demerit and condemnation, so that we can
no longer live in it. Such is the meaning of the apostle’s
expression, “baptized into his death,”—so united by the
baptism into Christ, that as he died for sin to destroy it in
us, so we will be dead to it in the same hatred and zeal
for its destruction, inspired by the same Spirit. To intensify
this conception, the apostle pursues the figure yet
farther.—“Therefore, we are buried with him.”—How?
.bn 367.png
.pn +1
By immersion in water? or, By any thing of which such
immersion is a symbol? No. But (dia) through, or, by
means of the baptism just spoken of; “the baptism into
the death” of Christ. That the expression can not possibly
mean any ritual form of baptism is certain every way.
The illative, “Therefore,” forbids it. It shows the burial
to be, not a physical phenomenon, real or ritual, but a consequence
which, by virtue of the relation of cause and
effect, logically results from something which either precedes
or follows. But the boundaries in both directions are
the same.—“Baptized into his death. Therefore buried with
him, by the baptism into the death.” The baptism into
Christ, by which we are baptized into his death, is thus
the instrumental cause of the burial; a fact which utterly
excludes any form of ritual baptism from the purview
of the passage. But what is here meant by being buried
with him? In order to an answer, it will be necessary
to ascertain precisely who it is that dies and is buried
with Christ. The answer comes promptly. “We are
buried.” True; but the words are to be taken in the
light of the apostle’s own interpretation. It is not we, in
the entirety of our persons, but our old man, of which
this is said. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified
with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin.”—Vs. 6. It is, to signify
the utterness of this death and destruction of the old
man,—its obliteration out of our lives, so that we can not
“live any longer therein,” nor “serve sin,” that the apostle
represents it as buried, and hidden away in a resurrectionless
grave. The old man buried, so that the new man
may unimpeded “walk in newness of life.” In this doctrine
and these words of the apostle, we have the very
baptism which Dr. Conant admits to be expressed, “by
analogy,” by the word baptizo;—“the coming into a new state
of life or experience.” Into the conception of the passage,
when critically appreciated, it is impossible to introduce
.bn 368.png
.pn +1
the idea of immersion, in any congruous or intelligible relation.
The apostle illustrates his subject with another figure,
which has been sometimes pressed into the service of immersion.
“For if we have been planted together in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection.” It has been assumed that the planting of
a tree is here associated with immersion in water (“buried
by baptism”), as representing the burial of the dead. Thus,
“the likeness of his death,” which was by crucifixion, is
confounded with the form of burial of the dead. This is
recognized by Dr. Carson, whose exposition of the figure
is essentially correct. Of sumphutoi (“planted together”)
he says,—“It might, I think, be applied to express the
growing together of the graft and the tree; but this would
be the effect or consequence of grafting, and not the operation
itself. It denotes, in short, the closest union, with
respect to things indiscriminately. There is no need, then,
to bring either planting or grafting into the passage; and
as neither of them resembles a resurrection, they should
be rejected. When we translate the passage,—‘For, if we
have become one with him,’ or, ‘have been joined with
him, in the likeness of his death,’—we not only suit the
connexion, to both death and resurrection, but we take
the word sumphutoi, in its most common acceptation.”[107]
This witness is true. The phrase has no reference to the
form of ritual baptism, but to the intimacy of the union
which that of the Spirit establishes. The two expressions,—“Baptized
into his death,” and “Coplanted with
him in the likeness of his death,” are coincident, meaning
essentially the same thing. It is, however, a fundamental
defect in Carson’s conception, that while he earnestly insists
on the closeness of the union, by which Christ and his people
are one, he fails to recognize the essential fact that it
is effected by the baptism of the Spirit. In his conception
.bn 369.png
.pn +1
and vocabulary, it is a “constituted union.” A ray of
light entering his mind on this point would have transfigured
his whole system.
.fn 107
Carson on Baptism, p. 251.
.fn-
But what means our being joined with Christ in the
likeness of his death? Here and elsewhere, Paul explains
abundantly. “He died by sin,” our sin, as being the meritorious
cause of his death. “He was crucified through
weakness,”—the weakness of his humiliation, under the
law and the curse. (2 Cor. xiii, 4.) He died by the
cross, the agonies of which he voluntarily assumed. And
he lives again, by the power of God who raised him from
the dead. So we also, if truly baptized into him, “are
weak (en autō) in him, but we shall live with him by the
power of God toward us.”—2 Cor. xiii, 4. We are weak
in him, in a realizing sense imparted by his Spirit in us,
of the desert and condemnation of sin, and of its prevailing
power, which renders our emancipation from it a crucifixion
of the flesh, the agonies of which we voluntarily
incur. And we live with him, in the present life of the
new man after his image, created by the baptism of his
Spirit in us, as we shall finally live with him in the life of
glory. Thus we are joined with him in the likeness of his
death, and also of his resurrection.
From this analysis, it is evident that the assumption
of allusion to a supposed ritual burial is wholly unnecessary
to the exegesis of the passage. In fact, the supposition
of such allusion is altogether incongruous and confusing to
the argument of the place. (1.) The real baptism and its
effects are the alone subjects of the discussion; and any
exegesis which ignores this must lead to error. (2.) The
burial of which the apostle speaks is spiritual, as well as is
the baptism. The two are in no sense identical; but the
one is, by the apostle distinctly and sharply discriminated
from the other. The baptism is the primary cause, of
which the burial is one, and but one, of the results. The
baptism is the shedding upon us of the Holy Spirit of life
.bn 370.png
.pn +1
in Christ Jesus. The burial is the putting away, and obliterating
of the old man out of our lives. It follows,
that in any parallel figurative or ritual system, each one
of these spiritual realities must have its own analogue, as
distinctly defined and discriminated, each from the other,
as are the realities which they are designed to represent.
And, in fact, such is the figurative system of the Scriptures,
which represent the one by the figure of the outpouring
of water, and the other by the burial of the dead.
To interpret, therefore, a ritual baptism as symbolic of
the spiritual burial, is as incongruous to the Scriptural
conception, as would be the employment of the burial of
the dead to represent the outpouring upon us of the Spirit
of life. And to understand the apostle, by the expression,
“buried by the baptism” to mean directly the spiritual
phenomenon which the phrase designates, and at the same
time to convey an allusion to a ritual baptism as being a
symbol of the burial, is an absurdity which does violence
to the whole conception, to the destruction of its propriety
and significance. For, not only are the two thus sharply
discriminated by Paul, but he attributes to each its own
relations and predicates, and assigns to each its own place
in the scheme of grace and in the argument which he
states. To neglect, therefore, the distinction, and confound
them together, as is done by the Baptist interpretation,
destroys the whole logical force and sequence of the argument,
and dissolves the connection between the premises
and the conclusions.
Moreover, were it even allowable, as it is not, thus to
confound things that differ, there still remains a point of difficulty
in the way of the immersion exegesis which, for its
removal, demands something more than the mere assumption
which has heretofore been put in the place of proof.
The apostle speaks, not of immersion, but of burial.
“Buried with him.” That the two ideas are not identical
does not need to be proved. Nor is the difference so slight
.bn 371.png
.pn +1
that the one would readily suggest itself as a figure of the
other. But in order to sustain the Baptist conclusions
which depend on this language, it would be necessary to
demonstrate that the rites of sepulture with which the
writers of the Scriptures were familiar, and in conformity
to which the body of Jesus was entombed, bore a resemblance
to immersion in water, so close and manifest, that
the one was a recognized symbol of the other. But there
is certainly no such resemblance as to justify the gratuitous
assumption that such a figure was employed; and of its
actual use, the Scriptures contain not a trace.
Is it still insisted that, nevertheless, there is an allusion
to the rite of immersion? Such an allusion must be supposed
to shed light or beauty upon the presentation of the
spiritual theme of the passage; or, it is an arbitrary impertinence.
Let us then view the suggestion squarely, in
the light of the realized observance, thus forced into critical
notice. The theme of the apostle is the calm majesty
and power of the Savior’s three days’ rest in the sepulcher,
and of the silent and unseen mystery of his rising on the
third day; and the tranquil energy of the same mighty
power in the believer (Eph. i, 19, 20; ii, 1), by which he
is quickened and raised up to the life of holiness. The figure
which is intruded, to illuminate and adorn this conception,
calls up before us the apprehension and haste of
the ritual observance, and the agitation, the gasping and
sputter of the dripping subjects of the rite, as they struggle
up out of the “watery grave.” Is it possible to conceive that
master of rhetoric, the apostle Paul, to have called up
these, the essential and inseparable features of the rite of
immersion, as a means of shedding light or beauty on his
exalted theme?
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXIX.—“Buried with Him in Baptism.”
Col. ii, 9-13.—“In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is
.bn 372.png
.pn +1
the head of all principality and power. In whom, also, ye
are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,
in putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of
Christ (suntaphentes autō en to baptismati), having been buried
with him by the baptism, wherein also ye were raised up
with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who
raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your
sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, did he quicken
together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”
Here, in the phrase,—“the body of the sins of the flesh,”
which is the reading of the common version, the critical
editors unite in rejecting (hamartiōn) “of the sins,” which
was undoubtedly a gloss inserted from the margin, in careless
transcription.
It is evident that the doctrine and argument of the
passage just examined from the epistle to the Romans, and
this to the Colossians are essentially the same. In the
former, Paul shows that the child of God can not live in
sin;—in the latter that he ought to walk in Christ. The
controlling motive of the apostle’s argument, here, is, to
free his readers from the bondage of ritual ordinances and
human devices of religion. He begins with the admonition,—“Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ.”—vs. 8. To
this, he again recurs as the conclusion of his argument.—“Therefore,
if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments
of the world, why as though living in the world are ye
subject to ordinances, ... after the commandments and
doctrines of men?”—vs. 20, 21. It is with a view to these
things that the exhortation is written,—“As ye have received
Christ Jesus the Lord, so, walk ye in him, rooted
and built up in him, and established in the faith,” as contrasted
with these traditions of men. Thus, as in the
parallel plea to the Romans, so here, the determining idea
is union with the Lord Jesus,—that spiritual union of
.bn 373.png
.pn +1
which the baptism of the Spirit is the efficient and only
cause. The dignity and glory conferred by it are emphasized
by the declaration that “in Him dwelleth all,
(plērōma) the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” In the person
of Jesus, the Son is incarnate; the Father’s glory and
power invest him, and the Spirit is his and dwells in him.
“And ye are (peplērōmenoi) made full in him.” “Made
full in him” by virtue of that mutual relation which Jesus
describes;—“You in me, and I in you.”—John xiv, 20.
Thus, made full, with all the graces of his indwelling
Spirit, and so needing no recourse to the rudiments of the
world. With this fullness of grace, the apostle then contrasts
the coincident emptying of the old man. “In whom
ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ.” Circumcision signified the cutting off
and destruction of the corrupt nature derived by generation,
the old man, through the blood and sufferings of the
promised Seed of Abraham. This operation is here called
“the circumcision of Christ,” as it is that spiritual reality
of which ritual circumcision was the type. The apostle
holds it up to view, as the substance, in contrast with the
emptiness of the ritual shadow, against dependence on
which he dissuades his Colossian readers. This circumcision
of Christ he proceeds to explain farther. “Putting
off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
(suntaphentes autō) having been buried with him in the baptism.”
In the conception and argument of the apostle,
emphasis rests on the definite article, which here, and in
the parallel place, already examined, is ignored in the common
English version, and in the Revised version. Paul’s
aim in this place is to hold up the spiritual realities of the
gospel in contrast with the emptiness of ritual forms. He
coordinates “the baptism” with “the circumcision of
Christ,” in producing the spiritual phenomena of which he
is speaking. Or, rather, he postulates the baptism as the
.bn 374.png
.pn +1
ultimate cause of the circumcision and its results. That,
by the phrase, “the baptism,” he designates the same
thing as in Romans vi, 4, is evident, as it is also that as
in that place, so here, the baptism is not the burial, but
is related to it, as the cause to the effect.—“Buried with
him by the baptism.” How the baptism effects the burial,
has been shown in that place. The distinction between
the two, which is there so strongly marked, is in this passage
equally clear and important; and the consequences
there traced are here as legitimate and pertinent. The
supposition of an allusion to immersion in water, in either
place, is utterly groundless, and in both alike incongruous
and destructive to the apostle’s conception and argument.
Certainly, this place no more than the other necessitates
recourse to the supposed rite of immersion, in order to a
rational interpretation. And it is equally certain that at
the touch of a discriminating exegesis the supposed allusion
to such a rite vanishes utterly away.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXX.—End of the Baptist Argument.
The Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The
first is, that baptizo means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge,—one
or other of these, as the different advocates
of the cause may select,—and nothing else. The second is,
that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the
body of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion,
or submersion in water was appointed as a symbol of
his entombing. The first of these assumptions is essential
to vindicate the mode in question, and the second to establish
its typical significance. If baptizo does not mean as
defined, or if that is not the only meaning, the whole immersion
fabric falls to the ground. And if the second
proposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning
absurdity.—On these vital points, the following are the
results of the evidence thus far developed in these pages.
1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament
.bn 375.png
.pn +1
and the New, are full of the doctrine of the baptism
of the Spirit,—while the divers baptisms of the Mosaic ritual
were unquestionably typical of it, and the prophecies
abound in references to it under the figure of affusion—the
sprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain,—the
rite of immersion does not pretend to any better evidence
than is found in a definition of baptizo, which is now admitted
to be erroneous, and a few expressions in the New
Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation.
Aside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole
tenor of conception and language of the New Testament as
well as of the Old.
2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale,—the
admissions of Dr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of
Prof. Kendrick, prove that the word does not mean, to dip,
to put in the water and take out again; but to put under
the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in submerging
the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed.
There is therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion
of the resurrection.
3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results
established by the investigations of this volume, are
confirmed by the distinct admission of Dr. Conant, that the
primary is not the only meaning of the word. It not only
means, to submerge, but also, “the coming into a new
state of life or experience.” Thus, the citadel of the immersion
position is definitely abandoned. The word is not
limited to one meaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it
occurs, in any given place, decides nothing as to the form
of action expressed by it; since the question always arises,—In
what sense is the word here used? a question which, in
every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the
word. Until so decided, any inference from the word is
mere assumption.
4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion,
the prepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous
.bn 376.png
.pn +1
to the supposition that the rite was performed
by affusion.
5. The many waters of Enon prove nothing to the purpose;
since abundance of water was necessary to John’s
congregations, had he made no ritual use of it whatever.
6. Equally futile is appeal to Paul’s “buried by the baptism,”
as the imagined allusion is unnecessary to the interpretation,
incongruous to the argument, and destructive of
the distinctions which the apostle draws, and the conclusions
which he deduces.
7. As to the remaining argument, from the baptism of
the eunuch, we shall see hereafter, that while the facts recorded
decide nothing, they create a presumption which distinctly
indicates affusion.
Thus, the rite in question,—foreign to the whole style
of the Old Testament, its ritual and prophecies, and equally
so to the language and doctrines of the New,—is left without
a vestige of evidence, anywhere, whether as to mode
or meaning, even in those particular words and passages
which have been the reliance of its advocates.
.bn 377.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part XIII. | BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXI.—The Doctrine is Contrary to the Whole\
Tenor of the Gospel.
Paul was yet in the meridian of his strength, and the
most active period of his ministry, when he wrote to
the Thessalonians that “the mystery of iniquity doth
already work,”—the mystery out of which was to be developed
“that Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
of his coming.”—2 Thes. ii, 7, 8. There is nothing
more remarkable, nor more humiliating, in the history of
the church than the rapid defection from the simplicity of
the gospel which is apparent in the early remains of patristic
literature. The transition from the apostles and evangelists
in the New Testament, to the writings of the fathers, is
like that from the splendor of the noonday sun to the
deepening twilight of the evening. It was the precursor
of “the black and dark night,” by which the gospel was
obscured for so many ages, and which still enshrouds the
churches of Rome and the East in a mantle of gloom.
Of this defection, the all-powerful cause was a false and
mischievous interpretation of the Scriptures concerning the
relation of the covenant of Sinai to the new covenant.
They were interpreted as teaching that the visible church
and its ordinances under the New Testament economy, was
the antitype of the Levitical church and institutions,—that
the rites and ceremonies of the latter were the shadow, of
which the ordinances of the Christian church are the substance.
Hence the Christian ministry became a priesthood,
.bn 378.png
.pn +1
ministering better sacrifices and more effectual purifyings than
those of the Mosaic ritual; for in their hands and by virtue of
their consecrating prayers, the Lord’s supper became a propitiatory
sacrifice of the very body and blood of the Lord
Jesus, and baptism administered by them became a spiritual
regeneration,—a purging of the conscience,—the true baptism
foreshadowed by the “type baptism” of the Old Testament.
Thus, Didymus Alexandrinus, having quoted Ezek.
xxxvi, 22,—“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean from all your sins;” and Psa. li, 7,—“Sprinkle
me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I
shall be whiter than snow;” says,—“For the sprinkling
with hyssop was Judaic purification; which is continued
by them to the present time; but ‘whiter than snow,’ denotes
Christian illumination, which is baptism. And Peter,
that he may show in his first epistle, that if baptism, which
was formerly, in shadow (en skia) saved, much more that
which was in reality (en alētheia) immortalizes and deifies
us, wrote thus;—‘Antitype baptism now saves us.’”[108] So
Ambrose, as already quoted, says of the Psalmist,—“He
asks to be cleansed by hyssop, according to the law. He
desires to be washed, according to the gospel. He who
would be cleansed by typical baptism was sprinkled with
the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop.” Of
the doctrine of baptism, as thus conceived, Tertullian says,—“All
waters in virtue of the pristine privilege of their
origin,[109] do, after invocation of God accomplish sanctification;
for the Spirit immediately comes from heaven and
rests upon the waters, sanctifying them by his own power;
and they being thus sanctified, therewith acquire the power
of sanctifying.”[110] Derived from this is the modern doctrine
of baptismal regeneration, according to which, it is only in
.bn 379.png
.pn +1
and through the baptism of water that the renewing grace
of the Spirit is imparted to men.
.fn 108
Did. Alex. xxxix, 716. In Dale’s Christ. Bapt. p. 342.
.fn-
.fn 109
He alludes to a relation to the Spirit, supposed to be indicated
in Gen. i, 2.
.fn-
.fn 110
Tertullianus, De Bapt., ch. iv.
.fn-
It is manifest that if this doctrine be true, baptism is
the “one thing needful;” and the church of Rome, and
ritualists everywhere are right in the unanimity with which
they reduce the preaching of the word to a secondary
place, and count the progress of the gospel by the numbers
who have been subjected to the life-giving rite. If it be
true, then water baptism should be the theme of the New
Testament; and the apostles and Christian ministry must
have been commissioned and sent forth, not to preach the
gospel; but to baptize. What says the Word of God on
these points?
1. As to the gospel commission, and the instructions
connected therewith, we have accounts from each of the
four evangelists. John confines himself almost entirely to
those, of such supreme interest, which Jesus uttered at the
table, the night of the betrayal. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke record the essential facts which occurred after the resurrection.
The first thing that presents itself in examining
these accounts is, that of baptism, as connected with the last
instructions given the apostles, neither Luke nor John say
one word. Thus, if the doctrine in question be true, these
two evangelists are guilty of leaving out of their record
the very heart and essence of the whole matter. This is
the more remarkable, if we consider the character of the
writers who are thus chargeable. Did we forget the Spirit
which guided their pens, it is yet impossible to imagine
that Luke, “the beloved physician,” disciple, and companion
of Paul, can have been unaware of the just proportion
to be preserved in his narrative; so as to ignore a
matter important as this. Or, John, the kinsman of Jesus,
the beloved disciple, who in the privilege of a perfect confidence
and love, lay on his bosom, and who received from
the cross the legacy of the stricken mother,—John was
not ignorant of the mind of his Master, on a subject like
.bn 380.png
.pn +1
this, upon which depend the whole results of the work of
redemption. The silence of these writers was not inadvertent,
and it is fatal to the theory in question. What
they do not report can have no place among the essentials
of the plan of salvation. It still, however, remains to
account for their silence respecting the ritual ordinance of
baptism; which, apart from the unwarranted theory in
question, all agree to be of divine authority. To this
point we will return hereafter.
If, now, we turn to the other evangelists, the record
of Matthew is as follows: Matt. xxviii, 16-20. “Then
the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain
where Jesus had appointed them. And when they
saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And
Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them (eis to honoma), 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.” Here, it can not be pretended
that there is any thing to countenance the idea of baptismal
regeneration. The administering of the rite is enjoined
on the apostles. But no hint is given of its being necessary
to salvation; and no such stress is laid upon it as to
imply such necessity.
Mark records the language of Jesus on another occasion.
Mark xvi, 14-16,—“He appeared to the eleven, as
they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief
and hardness of heart, because they believed not them
which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto
them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall he damned.”
Here, is no more of baptismal regeneration than we have
found in Matthew. Emphasis is, indeed, given to baptism,
.bn 381.png
.pn +1
by the connection in which it is introduced. But at the
very point on which all depends the evidence gives way.
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not—shall be damned.” Thus explicitly
Jesus utters sentence of perdition against unbelief. But
he as explicitly omits baptism from mention on that side
of the alternative, and thus expressly limits the condemning
sentence to unbelief. Either this language is designed
to represent baptism as important but not essential; or, it
is a snare which must take men at unawares, and involve
them in danger of destruction from ignorance of the necessity
of the rite. Here then is no baptismal regeneration.
The same inference follows from the silence of the other
evangelists on this point. The eleven were all present and
heard these words. If they were meant to imply baptismal
regeneration, they were of the very highest moment.
They could not, therefore, be ignored, but must have been
the very center and controlling principle of all their writings
and teachings. And yet, the other gospels ignore
them; and the epistles are equally silent. It is, therefore,
certain that the apostles did not understand the expressions,
in the supposed sense. The true principle of harmony
for the interpretation of all these facts will be presented
in another place.
2. If now we examine the position of the great apostle
of the Gentiles, we shall find him give place by subjection
to this doctrine,—no, not for an hour. His is an independent
testimony; for he was not with the eleven under
the personal ministry of Christ. It is also fuller than any
other; running through his thirteen epistles. First, we
find that it was not his habit to baptize the converts of his
own ministry; and that, upon principle. He says to the
Corinthians,—“I thank God that I baptized none of you
but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had
baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household
of Stephanas. Besides, I know not whether I baptized
.bn 382.png
.pn +1
any other. For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but
to preach the gospel.”—1 Cor. i, 14-17. He moreover
states the reason of his special devotion thus to the preaching
of the gospel,—because “it pleased God by the foolishness
of preaching to save them that believe.”—v. 21. Here be
it observed, the apostle speaks of preaching, not abstractly
considered, but in immediate contrast with baptism. He
does not baptize; but preaches, because preaching is the
means which God has chosen for the salvation of men
through faith. Thus, baptism is, in the plainest terms denied
the place assigned it by the theory in question. But
the evidence is even more direct and conclusive. To these
same Corinthians whom Paul thus reminded that he had
not baptized them, he addressed a second epistle, in which
he distinctly asserts that through his personal ministry the
Spirit of God had been given them and new life wrought
within them. “Ye are our epistle written in your hearts,[111]
known and read of all men; forasmuch as ye are manifestly
declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us,
written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;
not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the
heart.” He goes on to assert his ministry to be “of the
new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for
the letter killeth; but the spirit giveth life.”—2 Cor. iii, 2,
3, 6. It needs no words, here, to show that thus the
apostle overturns the very foundations of the theory of baptismal
regeneration. Paul did not baptize the Corinthians.
But he ministered to them the Holy Spirit of life and
grace,—the true baptism of which he speaks so largely in
his epistles.
.fn 111
That [Greek: ê(môn], the reading of the Textus Receptus, should be
[Greek: u(mô~n], “your hearts,” is testified by a number of MSS., among
which is the Sinaiticus, and is imperatively demanded by the
connection.
.fn-
It is not necessary to go farther in tracing the doctrine
of Paul on the subject. He is everywhere consistent with
.bn 383.png
.pn +1
himself as thus presented. It is however worthy of express
notice that in his three epistles to Timothy and Titus,
in which he sets forth the qualifications and duties of “the
man of God,” he does not once name or allude to the ordinance
of baptism. Had the apostle believed the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration, it is not possible that he could
have been thus silent. But what need is there of thus inferring
the sentiments of Paul? His favorite doctrine, excludes
and condemns this theory as an intrusive heresy.
“Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ.”—Rom. v, 1. “By grace ye are
saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the
gift of God.”—Eph. ii, 8. “O foolish Galatians, who hath
bewitched you?... This only would I learn of you, Received
ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the
hearing of faith?”—Gal. iii, 1, 2. How is it that by no accident
does he ever say,—“by the hearing of faith, and
by baptism?” It is almost needless to add that the other
apostles in their writings are in perfect accord with Paul.
In fact, ritual or water baptism is not once named in their
epistles. The word, itself, occurs in them all only once,—in
the statement of Peter respecting “antitype baptism,”
which has been already examined. If the apostles and evangelists
are true witnesses as to the mind of Christ, the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration is contrary to his teachings
and subversive of the gospel.
This heresy is to be regarded with peculiar detestation
and abhorrence because of the disparagement which it does
to the sovereignty and glory of Christ’s baptizing scepter.
In any and every form of it, it divides the work of grace
between Christ and the human administrators of the empty
sign. It subordinates and limits the sovereign exercise of
his saving power to the discretion of their wisdom and will,
to the measure of their fidelity and ardor of their zeal.
Whom they baptize,—upon them his grace may be bestowed,
and upon them only.
.bn 384.png
.pn +1
We shall not examine in detail all the Scriptures which
are appealed to in support of this theory. There are two
which are the chief reliance of its advocates, an examination
of which will be sufficient. If not in them, the doctrine
is not to be found in the Bible. They are, John iii,
5, and Eph. v, 25-27.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXII.—“Born of Water and of the Spirit.”
Said Jesus to Nicodemus,—“Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom
of God.”—John iii, 5. Dr. Pusey asserts that “The
Christian church uniformly for fifteen centuries interpreted
these words of baptism; on the ground of this text alone,
they urged the necessity of baptism; upon it they identified
regeneration with baptism.” If the position thus maintained
by the churches of Rome and the east for so many centuries
be the truth, it presents the Savior, the apostles and evangelists,
and the Scriptures written by them, in a most extraordinary
light. In the very beginning of his ministry,
in a private interview with the Jewish ruler, Jesus imparts
to him this doctrine, on which confessedly the salvation
of every man depends. But, from that hour, neither he
nor his apostles ever name it. In his public instructions
to the people,—in his private interviews with his disciples,—in
those particular and assiduous teachings by which,
as his own ministry drew to a close, he put them in possession
of his whole mind concerning their ministry and the
world’s salvation (John xv, 15), he is persistently and
entirely silent on this vital point. “Still,” says Dr. Pusey,
“the truth in holy Scripture is not less God’s truth, because
contained in one passage only.” The principle is
sound; but its application here is a mere begging of the
question. That question is, What mean these words?
And the above axiom is no more true, and much less pertinent
to the present occasion than is the rule of interpretation
laid down by Paul. “Having then gifts differing
.bn 385.png
.pn +1
according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.”—Rom.
xii, 6. An interpretation which takes a passage out
of all congruous relation to the rest of the Scriptures, and
overturns the very foundations of the faith therein set
forth, is false. And such is the interpretation in question.
The circumstances and connection indicate the true meaning
of the passage.
That Nicodemus, although perhaps lacking in courage,
was an honest inquirer after the truth, is evinced by the circumstances
of this interview and by his subsequent history.
He came by night, for fear of the Jews. He came not to
cavil but to be taught, as appears alike from his own
language and the manner of Christ’s dealing with him.
John had been for some time causing the land to ring with
his warning cry; and men’s hearts were in expectation because
of it and his baptism. After this interview of Nicodemus
with Jesus, we incidentally learn that in connection
with Christ’s preaching his disciples also baptized. And
their baptism was assuredly of the same intent as that of
John,—to prefigure the office of the Baptizer with the Holy
Ghost. We may, therefore, conclude that their baptism
was from the beginning associated with Christ’s ministry.
Of these facts, a man of the rank and intelligence of Nicodemus,
and in his state of mind, could not be ignorant.
He therefore comes for instruction as to the way of salvation.
At the beginning of the interview, he places himself
definitely at the feet of Jesus, as a disciple to be taught of
him. “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from
God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest
except God be with him.” To an application thus so precisely
in accord with Christ’s own testimonies as to himself
and his miracles (John v, 36; x, 25; xiv, 10, 11), he
responds by entering directly upon the question which was
agitating the ruler’s heart,—that great question,—How to
be saved? “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,
.bn 386.png
.pn +1
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he
can not see the kingdom of God,”—that kingdom of which
the cry then was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
The figure of the new birth was strange to Nicodemus; for,
while the doctrine of renewing by the Holy Spirit is familiar
to the Old Testament writers,—the figure of a new birth is
not found in them. He therefore asks,—“How can a man
be born when he is old” Here evidently the ruler views
the matter as of practical and present interest to him personally.
“How can I, Nicodemus, at my age, be born
again?” The purpose of Jesus, in using this new illustration
was thus accomplished. Old truths in new forms
often develop a power which otherwise they lack. Jesus
therefore, now answers, by a figure, familiar to his hearer,
in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the baptisms of
John and of Christ’s disciples, “Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom
of God.”
From this view of the connection and circumstances, it
is evident that the passage is to be interpreted in the light
of the Old Testament, and of the baptisms administered at
the time of this interview, several years before the ascension
and day of Pentecost; and not by any thing peculiar
to the time subsequent to that event. But it is an essential
feature of the theory of baptismal regeneration, that it
holds the New Testament church to have this eminent advantage
over that of the Old Testament, that the grace of
regeneration is peculiar to the former, and to the ordinance
of baptism as administered subsequent to the ascension of
Christ. But the words of Christ to Nicodemus were no
abstract setting forth of phenomena of grace to be enjoyed
by the church in a coming time, but an explanation of the
way in which the ruler must be saved, then and there,
under the old economy. Viewing it in this light the following
are the facts essential to the exposition of the passage.
1. The figure of metaphor was especially congenial to
.bn 387.png
.pn +1
the Hebrew mind. To its abundant use, the Scriptures are
largely indebted for the energy and clearness with which
the profoundest thoughts are there presented. “Lord,
thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.”—Ps.
xc, 1. “Moab is my wash pot.”—Ps. lx, 8. “In the
hand of the Lord, there is a cup, and the wine is red; it
is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same; but
the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring
them out and drink them.”—Ps. lxxv, 8. “Unto you
that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with
healing in his wings.”—Mal. iv, 2. Who would imagine
the necessity of pausing to explain that these expressions
are not to be understood literally?
2. Among these metaphors, no one was more familiar
to the Jews than that of water, signifying the Holy Spirit.
“I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon
the dry ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and
my blessing upon thine offspring.”—Isa. xliv, 3. This figure
has been already illustrated abundantly in these pages.
It is only here important to emphasize the fact that upon
it the whole significance of John’s and the Old Testament
baptisms depended,—which were, at that precise time, so
earnestly pressed upon the attention of the Jews.
3. This very figure was repeatedly used by our Saviour
in the course of his ministry. To the woman of Samaria
he says, “thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would
have given thee living water.... Whosoever drinketh of
the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the
water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.”—John iv, 10, 14.
Again, “In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him
come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as
the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers
of living water.”—Ib. vii, 37, 38. It is, moreover, to be
remarked that both of these places occur in the same gospel
.bn 388.png
.pn +1
of John in which is found the interview with Nicodemus.
Nor is it without significant bearing on the present
point, that in the Revelation, by the pen of this same
writer, the metaphor of water is conspicuous, in this same
sense. “The Lamb ... shall lead them unto living fountains
of waters.”—Rev. vii, 17. The Lord Jesus says,—“I
will give to him that is athirst of the fountain of the
water of life freely;”—Ib. xxi, 6. John sees the “pure
river of water of life clear as crystal proceeding out of the
throne of God and the Lamb;”—Ib. xxii, 1. And the
volume of revelation closes with the invitation,—”Let him
that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of
the water of life, freely.”—Ib. 17.
4. The Greek conjunction, kai, (“and,”) does not always
express addition; but sometimes indicates an expository
relation between two members of a sentence,
and is equivalent to, even, to wit, namely. Thus,—“For
blasphemy, even because that thou being a man makest
thyself God.”—John x, 33. “Hath made us kings and
priests unto God, even his Father.”—Rev. i, 6. “A golden
cup, full of abominations, even the filthiness of her fornications.”—Ib.
xvii, 4. “But ourselves, even we ourselves,
groan.”—Rom. viii, 23. “God, even our Father.”—Phil.
iv, 20. Three of these examples being from the writings
of John again illustrate his style. It is evident that the
phrase in question may be translated thus;—“Except a
man be born of water, even of the Spirit.” In fact, such
must have been the sense in which it was understood by
Nicodemus. (1.) The phrase is professedly explanatory.
It is in reply to the perplexity of Nicodemus, at the
primary statement of Jesus,—“Except a man be born
again,”—an expression the meaning of which is abundantly
illustrated, in all parts of the New Testament. (2.) The
explanatory clause thus introduced, having performed its
office, immediately drops out of the discourse, which subsequently
dwells upon the new birth of the Spirit alone.
.bn 389.png
.pn +1
“Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he
can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth, ... so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.” It is impossible to
account for the manner in which, after the one explanatory
phrase, the water is thus ignored and excluded, upon any
other supposition than that by which it is viewed as an
interpretation of the previous expression, a metaphor for
the Spirit. (3.) The fact that in the circumstances, it was
impossible for the ruler to have understood the language
in question as referring to a water baptism, which, upon
the theory of baptismal regeneration, was not to be administered
until after the day of Pentecost; and that he was
therefore shut up to regard it as a metaphor, rendered explanation
necessary, if that theory is true. The absence
of any explanation makes it certain that such was not the
meaning of Jesus.
5. The author of this narrative had, already, in the
beginning of his gospel given an account of the manner
of regeneration, which must be accepted as governing the
whole of his subsequent record on the subject. “As many
as received Him to them gave He power to become”
(exousian genesthai, “gave He the prerogative of being”) “the
sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;
which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.”—John i, 12, 13.
Here, it is not sufficient to say that baptismal regeneration
is ignored. It is absolutely excluded. The born of God
are described in terms both exclusive and inclusive, by the
phrase, “As many as received him, ... that believed on his
name.” These, all of these, and none but these, were born
of God. The addition of baptism makes this no more
sure; nor does its absence affect the result. As many as
receive Christ,—As many as believe on his name, to them
it is given to be the sons of God.
.bn 390.png
.pn +1
It is evident that the record of the interview with
Nicodemus, all of which may be read in two or three minutes,
is a mere abstract of leading points of our Savior’s
discourse. The intent of the words in question may be
thus expressed. “You do not understand how a man can
be born again. But you are familiar with the rite of baptism,
and you are acquainted with the Scriptures of the
prophets, and the interpretation which they give to that
rite as a symbol of the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.
It is that of which I speak. Except a man be born of
water, even of the Holy Spirit, who is the true water of
life, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXIII.—“The Washing of Water by the Word.”
To the Ephesians, Paul thus writes. Eph. v, 25-27.
“Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word;
that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish.” It is asserted that
here baptism with water, and its effects are described.
The “washing of water” is the baptism, “the word,” is
the formula of the ordinance and unblemished holiness,
the effect. But
1. The subject of Paul’s discussion is the relation of
husband and wife, and the reference to the church is incidental,
and by reason of the analogy of the subjects. The
conception which runs through and controls the passage is
that of a bridal, and each particular of the language is
suggested by this conception. Thus, in the phrase, “a
glorious church,” rather “a church gloriously adorned”
(compare Luke vii, 25, “gorgeously apparelled,”) the apostle
seems to have had in his mind (Psa. xlv, 3),—“The
king’s daughter is all glorious, within; her clothing is of
wrought gold.” So, the washing of water is expressly
.bn 391.png
.pn +1
stated to be in order to his presenting her to himself “not
having spot or wrinkle.” The immediate reference, therefore,
of the language is to the washing and decking of the
bride, before marriage; and the original of the whole conception
is to be found in Ezekiel xvi, 9-14. “Then washed
I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy
blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed
thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badger’s
skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered
thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments,
and I put bracelets on thy hands and a chain on thy neck.”
It will hardly be pretended that in this language of
the prophet, the washing with water implies any mixture
of the natural element with that process of grace which is
there described. And that the prophet and the apostle
refer to the same thing is manifest. There is no direct
allusion in the passage to ritual baptism. The water is
the familiar metaphor of the Spirit, and the washing is the
expression for his renewing and sanctifying influences on
the soul.
2. The assertion that (rēma) “the word,” here means
the formula of baptism, is an assumption, wholly indefensible.
In the first place, there is no formula of baptism
ordained by Jesus, or recognized or used by the sacred
writers. Of this, the evidence will hereafter appear.
Moreover, in the New Testament, and especially in the
writings of Paul, the word in question, rēma, is invariably
used in the sense of the testimonies,—the doctrines,—the
word of God,—the gospel. Thus, the angel said to the
apostles,—“Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the people,
all (ta rēmata) the words of this life.”—Acts v, 20.
Peter tells the house of Cornelius,—“That word (rēma)
ye know ... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
the Holy Ghost and with power,” etc.—Ib. x, 37, 38.
Paul, in this very same epistle, tells the Ephesians (vi, 17)
that “the sword of the Spirit” “is the word (rēma) of
.bn 392.png
.pn +1
God.” And Peter declares that “the word (rēma) of the
Lord endureth forever; and this is the word (rēma) which
by the gospel is preached unto you.”—1 Peter i, 25. No
word in the Scriptures is of a more unequivocal meaning
than this.
3. The interpretation of rēma as meaning the baptismal
formula, is a recognition of the unquestionable fact that
“the word” is made by the apostle the instrumental cause
of the sanctifying. Literally translated the passage reads,—“That
he might sanctify it,—having purified it by the
washing of water,—by the word.” Thus, the word is the
instrument of the sanctifying, and the parenthetic clause
states the figure by which the analogy of the bride is sustained.
The sanctifying and the purifying are the same
spiritual phenomenon, the one phrase being conformed to
the idea of the church, the other to that of the bride.
And, whether the common English version be accepted, or
the construction of the original be literally followed, as
above, the result remains the same, that “the word” is
distinctly stated to be the instrument of the process described
by the two words, “sanctify” and “cleanse.” In
what sense the word is sanctifying, let Jesus testify. “The
words (ta rēmata) that I speak unto you” (literally, “that
I have spoken unto you,” that is, in his preceding discourse),
“they are spirit, and they are life.”—John vi, 63.
“Now ye are clean, through (tou logou) the word that I
have spoken unto —Ib. xv, 3. “Sanctify them through
thy truth, thy word (logos) is truth.... And for their
sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified
through the truth.”—Ib. xvii, 17, 19. “Chosen unto salvation,
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of
the truth.”—2 Thes. ii, 13. The word is the means and
the Spirit the efficient author of grace.
.bn 393.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part XIV. | THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXIV.—The Ritual Law was not Repealed.
In the entrance of the church upon her new commission,
her constitution was unchanged. But the ordinances
of testimony with which she was entrusted received an essential
modification. The nature and the manner of this were
alike remarkable; and as the subject has not received the
attention due to its importance, it requires here the more
careful consideration. In the course thereof, it will appear
that the Hebrew Christian church remained with its institutions
all unaltered, as they were received from Moses,
and the ceremonial law in full authority and operation,
down to the close of the New Testament canon. But the
Gentile element, which was by the preaching of the gospel
gathered in and incorporated with the church, was, by express
statute, exempted from the obligation of that law.
1. The Lord Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision
for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto
the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for
his mercy.”—Rom. xv, 8, 9. He lived and died in the
full communion of the church of Israel, in so far as his own
action or will was concerned; although he was in the end
excommunicated and betrayed by the rulers of that church.
He assured his disciples that he came not to destroy the
law but to fulfill. (Matt. v, 17.) Neither by example
nor by precept did he set aside or abrogate it; but, on the
contrary, having himself obeyed every precept and observed
every ordinance, he left it, at his ascension, in full and unimpaired
authority.
.bn 394.png
.pn +1
2. The apostles and the church over which they presided
in Jerusalem were not only zealous in their observance
of the law; but were not altogether exempt from the
influence of some of the most obnoxious of the traditions
of the elders. Of this, the case of Peter’s visit to the house
of Cornelius presents a signal illustration. To prepare
him to listen to the message from the Roman centurion, a
miraculous vision was shown him. And, when the disciples
in Jerusalem heard of the matter, they accused him, for
having gone in to men uncircumcised and eaten with them.
And yet there was not a syllable in the laws of Moses to
justify such extreme reserve. It was wholly based upon
the traditions of the elders. So powerful and prevalent
was the sentiment among Jewish Christians, on this subject,
that it subsequently became the occasion of a very
singular dereliction on the part of Peter. Says Paul,—“When
Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but
when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the
other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that
Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”—Gal.
ii, 11-13. Respecting this it is not enough to say
that Peter and the Judaizers were all wrong. True. But
such a state of things could not have existed, had the
church or the apostles understood the law of Moses to be,
in any manner, abrogated or set aside.
3. The calling and decree of the council of Jerusalem
are very important facts, as bearing on this subject. The
occasion of the council was the attempt of Judaizing teachers
to impose circumcision and the ritual law upon the
Gentile converts. (Acts xv, 1-5.) Hereupon, “the apostles
and elders came together to consider of this matter.”—v.
6. Here, at once, it is impossible that such a question
could have arisen, had the abrogation of the Mosaic law
.bn 395.png
.pn +1
been a fact known to the church in Jerusalem; and assuredly
in that case, there would have been no room for the
apostles and elders to “consider” such a question, the very
raising of which would have been the erection of a standard
of open rebellion against Christ. The discussions and decree
of the council were equally conclusive. No doubt was
suggested, in any quarter as to the continued authority of
the law. No one hinted at the idea of its repeal. The discussion
turned entirely on the privilege of the Gentiles to
be specially exempt from its requirements. The evidence
of such exemption was found in the fact that God had, in
a special manner, shown his acceptance of them, outside
the law. Upon this point, the whole issue turned; and the
proof respecting it was formally given by Peter, in a rehearsal
of the facts concerning the house of Cornelius (vs.
7, 8); and by Paul and Barnabas, in an account of “the
miracles and wonders which God had wrought among the
Gentiles by them.”—vs. 12. Moreover, the conclusion
reached (vs. 14-19), and the decree issued, had express
relation, to the Gentiles, only, and not to the whole body
of the church. In a word, it was a decree recognizing and
proclaiming the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligation
of the existing law.—“The apostles and elders and
brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the
Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch
as we have heard, that certain which went out from us,
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying,
Ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom
we gave no such commandment.... It seemed good to
the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater
burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from
meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep
yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”—vs. 23-29.
Such is the only rule or decree found in the New Testament,
respecting the ritual law. It exempts the Gentiles
.bn 396.png
.pn +1
from its obligations; but otherwise leaves it in unimpaired
authority.
4. With this view, the whole subsequent history of the
apostolic church agrees. Paul was the great apostle of the
Gentiles. He was prompt and decided in asserting and
vindicating their liberty from the obligations of the law;
but was himself conscientious in the observance of all its
requirements, and fully recognized their obligation upon
himself and his brethren of Israel. These facts were
brought into question, and publicly established in the most
signal manner. When he came to Jerusalem after his
third missionary tour, in an interview with James and the
elders of the church, they said to him “Thou seest, brother,
how many thousands (muriades, how many tens of thousands,)
of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee that
thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles
to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise
their children, neither to walk after the customs. What
is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together;
for they will hear that thou art come. Do, therefore, this
that we say to thee. We have four men which have a
vow on them. Them take and purify thyself with them,
and be at charges with them, that they may shave their
heads: and all may know that those things whereof they
have been informed concerning thee are nothing, but that
thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As
touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and
concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that
they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from
blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”—Acts
xxi, 20-25. To this suggestion Paul agreed, and was in
the temple in fulfillment of it, awaiting the time when
“an offering should be offered for every one of them,”
when a tumult was raised by the unbelieving Jews, and
his imprisonment took place, which resulted in his being
.bn 397.png
.pn +1
sent, in chains, to Cesarea, and to Rome. (Acts xxi,
26, 27.)
Respecting this matter, the first point to be noticed is
the fact that the myriads of Jewish Christians were unanimous.—They
“were all zealous of the law.” The imagination
of Conybeare and Howson and others that the proceeding
was the work of a Judaizing faction and was
consented to for the sake of peace, is not only without
warrant in the record, but is in contradiction to its whole
tenor, and spirit. In fact the entire conception of the first
named writers on the subject is characterized by a strained
and perverse ingenuity, rather than by the simplicity of a
sound criticism. And yet they have to admit that the law
continued in unimpaired authority over all Jewish believers.
Why then labor to stigmatize the church in Jerusalem
or an imaginary faction therein for being zealous in
its maintenance?
The purpose and intent of this transaction as expressly
avowed by James and the elders was to draw a broad line
of distinction between Jews and Gentiles in relation to the
law. In their very suggestion to Paul, they refer to the
former council and decree.—“As touching the Gentiles
which believe, we have written and concluded that they
observe no such thing.” Thus, avowedly, the course proposed
was designed to interpret that decree, and to limit
its purview to the Gentiles. It was, moreover, a transaction
taking place in circumstances which imparted to it
the very highest moment. It was in Jerusalem, the center
whence Jesus had commanded his apostles that the gospel
should go forth. They were to preach in all the world,
“beginning at Jerusalem.” There, consequently the first
labors of the twelve were expended; there, some of them
were almost always found; and to that church the Gentile
churches looked as the fountain of their faith and authoritative
exponent to them of the will of Christ. Such had
been the prophetic anticipation long before respecting this
.bn 398.png
.pn +1
very time.—“Out of Zion shall go forth the law; and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Isa. ii, 3. Already
had that church sent forth the law concerning the relation
of the Gentiles to the Mosaic institutions. And now the
question to be decided was equally important, and the
action proposed, although different in form, was equally
responsible and decisive. A decree of confirmation of the
law, which had stood unimpeached for fifteen centuries
would have been inappropriate and calculated rather to
awaken doubts than to strengthen conviction. The course
proposed and adopted was more appropriate and effective.
Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles, the recognized
and world-renowned champion, not only of the freedom of
the Gentiles, but of the liberty of the gospel, the liberty
of all Christ’s people. The spectacle, therefore, of this
great apostle, performing Levitical rites of purifying and
publicly appearing at the temple, in order to the offering
of sacrifices, in completion of a Nazarite vow, would constitute
a most decisive demonstration and announcement
of the continued obligation of the law, over all Israel. It
was not a case, therefore, in which a privilege might be
waived for the sake of peace. Submission to these proposals,
if they were unwarranted, would have been treason,
at once to Christ and to the liberties of the apostle’s own
people. How likely it was that Paul, having already vindicated
with firmness and success the freedom of the Gentiles
from the bondage of the law, should have conspired to
betray the liberties of his own beloved Israel, on the very
same point, in the interest of a time-serving policy, may
be judged from his whole history and writings. The alternative
presented by the facts is of itself conclusive. Either
the law remained in unimpaired authority, over Israel,—or,
Paul and James, the elders, and all the myriads of believing
Jews, were united, without dissent or exception, in
a conspiracy to repudiate the authority of the Lord Jesus,
and re-establish a law repealed by him.
.bn 399.png
.pn +1
5. The action of Paul upon this occasion was not an
instance of mere occasional conformity, but was expressly
designed by the apostle as a testimony to the Jews that
he did not repudiate the law, but “walked orderly and
kept it.” And an examination of his manner of life and
ministry will show that this testimony was true,—that he
was constant and conscientious in his own observance of the
law, and recognition of its authority. Wherever he went,
his first recourse was to the worshiping assemblies of the
Jews, to which he joined himself as one of them, withdrawing
only when rejected from their company. (Acts
xvii, 2; xix, 8, 9, etc.) One incident in the story of his
ministry affords us a glimpse into the inner chamber of
his sentiments and the spirit of his personal life, as toward
the law. On his second missionary tour, leaving Corinth,
he sailed into Syria, “and with him Priscilla and Aquila;
having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”—Acts
xviii, 18. Some expositors have explained this vow
as taken by Aquila and not by Paul. Olshausen, who,
however, rejects this theory, says that “those learned men
who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that
the statement can not be applied to him, because it would
have been inconsistent with his principles regarding the
abrogation of the ceremonial law of Moses, to have taken
upon him a vow.” Conybeare and Howson, who hesitate
between the two views, say that “the difficulty lies not so
much in supposing that Paul took a Jewish vow (see Acts
xxi, 26) as in supposing that he made himself conspicuous
for Jewish peculiarities while he was forming a mixed
church at Corinth.” But all admit that the Greek in this
place points as distinctly to Paul as does the common
English version. We already know enough, certainly, to
caution us against forcing an interpretation, on the ground
that the ceremonial law was abrogated. We have seen
the apostle take upon him such a vow, in the most public
and demonstrative manner. And, as to the difficulty made
.bn 400.png
.pn +1
by Conybeare and Howson, it is founded in a palpable
mistake of the facts. The vow may have been made in
Corinth. Of that we know nothing. But the shaving of
his head, to which alone the suggestion as to “making
himself conspicuous” could apply, took place in Cenchrea,
after leaving Corinth and when in the act of sailing for
Syria. So that the facts as recorded look rather to the
avoidance of notoriety than seeking it. So far as the
record indicates, the vow being connected with Paul’s own
private religious life, was only known to his personal attendants,
in connection with the fact of his shaving his head,
and the diligence with which he sought to reach Jerusalem
in time for the feast. (Vs. 21, 22.) This was no doubt
connected with the fulfillment of his vow, which of necessity
required offerings at the temple. It thus appears that
not only did the apostle maintain an outward and formal
observance of the law; but that his private devotional life
and experience took its form from the ordinances of that
law, and found expression in them; a fact utterly irreconcilable,
as was his whole life and teachings, with the assumption
that he looked upon them as being abrogated or
obsolete.
On this and other occasions, there are intimations that
as often as was consistent with the duties of his ministry,
he was accustomed to resort to Jerusalem, in observance
of the annual feasts, and for the purpose of making offerings
at the temple. “I came,” says he to Felix, “to bring
alms to my nation, and offerings. Whereupon certain Jews
from Asia found me purified in the temple.”—Acts xxiv,
17, 18; comp. xx, 16.
Another important fact appears in the record. With
a significant discrimination, Paul circumcised Timothy the
son of a Jewess; although, his father being a Greek, he
might have claimed exemption as a Gentile (Acts xvi,
1-3); “But, neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek was compelled to be circumcised; and that because
.bn 401.png
.pn +1
of false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that
they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave
place, by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth
of the gospel might continue with you.”—Gal. ii, 3-5.
Thus, in Timothy and Titus, Paul’s favorite disciples and
constant attendants and helpers in his later ministry, he
carried with him exemplars and representatives of the opposite
relations to the law, which he recognized in the
Jews and the Gentiles.
Moreover during his imprisonment, in reply to the
charge of being a contemner of the law, the apostle
and unqualifiedly asserted that he had been constant
and faithful in observance of it. In the presence of the
council of Israel, he announced himself a Pharisee. Of
the same thing he writes to the Philippians, that he had
“no confidence in the flesh, Though I might also have
confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that
he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised
the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching
the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the
church; touching the righteousness which is in the law
blameless.”—Phil. iii, 3-6. It is true that the description
here given by the apostle has especial reference to the past
time of his unconverted zeal. But it is also true, that
his introductory comparison with others, as to grounds of
self-righteous confidence, is in the present tense, and indicates
a conscious fidelity to the law down to the time of his
writing. When accused before Festus, “he answered for
himself,—Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against
the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any
thing at all.”—Acts xxv, 8. And when at last he was
taken to Rome, he there called the chief of the Jews together,
and said to them, “Men and brethren, though I
have committed nothing against the people or customs of our
.bn 402.png
.pn +1
fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into
the hands of the Romans.”—Acts xxviii, 17.
Is it asked, how all this is to be reconciled with the
doctrine of the epistle to the Galatians, and other testimonies
of Paul respecting circumcision and the law? I
answer,—Paul nowhere utters a syllable in disapproval of
the observance of the law by the Jews, as a rule of life.
What he assails is, a trusting in it, for themselves, or imposing
it on others, as a rule of righteousness unto salvation.
While he proclaimed salvation by grace, through
faith alone, without the works of the law, moral or ritual,
he with perfect consistency not only himself kept the law,
but enjoined it on his brethren after the flesh. His principle
of action in this respect, he states explicitly, “Is any
man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised.
Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him
not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision
is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of
God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein
he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not
for it; but if thou mayest be made free use it rather.”—1
Cor. vii, 18-21. Thus distinctly does Paul recognize circumcision
as still being, to the Jews, a commandment of
God; as exemption from it was to the Gentiles. And it
need scarcely be said, that circumcision here stands for the
whole law. It is to be considered, moreover, that this language
of Paul is not a mere recognition of circumcision as
still existing by the providence of God; but it is an express
and unreserved re-enforcement of the law, by his
whole authority, as an apostle of Jesus Christ,—a re-enforcement
broad and unlimited as to time or circumstances
as was the law itself. This unlimited character of
the apostle’s decree, is emphasized and strengthened by the
exception which he appends to the general form of his
enunciation;—“Let every man abide in the calling wherein
he was called.” Lest any should interpret this rule as designed
.bn 403.png
.pn +1
to apply to cases outside the theme in hand, he
adds,—“Art thou called being a servant? Care not for
it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” So far
from moderating or weakening the force of the apostle’s
previous language, this adds greatly to it; showing as it
does, that the question of exceptions and limitations was
present to his mind. Then was the time, if ever, for him
to have intimated the doing away of the ritual law; or, at
least, to so guard his language as to harmonize it with its
ultimate abrogation, had such been the purpose of God.
The fact, therefore, that neither here nor elsewhere does he
allude to such a purpose, but on the contrary gives the
above unreserved injunction as a permanent part of the
written word of God, leaves us but one alternative,—to
reject the authority of Paul, as an inspired apostle, or to
recognize circumcision and the law as being, to the Jew,
the commandment of God, unrepealed.
If, we further examine the epistles, we shall find that
while they all are unanimous in repudiating the righteousness
of the law; they do not, anywhere assert or imply its
repeal, as toward Israel. It will moreover be found that
any inference as to the abrogation of the law, which may
be deduced from the doctrine of grace, as taught by all the
apostles, applies as directly to the moral as to the ritual
code; both of which are by them commonly comprehended
together under the designation of, “the law.” Upon their
principles, reliance on a righteousness of works is just as
much to be reprobated in the one form as in the other; and
the doctrine of salvation by grace is as consistent with the
continued obligation and observance of the ritual, as, of
the moral law.
6. It is no slight argument in proof of the view here
presented, that it alone exhibits the apostolic history as
consistent and harmonious, based upon definite and inflexible
principles, unanimously recognized and obeyed by the
apostles and elders. That such must have been the case,
.bn 404.png
.pn +1
is involved in the manner in which the apostles were appointed
to preside over the transition period in the history
of the church, and the Spirit given for their guidance
therein. Many writers have assumed without the trouble
of proof, that the ritual law could not any longer possess
legitimate authority—that the coming of Christ, and his
one offering of himself, of necessity, superseded and set
it aside. They are, at once, involved in the necessity of
treating the whole history of the apostolic church as
one of compromising policies and timeserving expedients.
We are told of the extreme Judaism of James, the
more moderate conservatism of Peter, and the free evangelical
spirit of Paul. Their principles and parties are
represented as maintaining a continual struggle, and the
various facts of the history are explained as the prevalence
of one or the other set of opinions, or the result of compromise.
On the contrary, there is not a trace of the least
diversity of sentiment on these questions between the parties
named, or any of the apostles or leaders of the church.
Some “false brethren, unawares brought in” (Gal. ii, 4),
attempted to create division; but only developed harmony.
The decree of the council of Jerusalem was no compromise,
but the expression of unanimous sentiments (‘omothumadon,
“with one heart,”—Acts xv, 25), and was, moreover, dictated
by the Holy Spirit. “It seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us.” The so-called partisans of James, the
Judaizing zealots, who troubled Paul’s ministry, were expressly
repudiated in that decree, which was moved in the
council by Peter and James, and apparently drafted by
the hand of the latter.[112] The reason why the labors of
James and Peter were mainly confined to the circumcision
in Judea, while Paul preached among the far off Gentiles,
was precisely the same in both cases,—the will of Christ.
Says Paul,—“When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
.bn 405.png
.pn +1
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision
was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually
in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same
was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;) and when James,
Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas
the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto
the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”—Gal. ii,
7-9. No. The blood-bought church of Christ, was not left,
at this critical time, to the mercies of the passions and
prejudices, the narrowness and factions of fallible men. It
was under the direction of the Lord Jesus, and the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. The prayer “that they all may
be one,” was not unheard, nor unanswered of the Father;
and the promise that the Spirit should guide them into all
truth was fulfilled.
.fn 112
The “Greeting” (Chairein) Acts xv, 23; is found nowhere
else in the New Testament, save in James i, 1.
.fn-
From this careful survey, it appears, that the New
Testament contains no evidence of the abrogation or passing
away of the ceremonial law,—that its unimpaired
authority over Israel was fully and universally acknowledged
and asserted by the apostles and the churches over which
they presided; while the exemption of the Gentiles from
its requirements was recognized as exceptional, and secured
by formal consultation and decree;—that this condition
of things continued unchanged to the close of the New
Testament canon;—and that as a necessary consequence,
that law never has been repealed, to this day. As once before,
during the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity, Israel
was providentially precluded from its observance, so at
present, it is one of the most afflictive features of the
divine dealings with them, that the law, which they idolized
and so grievously perverted, still binds them; while
the destruction of the temple, the disorganization of the
nation and the obliterating of the priesthood renders its
fulfillment by them impossible.
.bn 406.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXV.—Why the Gentiles were Exempt from\
the Law.
The exemption of the Gentile Christian church from
the authority of the ceremonial law must be accounted for
upon some principle which will harmonize with all the
facts. The common theory assumes it to be of the very
nature of a type to perish and be abrogated by its realization
in the antitype. Thus, it is supposed, that the sacrificial
system of necessity expired with its fulfillment by
Christ’s one offering of himself. But, as we have seen, the
law was not in fact abrogated, but continues in unimpaired
authority over Israel. Why, then, are the Gentiles exempt
from its obligations?
The reason was briefly intimated by Peter. “Why
tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear;”—literally,
“neither (ischusamen) were strong to bear.”—Acts
xv, 10. This verb means, to be strong, and is sometimes
used with a negative particle, as here, to indicate a labor
of great difficulty, not amounting to an impracticability.
Thus, in John xxi, 6, it is said of the net of fishes,—“They
were not able” (were not strong) “to draw it, for
the multitude of fishes.” And yet, immediately after, when
their force had been reduced by Peter casting himself into
the sea and swimming to land, they came “dragging the
net with fishes,” and Peter himself drew it to land. (vs.
8, 11.) The ritual law was a burdensome, although not impossible
institution, for Israel, when dwelling in their own
land. But, as a system of worship for a world-religion, it
was unsuitable. Essential to it was the one temple, altar
and priest, at Jerusalem, typical of the one sanctuary
and service in heaven. Hither must all males repair
statedly, three times a year, and both men and women upon
many special occasions beside, of a personal nature. To a
population of four or five millions, dwelling in the narrow
.bn 407.png
.pn +1
limits of Palestine,—a territory the extreme dimensions of
which were about 100 miles by 150,—this was possible,
although burdensome. But, to the distant millions of the
world’s inhabitants, manifestly it would have been utterly
impracticable.
Moreover, to the race at large, the ceremonial law had
already fulfilled its most important and essential offices.
Undoubtedly, it could still have been used by the grace of
God, as it had been for ages before, as a mode for the
effectual transmission and dissemination of the gospel testimony,
kept in unimpaired purity by the agency of unchanging
forms. Nor is the fact to be everlooked, or
lightly regarded, that representations to the eye and the
physical senses have a peculiar power over the affections
and the heart, a power often greater and more influential
than any appeal to the intellect through the organs of hearing.
Had such been the will of God, the ritual system
was certainly susceptible of being made a powerful auxiliary
to the dissemination of the gospel, by its relation to
these principles of man’s nature.
But, when the gospel was given to the Gentiles, the system
of elementary ideas which were embodied and exhibited
in the Mosaic ceremonial possessed a world-wide diffusion.
The art of writing had been developed and disseminated.
The Old Testament Scriptures were already written and
widely distributed, and the gospels and epistles were soon
to follow. Thus the cardinal importance of the ritual
ordinances as a mode for the recording and perpetuation
of the gospel was obsolete,—replaced by means more appropriate
to a religion now destined for the world. And the
“demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” which now
accompanies the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles,
is abundant compensation for the ritual system, as an
appeal to the affections, through the senses.
It is thus apparent that the discrimination, in the beginning
made between Jew and Gentile respecting the
.bn 408.png
.pn +1
ceremonial law,—its obligation on the one, and the exemption
of the other,—was neither arbitrary nor unmeaning,
but alike reasonable and susceptible of full and beautiful
realization in practice. It implied the continuance of
Israel as a priest-kingdom among the nations, maintaining
at Jerusalem, as a standard of faith to the world, that system
of rites which so beautifully, so clearly and impressively
set forth the gospel to the eyes and senses of men;
whilst, the world over, the same gospel should have been
published, by the written and printed word, by the living
voice, and by the simple ritual of Gentile Christianity,
practicable everywhere. But such was not the purpose
of God. At the beginning, our first parents by sin forfeited
the Eden which might have been theirs. So, Israel
forfeited her offered privilege. Jerusalem was destroyed,
and the gospel and the church were given to the Gentiles,—“until
the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all
Israel shall be saved.”—Rom. xi, 25, 26.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXVI.—The Christian Passover.
To the church among the Gentiles, two simple ordinances
remain, an inheritance from the ancient church,—a
memorial and link of connection and identity between the
two; and a continuous sealing of the same covenant, transmitted
from the one to the other. That the Supper is thus
derived from the paschal feast, can not be denied. As early
as Jacob’s prophecy of Shiloh, “the blood of the grape”
was appropriated as a type of Christ’s sufferings. (Gen.
xlix, 9-12.) Afterward, in the Levitical system, a meat or
bread offering made of fine flour mixed with oil, and a
drink offering of wine, were made essential parts of all
sacrificial offerings. (See Num. xv, and xviii.) Of the
festival offerings, to which the passover belonged, a part
only was offered upon the altar; the rest being appropriated
to the worshippers. They thus enjoyed communion with
God, at his table; and hence the proverbial description
.bn 409.png
.pn +1
of “wine which cheereth God and man.”—Judg. ix, 13.
Thus, in the passover and all the Levitical sacrifices, two
distinct elements were typical of Christ’s sufferings; but in
wholly different aspects. The blood signified the satisfaction
demanded by justice; and it was, therefore, utterly
prohibited that men should eat of it. (Lev. xvii, 10-14.)
It was poured upon the altar. But the wine expressed the
virtue of that satisfaction, imparted to believers and received
by them, to their spiritual nourishment. Thus, the
wine of the supper is not a substitute for the blood of sacrifice,
but is a distinct and co-ordinate type, transmitted
from the passover, and other sacrificial rites, and unchanged
in its meaning. The unleavened bread always symbolized
the Bread of life that came down from heaven; and the
cup always represented the blood of the new covenant.
That the passover was from the beginning a type of
the atonement of the Lord Jesus, is certain. (1.) The
ordinance was a feast upon a sacrifice. From the foundation
of the world, sacrifice signified one thing,—the satisfaction
to be made to justice by the Lord Jesus. Such
being the case, the feast of Israel upon the pascal lamb
could have but one meaning. That meaning was set forth
by Jesus, who having been announced by John as the
Lamb of God, himself says, “If any man eat of this
bread (artou, “of this food”), he shall live forever, and the
food that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world.”—John vi, 51. (2.) The deliverance of
Israel from the bondage of Egypt, was an exercise of the
same redeeming function, which is displayed in the salvation
of men; and was a type of that salvation. Hence
the preface to the ten commandments.—“I am the Lord
thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage” (Ex. xx, 2); which the Westminster
catechism explains that “because God is the Lord
and our God and Redeemer, therefore, we are bound to
keep all his commandments.” (3.) Jesus himself at the
.bn 410.png
.pn +1
very time when he eliminated the Lord’s supper out of
the passover, declared the latter to be a type of his sufferings
and death. “With desire I have desired to eat this
passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I
will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the
kingdom of God.”—Luke xxii, 15, 16.
How plainly the Lord’s supper was an epitome and
perpetuation of the passover, will be understood, by reference
to the manner of observance of the latter in the time
of Christ. It was required of those who partook of the
feast, that they should not sit, but recline at the table, as
expressing liberty and rest. When they were thus disposed,
wine was distributed, and after thanks given by the presiding
person, each one drank a cup. The master then
explained the nature and occasion of the feast, and distributed
a second He then brake the unleavened bread,
gave thanks, and gave it to the company, with the bitter
herbs and other provisions that were on the table, and
afterward the flesh of the lamb. When all had eaten and
the supper was ended, he that presided took another cup
of wine, and, after blessing God, all drank of it. This
was called “the cup of blessing,” because of the blessing
on it, which ended the feast. Thus the order of the feast
was, (1) Thanksgiving; (2) A cup of wine; (3) The
commemorative discourse; (4) A second cup; (5) A second
thanksgiving; (6) The broken bread; (7) The flesh
of the lamb; (8) The closing blessing; (9) The cup of
blessing. So, at the beginning of the supper, Jesus took
the cup, and gave thanks and said, “Take this, and divide
it among yourselves.” After discourse, and washing the
disciples’ feet, “he took bread, and gave thanks and brake
it and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is
given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise,
also, the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new
testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”—Luke
xxii, 17-20.
.bn 411.png
.pn +1
The Lord’s supper was not, therefore, a distinct ordinance,
instituted after the passover was ended, by the use
of remaining elements. But it was a perpetuation of the
passover, itself, by appropriating and interpreting portions
of the elements, from time to time, during the progress of
the feast; the bread being that which was broken and
eaten before the paschal flesh, and the wine that which
closed the feast; which was known to the Jews and described
in the Talmud, as the cup of blessing, and which
is designated by that name by the apostle Paul, in speaking
of the Lord’s supper. (1 Cor. x, 16.) The particular
number and order of the cups of wine and of the thanksgivings
were regulations of the scribes, promotive of order
and propriety in the observance; but not included in the
divine requirements of the institution, and therefore not
essential to it. This fact being taken into account, it will
appear that the paschal feast remains to us entire, except
only the sacrificial flesh of the lamb. Of it Paul says,
“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore, let us
keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth.”—1 Cor. v, 7, 8.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXVII.—The Hebrew Christian Church.
We proceed to trace the order and process of the development
of the Christian church, as it took place under the
Sinai constitution, with the ordinances modified as we have
seen. The synagogue system had grown up long before
the time of Christ. In it provision was made for fulfilling
those injunctions of the law which insisted so much on instruction
and study in the word of God, and which set
apart the Sabbaths as days of holy convocation. (Lev.
xxiii, 3, etc.) In the organization of these societies, respect
was undoubtedly had, at first, to the ties of consanguinity;
so that the members of a given cluster of families, living
in the same vicinity and originally descended from one
.bn 412.png
.pn +1
head, were constituted a synagogue, under the direction
and government of those who by the right of primogeniture
were the family elders. But, in the time of Christ,
the whole system of the distribution and inheritance of the
land, and of the family organization, as appointed by the
law of Moses, had been broken up by the repeated captivities,
the dispersion of the ten tribes, and the vicissitudes
of war and peace. The synagogue system was therefore
more artificial in its structure, and more characterized by
the voluntary principle. Indications of voluntary association
and elective affinity are plainly seen in the names of
the synagogues members of which were active in the persecution
of Stephen.—“The synagogue of the Libertines,
and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians.”—Acts vi, 9. It is indeed
evident that in the general circumstances of the Jews
at that time, in Judea and elsewhere, the worshiping assemblies
must usually have been the products of voluntary
association, more or less influenced by congeniality of sentiments
among the members. Pharisees and Sadducees severally
would seek the worshiping assemblies in which their
respective views were favored. Those of the same foreign
nationality would naturally gravitate toward each other.
And, in general, congeniality, from whatever cause, would
be potential in these associations.
The existence, at this time, in the bosom of the Jewish
church of the two sects, or parties, of the Sadducees and
the Pharisees, was a very important fact in preparing the
way for the gospel. These parties are, in the original
Greek, designated by the generic word, hairesis, which is
commonly translated, “sect,” as “the sect of the Sadducees”
(Acts v, 17), “the sect of the Pharisees” (Ib. xv, 5),
“the sect of the Nazarenes,” (Ib. xxiv, 5). In one place,
it is, “the way which they call heresy.”—Ib. xxiv, 14.
Neither of these words, however, is a happy rendering of
the original; which has nothing of the idea of doctrinal
error, now attached to the word, heresy; and nothing of
.bn 413.png
.pn +1
the odium involved in the designation of “sects;” nor, of
the denominational separations which are expressed by it.
The word, as used in Luke’s history signifies, a party, or
rather, a society having a distinctive organization more or
less complete, for certain special purposes; but continuing
in the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the
Jewish church and the temple worship. Such was the
position at once assumed, by the apostles and the converts
of their ministry. They were organized in separate synagogues.
They observed the first day of the week, as a day
of assembling for worship and the breaking of bread. They
received their converts by the familiar rite of baptism.
But they were all zealous of the law, and faithful, therefore,
even above others in the observance of its requirements.
Thus, despite all the odium which Pharisees and
Sadducees might seek to cast upon them, it was impossible
to impeach them of apostasy from Judaism, or unfaithfulness
to Moses. Hence, the result recorded by Luke.
“They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
with gladness and singleness of heart; praising God, and
having favor with all the people.”—Acts ii, 46, 47.
Such was the aspect of things in Jerusalem and Judea
for a quarter of a century; from the first dissemination of
the gospel to the times of anarchy which preceded the desolation
of the land. In the bosom of the Jewish church,
beside the great body of the people, were the three societies
just mentioned. The Sadducees were comparatively
few in number, but influential, by reason of their social
position and wealth, the party being composed almost exclusively
of the priests and aristocracy. The Pharisees
were more numerous, and in greater favor with the people;
for, while the Sadducees were chargeable with lax opinions,
the Pharisees were “the straitest sect of the Jews’ religion,”
including all those who hoped to secure the favor of God
through the righteousness of the law. Beside these was
.bn 414.png
.pn +1
“the sect of the Nazarenes,” far greater in numbers than
either of the others; and, at first, more in favor with the
mass of the people,—a favor which they seem to have retained
till the growing corruption and disorder which heralded
the catastrophe of the nation, rendered them odious,
alike by the contrast of their lives with the prevailing licentiousness,
and by the rebukes and warnings which they
could not fail to utter.
Whilst the number of the Christians, as compared with
the whole nation was, no doubt, small, the mistake is to be
avoided of regarding it as insignificant. A comparison of
the various statements on the subject will lead to the conclusion
that the company of the believers must have been
so large as to constitute one of the most conspicuous features
in the aspect of the nation. On the day of Pentecost
“there were added unto them about three thousand
souls.”—Acts ii, 41. A few days afterward, “many of
them which heard the word believed, and the number of
the men was about five thousand.”—Ib. iv, 4. Soon after,
it is again recorded that “the people magnified them. And
believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both
of men and women.”—Ib. v, 13, 14. Again, it is stated
that the high-priest demanded of the apostles,—“Did not
we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this
name? And behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your
teaching (didachēs), and intend to bring this man’s blood
upon us.”—Ib. v, 28. Such was the progress of the gospel
that these rulers were alarmed lest they should be called
by the people to account for the death of Jesus. Soon,
again, we read that “the word of God increased; and the
number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly;
and a great company of the priests were obedient to the
faith.”—Ib. vi, 7. Immediately after this Stephen was
martyred, and “there was a great persecution against the
church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered
abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria,
.bn 415.png
.pn +1
except the apostles.”—Ib. viii, 1. By the dispersed believers,
the gospel was carried through the land and to
the Gentiles. (Ib. xi, 19.) And in Jerusalem itself the
word of the Lord was not bound. The persecution, in its
active form, soon ceased, and when the converted Saul retired
from Jerusalem to Tarsus, we read that “then had
the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria,
and were edified; and walking in the fear of the
Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost were multiplied.”—Ib.
ix, 31. Such was the new growth of the
church in Jerusalem that when Paul made his last visit to
that city, James could say to him,—“Thou seest, brother,
how many (muriades) ten thousands of Jews there are
which believe.”—Ib. xxi, 20. To the inference which
naturally follows from these representations, the objection
has been raised, that there is no accounting for such numbers,
in the after history. Alexander suggests, that many
were false professors, who “afterward apostatized or separated
from the church, as Ebionites, or Judaizing heretics.”[113]
So dark a view, however, is not required by the
facts. Doubtless there were some defections. But there
is no reason to suppose them to have been of the extent
here implied. The circumstances in which they united
with the persecuted followers of the man of Nazareth, were
not such as to present attractions to false professors. The
patristic tradition that none of the Christians perished in
the siege of Jerusalem, they having all retired to Pella,
whilst it may possibly be true, concerning those who lived
in Jerusalem, is by no means probable. And so far from
Jesus having taught the disciples to expect such a result,
the reverse is the case. That the churches of believers
which had been flourishing for a quarter of a century in
Judea, Galilee and Samaria must have suffered greatly,
from the disorders and anarchy which preceded the final
catastrophe, is certain, and of it Jesus expressly forewarned
.bn 416.png
.pn +1
them.—“Ye shall be betrayed both by parents and brethren
and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they
cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men
for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your
head perish” (even though ye be put to death). “In your
patience possess ye your souls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that the desolation
thereof is nigh.”—Luke xxi, 16-20. See, also, Matt.
xxiv, 9-13; Mark xiii, 9-13. As to what afterward became
of the Christians of Judea,—in view of the scanty remaining
records of the time, and of the manner in which
they were identified with their brethren of Israel as being
none the less Jews because they were Christians,—it is not
surprising that we can not distinctly trace their subsequent
history. One fact, however, is patent on the face of the
scanty record, and is sufficient to satisfy all the demands
of the occasion. It is, that as the Christian churches, at
a later period, emerge into the light of history they everywhere
bear the broad and indelible impress of Hebrew
Christian influences.
.fn 113
Alexander on Acts, xxi, 20.
.fn-
The subsequent history of the Hebrew church in Jerusalem
itself very signally confirms the view here presented.
As soon as the city began to be repeopled, a
church was re-established, under the presidency, as Eusebius
reports, of Simeon the son of Cleopas. Of his successors,
that historian says,—“We have not ascertained, in any
way, that the times of the bishops of Jerusalem have been
regularly preserved on record. For tradition says that
they all lived but a very short time. So much, however,
have I learned from writers, that down to the invasion of
the Jews under Adrian there were fifteen successions of
bishops in that church, all which, they declare to have
been Hebrews from the first, and received the knowledge
of Christ pure and unadulterated, so that in the estimation
of those who were able to judge, they were well approved
and worthy of the episcopal office. For, at that time, the
.bn 417.png
.pn +1
whole church under them consisted of believing Hebrews
who continued from the time of the apostles until the siege
that then took place.” The historian gives a list of the
succession of fifteen bishops. “These are all the bishops
of Jerusalem that filled up the time from the apostles until
the above mentioned date,—all being of the circumcision.”[114]
The list ends with the name of Judah, who perished by
the sword of the impostor, Simon, surnamed Bar Kokeba,
“the Son of the Star.” This adventurer, originally a robber
chieftain, had announced himself as the expected Messiah
of Israel. The Jews, groaning under the oppressions
of the Romans, rushed to arms and rallied to his standard,
to the number of more than 200,000 men. He
would brook no neutrality. The Gentiles of Palestine had
to choose between his service and the sword. His demands,
repelled by the Hebrew Christians, brought on them his
exterminating vengeance, and Judah, the last of the Hebrew
succession of the bishops of Jerusalem, perished, with
a multitude of his church, under the swords of the Jews.[115]
Thus closed in blood the history of the Hebrew church in
Jerusalem, in the year 132. As for Simon,—after successfully
defying for two years, the whole power of Rome, he
and his forces were finally cooped up in the town of Bethar,
which was taken by storm. The impostor perished, with
a multitude of his followers, and the remnant glutted the
slave markets of the world. “The numbers of persons who
perished by sword, flame, and hunger, have been stated as
high as 700,000, by others, 580,000. As to Judaism and the
Jewish people, the land might be said, for some time, to
be a solitude. The native inhabitants who had escaped the
butchery of the war were expatriated either by banishment
or flight, or sold into bondage. No Jew was now permitted
to come within sight of Jerusalem, and Gentile
.bn 418.png
.pn +1
colonists were sent to take possession of the soil. Jerusalem
in fact became a Gentile city.”[116]
.fn 114
Eusebius iii, 11; iv, 5, 6.
.fn-
.fn 115
Etheridge’s Jerusalem and Tiberias, p. 71.
.fn-
.fn 116
Etheridge, Ibid. p. 72.
.fn-
Says Mosheim,—“When the emperor (Adrian) had
wholly destroyed Jerusalem, a second time, and had enacted
severe laws against the Jews, the greater part of the
Christians living in Palestine, that they might not be confounded
with Jews as they had been, laid aside the Mosaic
ceremonies, and chose one Mark who was a foreigner and
not a Jew, for their bishop. This procedure was very
offensive to those among them whose attachment to the
Mosaic rites was too strong to be eradicated. They therefore
separated from their brethren, and formed a distinct
society, in Perea, a part of Palestine, and in the neighboring
regions; and among them the Mosaic law retained all
its dignity unimpaired.”[117] These Jewish Christians, known
as Nazarenes, are traceable for several centuries, orthodox
in their faith and embraced in the fellowship of the Catholic
church, but strict in the observance of circumcision and the
law of Moses, as far as practicable in the circumstances
of the Jews.
.fn 117
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Cent. II., Part II., Ch. v, 1, 2.
.fn-
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXVIII.—The Gentiles Graffed in.
While such as we have described was the constitution
of the church in Jerusalem and Judea, in the days of the
apostles, it elsewhere presented a different aspect. At
Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome
and other places, Jews and Gentiles were associated together
in the churches. Where such was the case, the
Jewish members, like their brethren in Judea, maintained
the ordinances of both the Levitical and Christian liturgies.
They kept sacred alike the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s
day. They were circumcised, and observed all the requirements
of the law of Moses, and maintained all the services
of the synagogue system. At the same time, they on the
.bn 419.png
.pn +1
Lord’s day, united with their believing Gentile brethren,
in observing the ordinances of the gospel church, and the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.
On the other hand, the Gentile members of these
churches were uncircumcised and free from the bondage
of the ritual law. They kept holy the Lord’s day only;
on which they united with their Jewish brethren in the
ordinances of Christian worship and religion. At the same
time these Gentile converts were more or less in the habit
of frequenting the synagogue services, to hear the reading
of the Scriptures and join in the worship of the God of
Israel. In these services their position was similar to that
held by the class of persons who were known as “devout
persons,” or “proselytes of the gate.” In fact, it was usually
from these that the first Gentile converts to Christ
were gathered. The strong tendency, which the circumstances
were calculated to induce in them, to embrace the
entire system of Judaism as it was maintained by their
Jewish Christian brethren, elicited from Paul those expostulations
which have been misunderstood as implying the
absolute abrogation of the law. His earnestness therein
was induced by the fact, that the voluntary assumption of
the yoke of the ritual law, by those upon whom God had
not laid it, was a manifest apostasy from the doctrine of
grace,—an attempt to fulfill a righteousness of works.
Of the mixed state of these churches, the first epistle
to the Corinthians presents constant illustrations. In it,
Paul indulges in a frequency of allusion to Old Testament
facts which presupposes his readers to be familiar with the
sacred books of the Jews. In one place, he addresses them
as being of the stock of Israel, “Brethren, I would not
that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”—Ch.
x, 1-11. On the other hand, the apostle alludes to
disorders and offenses, in the church, which were evidently
.bn 420.png
.pn +1
committed by the Gentile members (vi, 9-11; xi, 20-22), and
moreover, says expressly,—“Ye know that ye were Gentiles,
carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were
led.”—xii, 2. He also, as we have already seen, gives express
instructions for continuing the distinction between
Jew and Gentile, in the church. “Is any man called
being circumcised? Let him not become
Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.”—vii,
18.
But there was yet another class of churches, which may
be exemplified in Lystra, Derbe, and Galatia,—churches
where there were no Jews, or in which their number was
so small as to constitute an unappreciable element. In
them, the Christian Sabbath and ordinances were alone
observed, the assemblies and services on the Lord’s day
being precisely the same in their nature and manner as
those maintained where Jews and Gentiles were united.
Of all these churches, whether of Jewish, mixed, or
Gentile elements, the local constitution and form of government
was the same; being that of the synagogue. This
the circumstances rendered inevitable; and to it all the
statements and intimations of the Scriptures testify. In
fact, in the epistle of James they are expressly designated
by that name.—“If there come unto your synagogue,
(sunagogēn) a man with a gold ring.”—Ja. ii, 2. It is true
the epistle is inscribed, “to the twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad.”—Ib. i, 1. But it is to the Christians of
those scattered tribes, that he addresses himself. With
them Gentile believers were always to be found united;
and no one will pretend that there were two forms of organization;
one for the Jews, and another for the Gentiles.
These churches were self-governed, so far as internal
order and discipline were concerned. But with relation
to the fundamental laws of their existence and rule of
their faith they were in a state of recognized and entire
dependence on the church in Jerusalem. This relation
.bn 421.png
.pn +1
was indicated and expressed in a very peculiar and conclusive
manner. The vital question concerning the relation
of the Gentiles to the law of Moses arose in the church in
Antioch, in which there were not only certain prophets
(Acts xiii, 1, 2), but Paul the great apostle of the Gentiles.
Naturally, we should have expected such a question
to be brought to an immediate decision, by prophetic revelation,
or by the authority of the apostle, confirmed by
signs following. And, in fact, there was an immediate
divine interposition. But it was an interposition by which
the question was remanded to Jerusalem to be decided
there. Paul says to the Galatians,—“I went up to Jerusalem,
with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And
I went up (kata apokalupsin) in accordance with a revelation.”—Gal.
ii, 1, 2. Again, when he came to Jerusalem,
there were present John, the beloved of Jesus, and Peter,
the chief of the apostles; beside James, the brother of
the Lord and head of the church in Jerusalem. (Ib. ii, 9.)
But not by either or all of them was the question decided,
but referred to the council of the church, and, under the
direction of the Holy Spirit, was there determined by deliberative
consultation and vote; and the decree was drawn
up and sent forth in the name of “the apostles, and elders
and brethren.”—Acts xv, 22, 23, 25. The relation of that
council to the Jerusalem eldership and church is indicated
by the manner in which at a later date those elders referred
to it, in conference with Paul. “As touching the
Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded.”—Acts
xxi, 25, 18. Upon Paul’s return to Antioch, and
resumption of his missionary labors, after the council, he
and his attendants, “as they went through the cities, delivered
them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of
the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.”—Ib. xvi,
4. It would thus appear beyond question, that this business
was so ordered by the Head of the church, as to demonstrate
the fact of the organic dependence of the Gentile
.bn 422.png
.pn +1
churches everywhere,—not upon the authority of the apostles,
as such, but upon the ancient church of Israel, in the
councils of which the apostles sat as elders, with the elders.
(1 Peter v, 1.) It was an indication to the Gentile churches
that their privilege was that of partakers with Israel in her
spiritual things. (Rom. xv, 27.) Believing Israel was
thus presented, as not only the source whence the gospel
flowed to the Gentiles, but as ordained to be to them the
authorized exponent of that gospel. The principle here
involved, is appealed to by Paul, when in repressing the
arrogant assumptions of some in the Corinthian church,
he demands of them,—“What! came the word of God
out from you? or, came it unto you, only?”—1 Cor. xiv,
36. In this relation of the Jewish church to those of the
Gentiles, there was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah
(ii, 3) reechoed by Micah:—“In the last days ... many
nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of
Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk
in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Micah iv, 1, 2.
Thus, while the great body of Israel after the flesh rejected
the Angel of the covenant, who was promised at Sinai
to their fathers (Ex. xxiii, 20), and in so doing forfeited
and were cut off from its fold, their believing brethren
remained in full possession of its rights, and privileges; and
the Gentiles, receiving Christ, became with them partakers
therein, according to the proviso which from the beginning
reserved room for them;—“For all the earth is mine.”—Ex.
xix, 5.
It was at a time when the condition of things here described,
in Judea and among the Gentiles had attained to
its completest realization, that Paul addressed the Romans
in a figure which is in beautiful accord with the literal
facts; as they had been already realized. “If some of the
branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree,
.bn 423.png
.pn +1
wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of
the root and fatness of the olive tree,—boast not against
the branches. But, if thou boast, thou bearest not the
root; but the root, thee. Thou wilt say, then,... The
branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well: because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou
standest by faith. Be not highminded but fear. For if
God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also
spare not thee.... And they also if they abide not still
in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff
them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree,
which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature
into a good olive tree; how much more shall these which
be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive
tree.”—Rom. xi, 17-24.
The Christian church is not a new institution, nor its
constitution a new organic law. But it is, in the strictest
and most absolute sense, lineally and organically one with
that of Israel, founded and perpetuated upon the covenant
of Sinai.
.bn 424.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h3
Part XV. | CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
.sp 2
.h4
Section LXXXIX.—History of the Rite.
But two of the evangelists, Matthew and Mark, mention
baptism in connection with the last instructions of
Jesus; and of these, Mark introduces it in an incidental
way, as though it had been a matter already understood.
(Matt, xxviii, 19, 20; Mark xvi, 15, 16.) The reason was
that the apostles were not then first commissioned to baptize.
On this point, Calvin speaking with reference to the arguments
of the Anabaptists says, “It is a mistake worse than
childish to consider that commission as the original institution
of baptism,—which Christ had commanded his apostles
to administer, from the commencement of his preaching.
They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law
and rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two
passages, as if they contained the first institution of it.”[118]
Upon this, Dr. Dale says,—“Calvin is right in dating
Christian ritual baptism from the ministry and authority
of Christ, and not from that of John, even if they were
entirely identical, which they are not. The baptism of
John is Christian baptism, as far as it goes; but it is Christian
baptism undeveloped in the blood shedding of an atoning
Redeemer, in which shedding of blood, ‘for the remission
of sins,’ ritual baptism has its exclusive ground.”
Again, speaking of the words of Peter, on the day of Pentecost,—“Repent
and be baptized,”—he asks,—“What was
this baptism? Was it a Jewish baptism, a ceremonial
cleansing of the body, merely? Was it John’s baptism, a
.bn 425.png
.pn +1
spiritual baptism (baptisma metanoias) in which no Holy
Ghost was yet ‘poured out,’ no crucified Redeemer was yet
revealed? Was it Christian baptism, the baptism of Christ,
the crucified, the Risen, the Ascended, the Pourer out of
the Holy Ghost?”[119] In these passages we have a statement
of differentia upon which the lamented author insists earnestly,
as distinguishing the baptisms named, from each
other. As to the Jewish baptisms,—those which were appointed
by the divine law, they were, as we have seen,
spiritual in the same sense precisely as were the baptisms
of John and of Christ; and the latter were and are “a ceremonial
cleansing of the body, merely,” in the same sense
as were the baptisms of the Jews. To this day, “the letter,”
or outward form of Christian baptism is a ceremonial cleansing
of those who are ritually unclean. No otherwise could
it show forth “the spirit” of the ordinance, which is the
real purging, by the Spirit, of those who are spiritually defiled.
From the beginning to the present day, the ritual
baptisms always signified the very same spiritual truths.
And they were all alike devoid of any spiritual power in
themselves.
.fn 118
Institutes, Book IV, chap, xvi, §37.
.fn-
.fn 119
Dale’s “Christic Baptism,” pp. 430, 431.
.fn-
But let us trace the line of connection between them.
Very early in the ministry of Jesus, before the imprisonment
of John, while the latter was baptizing in Enon,
“Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea; and
there he tarried with them and baptized.” But “when the
Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judea, and departed
again into Galilee.”—John iii, 22; iv, 1-3. Here, be it
observed, (1.) that John was the intelligent, faithful and
inspired forerunner and herald of the Lord Jesus. The
gospel which he preached was that which the Spirit of
Christ gave him, and the baptism which he administered
set forth that gospel in ritual figure. His preaching
.bn 426.png
.pn +1
was summed in one word. “Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand.” (2.) The Lord Jesus preached the
very same word, and gave it to the apostles and the seventy
to proclaim, when he sent them abroad through the land.
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (3.) There
is not an intimation in the Scriptures, nor suggestion to
justify the idea, of the least difference in the form and
nature of the baptisms at this stage of the history, administered
by them respectively. Certainly if there were
differences, they must have been characterized by a minuteness
and subtlety, fit rather to exercise the ingenuity of
hair-splitting schoolmen, than to instruct the common people
of Judea; who, upon the supposition of diversity, were
called to choose between the rival baptisms. John’s baptism was
at first into the name of “the coming One,” “the Baptizer
with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Of that baptism his
was proclaimed to be a symbol. When Jesus came, John
at once identified him as the coming One, and thenceforth
his baptism was into the name of Jesus of Nazareth. I do
not mean that John made use of those phrases. To this
point we shall come presently. But “John verily baptized
with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people
that they should believe on him which should come after
him; that is, on Christ Jesus.”—Acts xix, 4. The rite
which he dispensed sealed upon the recipients their profession
of repentance and faith in Jesus, the Son of God, the
atoning Lamb, the King Baptizer. In a report of one of
his discourses, which occupies seven verses of the gospel
of John, each of these titles and the things implied in
them is brought out with perfect distinctness. (John i,
29-36.) That John was ignorant of the precise form of
crucifixion, as that in which atonement was to be made, is
possible; although even there the facts do not warrant the
confidence of Dr. Dale’s assertions. But that he was not
ignorant of Christ’s atoning office, his own words distinctly
testify. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away
.bn 427.png
.pn +1
the sin of the world.”—John i, 29. (4.) The whole manner
of the narrative from which we learn the fact that
Christ’s disciples baptized, indicates the identity of the
ordinance as administered by them with that of John.
The fact is not mentioned for its own sake, but as introductory
and explanatory of the testimony of John respecting
Jesus. (John iii, 22-30.) In fact, we have no information
whatever of the nature and meaning of Christ’s
baptism, as thus originated, except in its justly assumed
identity with that of John. This, the language of John’s
interlocutors implies (Ib. 26), and upon the basis of this
assumption the whole narrative rests. This remark applies
also to the subsequent statement,—that “the Lord knew
how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John; though Jesus himself baptized
not, but his disciples.”—John iv, 1, 2. Here the one word,
“baptized,” without qualification or differentiating phrase,
is applied to both Christ’s disciples and John, and plainly
identifies the rite administered by them as one and the
same. That such was the case can not be successfully
questioned.
And now, what have we, in the ordinance thus dispensed
by the disciples under the eye, and as a seal to the
preaching, of Christ, but Christian baptism? True, the
disciples were ignorant at that time, of the doctrine of the
cross, which in fact they refused to believe, till their Master
was crucified before their eyes. But while the baptism
was administered by their hands, it was in Christ’s immediate
presence, by his authority, and as a seal to the gospel
which he preached. How then could their ignorance and
hardness, or that of John, if he be so impeached, change
the nature of the rite which by Christ’s authority they
both administered? And, especially, how could this be,
when in fact that baptism, while it presupposed Christ’s
atoning sufferings, yet had no immediate relation to them,
but to his kingdom and glory,—the theme of John’s
.bn 428.png
.pn +1
preaching,—the one thing in Christ’s instructions which
the apostles gladly received?
To what extent this baptizing function of the apostles
continued in exercise during the subsequent ministry of
Christ, we are not informed. But, the manner in which,
first and last, the subject is treated by the evangelists implies
that it never was in abeyance. Hence, in his final
interviews with them, Jesus does not speak of the ordinance
as a novelty, nor as a rite to be reintroduced; but
alludes to it as to a familiar subject. In fact, his only recorded
references to it, have in view, not the ordinance, in
itself considered, but its bestowal on the Gentiles. “Go ye,
disciple all nations, baptizing them.”—Matt. xxviii, 19. “Go
ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but
he that believeth not shall be damned.”—Mark xvi, 15,
16. By this decree, the ordinance, which, as we have
seen, was already divested of its sacrificial elements, was
released from its peculiar and restricted relation to the
Jewish people. Heretofore, only the circumcised could be
admitted to baptism; and the rite, when administered to
them, was received as a certificate of title to the privileges
of the covenant, in connection with the Mosaic ritual and
the temple service. But, by this decree of Christ, it was
appropriated to the use of the Gentiles, also; as certifying
to them a part in the same covenant, relieved of the encumbrance
of the ritual law. That its administration to
the converts of Christ’s ministry is not mentioned, presents
no just occasion of surprise, in view of the familiarity of
the ordinance and the emphasis already given to it in connection
with John’s ministry. That Christ’s disciples baptized
at all is only known to us by the incidental mention
in the last of the evangelists.
The facts here developed are of immense importance in
their bearing upon our present inquiry. The Lord Jesus did
not institute baptism, at any time. He recognized it as an
.bn 429.png
.pn +1
ordinance of God given to Israel ages before,—accepted it
personally from the hands of John,—immediately appointed
his disciples to administer it to the Jews in conjunction with
John, and then, after his resurrection and assumption of
the sceptre, commanded them to dispense it to the Gentiles
also.—“All power is given unto me in heaven and earth.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them.”
The rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John, by Paul at
Ephesus (Acts xix, 1-7), may be thought inconsistent with
the assertion of the identity of the baptisms of John and of
the Christian church. But when the facts are considered
in their true relations, they will appear in perfect harmony
with all that have been heretofore adduced, and entirely
consistent with the conclusions thence derived. John was
the herald of Christ. His preaching and baptism had
neither significance nor value, except as they directed the
attention and faith of his disciples to the coming of Christ
and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which He should administer.
To the great mass of those who received his baptism,
no profit resulted, because it was not followed up by
a waiting for Christ’s coming, and a devotion to him when
he was revealed. It effected no actual separation of such
disciples from the unbelieving mass of the nation. When,
therefore, the crisis came and the Saviour was crucified,
they sustained no relation of identity with him and his
cause; but were an undistinguishable part of the nation,
whose rulers betrayed and crucified Him. The baptism
which they had received was no magical rite, leaving an
indelible impress on the recipients; but a rational ordinance,
designed to mark and seal a separation and consecration
unto Christ. Precisely here, was the point of Paul’s
testimony to these men.—“John verily baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they
should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus.” Where this intent of John’s baptism did
not follow,—where no separation unto Christ was actually
.bn 430.png
.pn +1
effected, the parties remained unclean, with the unclean
nation. In them was fulfilled the proverb of the son of
Sirach.—“He that is baptized from the dead, and again
toucheth the dead, what availeth his washing?”—Ecclus.
xxxi, 30. Such was the case with any of the converts of
Pentecost, who had been John’s disciples. And such evidently
were the Ephesian disciples. They were believers
in the Messiah of prophecy, as heralded by John. But
their faith was weak and supineness prevalent. They had
not followed up the line of John’s testimony, with the zeal
of a living consecration. The baptism which they had received
had effected no separation unto Christ. When,
therefore, under the ministry of Paul, they were prepared
to begin a new life, their consecration was sealed by a new
administration of the same baptism.[120]
.fn 120
See Alexander on Acts xiv, 5.
.fn-
That this is a just view of the case in question farther
appears from the manner in which it is presented in immediate
connection and contrast with that of Apollos, whose
story closes the eighteenth chapter of the Acts, as that of
the twelve opens the nineteenth. Of him it is stated that
he was “an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures,
instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in
the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the
Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began
to speak boldly in the synagogue; whom, when Aquila
and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded
unto him the way of God more perfectly.”—Acts
xviii, 24-26. The silence, here, on the subject of baptism,
and the emphasis given to its statement immediately after,
in the case of the twelve, is pregnant. For, all occurred
in the same city of Ephesus, where Apollos was instructed
and preaching just before Paul’s coming, and the baptism
of the twelve.
.pm start_note
Note.—How can we consistently restore excommunicated
persons without rebaptism? Is not the prevalent practice a
.bn 431.png
.pn +1
relic of the opus operatum heresy? “If any one assert that in
the three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and orders, there
is not a mark imprinted on the soul,—that is a certain spiritual
and indelible token, whence, it may not be repeated,—let him
be anathema.”—Council of Trent, Sess. vii. Canon 9. Is this
the faith which we hold?
.pm end_note
.sp 2
.h4
Section XC.—“Baptizing them into the Name.”
“And Jesus came and spake unto them and said, All
power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go ye,
therefore, and (mathēteusate) disciple all nations, baptizing
them (eis) into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all
things I have commanded you; and lo, I am
with you alway even unto the end of the world.”—Matt.
xxviii, 18-20.
Here are two things to be considered:—(1) The phrase,
“into the name;” (2) “The name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
1. “Into the name.” The phrase, “in the name,” as
found in the common English version, represents three
distinct forms of expression, in the original, which are
essentially different in their meaning, and should, therefore,
be carefully discriminated. They are “(en) in the
name;” “(epi) for the name,” and “(eis) into the name.”
The essential idea expressed by the first of these is, representative
union, as a person who speaks or acts “in the
name” of another, identifies himself with that other.
Thus,—“Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name.”—John
xiv, 13, 14, 26; xv, 16, etc. “Ye are justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus.”—1 Cor. vi, 11. “Giving thanks
in the name of the Lord Jesus.”—Eph. v, 20. “Do all in
the name of the Lord Jesus.”—Col. iii, 17. Hence the
use of the expression, as signifying, “by the authority of.”
Thus, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me
not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive.”—John v, 43. “In the name of Jesus Christ of
.bn 432.png
.pn +1
Nazareth, rise up and walk.”—Acts iii, 6. “I command
thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, come out of her.”—Ib.
xvi, 18. There is but one passage in which this form of
expression is used in connection with baptizo. Acts x, 48,—“He
commanded them to be baptized, in the name of the
Lord.” The analogy of the phrase elsewhere, would require
us to understand it here as meaning, “by the authority
of the Lord.” The codex Sinaiticus reads,—“He commanded
them (en to ‘onomati Ju Xu baptisthēnai), in the name
of Jesus Christ to be baptized.” Cyril of Jerusalem quotes
the passage in the same order.[121] Not only does the form
of the phrase in itself call for this rendering, but the connection
is equally clear, in the same direction. The case
was the baptism of the house of Cornelius. Peter demands,—“Can
any man forbid the water, that these should
not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as
well as we?” The point at issue was the admission of the
Gentile world to a part in the salvation of Christ. Peter
had on the day of Pentecost testified that it was the Lord
Jesus by whom the Holy Ghost had been poured out. He
had been admonished by Jesus in a vision that the Gentiles
were not to be excluded from the blessings of the
gospel. He now calls the attention of his six Jewish companions
(Acts xi, 12), to the fact that the house of Cornelius
was baptized by the Lord Jesus himself, with the
same Spirit which had been poured upon the Jews on
Pentecost; and with an emphatic pause, challenges objection.
There being none, the apostle, then, in the name
and by the authority of Christ, proclaims the doors of salvation
thrown open to the world. He “in the name of
the Lord Jesus, commanded them to be baptized;” and
afterward vindicated the action by the demand, “What
was I, that I should withstand God.”—Acts xi, 17.
.fn 121
In Dale, Christic Baptism, p. 205.
.fn-
Epi, in this connection, has the general meaning of, because
of,—on account of,—with reference to,—for; and the
.bn 433.png
.pn +1
phrase as thus constructed means, “for the sake of.” Thus,
“Whoso shall receive one such little child (epi ‘onomati
mou), for my name’s sake.”—Matt. xviii, 5; Mark ix, 37.
“They called him Zacharias (epi), for the sake of his father’s
name.”—Luke i, 59. “That repentance and remission
of sins should be preached (epi) for his name’s sake.”—Luke
xxiv, 47. “That they speak henceforth to no man (epi)
for the sake of the name.”—Acts iv, 17. From these illustrations,
it will be seen that in connection with baptism,
the rendering, of epi,—“in the name,”—altogether misses
the idea of the sacred writer. It occurs but once. On the
day of Pentecost, Peter, in reply to the cry,—“What shall
we do?” answered,—“Repent and be baptized every one of
you (epi), for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ (eis), unto
the remission of sins.”—Acts ii, 38. Jesus had said, “He
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” Peter,
therefore, tells the multitude, “Repent and be baptized.
Do this, in honor of the Lord Jesus; and unto the remission
of sins; since repentance, and obedience shown by receiving
baptism, are pledges of remission.”
In the text of Matthew, which stands at the head of
this section, the word is, eis,—“Baptizing them (eis), into
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost.” This is the preposition ordinarily used with relation
to baptism, both real and ritual. In connection with
the baptism of the Spirit, its signification is so fully explained
and illustrated as to admit of no doubt or question.
They that are “baptized (eis) into Christ” (Gal. iii, 27;
Rom. vi, 3), are united to him,—“by one Spirit baptized
(eis) into one body,” “the body of Christ.”—1 Cor. xii, 13,
27. Those who are “baptized (eis) into his death,” are
thereby “dead with him.”—Rom. vi, 3, 8. So, it is said
of the children of Israel that they were “baptized (eis) into
Moses, in the cloud and in the sea,” as the passage of the
Red Sea, the destruction of the Egyptians and the deliverance
of Israel by the hand of Moses released them finally
.bn 434.png
.pn +1
and forever from the Egyptian yoke, and united them to
Moses in subordination to his mediatorial authority. “They
believed the Lord and his servant Moses.”—Ex. xiv, 31.
This is viewed by the apostle as a figure of the work of
grace by which the people of Christ are released from Satan’s
bondage and brought under his saving scepter; and he,
therefore, uses the same form of expression, “Baptized into
Christ,” “Baptized into Moses.”
The style in which the real baptism is thus spoken of
is a key to the meaning of the Lord Jesus, in his language
concerning the ritual ordinance. The visible church is the
representative and type of that invisible body of Christ, the
members of which are incorporated therein by the baptism
of the Spirit. Baptism with water is a symbol, merely, of
that spiritual grace. The recipient may be truly united to
the Lord Jesus. But such union is not produced by the
ritual ordinance. The effect can ascend no higher than
the cause. A symbolic baptism can accomplish no more
than a symbolic union, a union in outward semblance and
name. Its ground is profession of the name of Christ, and
the characteristic designation of those who have received
it is,—that they “have named the name of Christ”—(2
Tim. ii, 19), that is, they have professed to take hold of
his covenant, and have thereupon had his name named
upon them. They are Christ’s. If, therefore, baptism
“into Christ,” by the Spirit, means spiritual union with
Christ, and with his invisible body, then, manifestly, baptism
with water “into the name of Christ,” can mean nothing
else but ritual identification with his name, and with
that visible body which is known by his name, and embraced
by profession in the bonds of his covenant. To
effect such union is all that Christ’s ministers can do. It
is what they are commissioned to do. The rest remains
with the Great Baptizer himself. Intimately related to this
subject is that remarkable word of God which instructed
Aaron and his sons to bless Israel with that threefold benediction
.bn 435.png
.pn +1
which is believed to refer to the doctrine of the
glorious Trinity. “The Lord bless thee and keep thee.
The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious
unto thee. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee,
and give thee peace,”—and then adds,—“And they shall
put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless
them.”—Num. vi, 23-27.
The form of expression used by the Lord Jesus,—“baptizing
them into the name,” is a perpetual rebuke of every
doctrine or pretense which would attribute to the rite, in
itself, any higher or other efficacy than that of changing
the outward and professed relation of the baptized to
Christ and the Godhead. The view here presented is
further involved in the relation between baptism and discipleship,
intimated in the words of Jesus,—“Disciple all
nations, baptizing them into the name.” Christ came as
the revealer of the Godhead, the Prophet of Israel, as well
as her royal Priest. The preaching of the gospel is the fulfillment
of his prophetic function, and those whether Jews
or Gentiles, who accept it are to be enrolled as disciples of
Christ, by being baptized into the name or profession of
the faith of the triune Godhead, as revealed by him, in
the gospel. It will thus be seen that the translation invariably
given to the phrase in question, in our common
English version, entirely fails of exhibiting a true idea of
the meaning of the original. See Matt, xxviii, 19; Acts
viii, 16; xix, 5; 1 Cor. i, 13, 15. Baptizing “in the
name,” can only mean, dispensing the rite by the authority
of the Persons named. The command is, to “baptize
into the name.”
2. “The name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost.” In other places, baptism is said to be
“into the name of the Lord Jesus.”—Acts ii, 38; viii,
16; xix, 5. Nor are the other Persons of the Godhead
ever mentioned in such connection with the real baptism.
That is always described as being into Jesus Christ. Rom.
.bn 436.png
.pn +1
vi, 3; 1 Cor. xii, 13, 27; Gal. iii, 27. How is this diversity
of expression to be explained? It is abundantly
plain, as respects the real baptism. In it, each Person is
signally present, in appropriate relation. In it, Christ, the
Royal Administrator, by whom the Spirit is poured out,
is also the Head into which by that one Spirit all are baptized
as members. The Spirit appears as the Spirit of life
in Christ Jesus, the Renewer and Sanctifier. And as to
the Father, “Ye are all the children of God, by faith in
Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized
into Christ have put on Christ.”—Gal. iii, 26, 27. “As
many as received him to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name.”—
i, 12. In a word, thus is fulfilled the petition of
Jesus. “As thou Father art in me and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us.... I in them and thou in
me, that they may be made perfect in one.”—John xvii,
21, 23. By the real baptism, therefore, the believer is
united to each Person of the Godhead,—a fact, nevertheless,
expressed by baptism into one, Jesus Christ.
The same principle governs the forms of expression
used with reference to ritual baptism. Jesus Christ is the
Word of God, and can not be truly apprehended except in
that relation. “No man hath seen God at any time. The
only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared Him.”—John i, 18. He came to make
known the Father. He returned to impart the Spirit.
And, as he was thus apprehended by the apostles, a baptism
into his name was a baptism into the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit. It only ceases
to be so, when Jesus ceases to be appreciated as him in
whom “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”—Col.
ii, 9.
It is an illustration of the essential deficiency of the
theory of immersion that it has no explanation for the diversity
of expression here considered.
.bn 437.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCI.—“He that believeth and is baptized.”
In the great commission, as recorded by Mark, Jesus
said to his disciples, “Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be
damned.”—Mark xvi, 15, 16. Dr. Dale denies that ritual
baptism is here referred to.—“We accept the real baptism
by the Holy Spirit as the sole baptism directly contemplated
by the passage; in general, because it meets in the
most absolute and unlimited manner, as a condition of salvation,
the obvious requirement on the face of the passage,
having the same breadth with belief, and universally present
in every case of salvation.”[122] To this view the objections
are obvious and conclusive. (1.) The clause which
the author has emphasized with Italics, is inaccurate. The
baptism with the Holy Ghost is not “a condition of salvation;”
but is the very salvation itself. It is the casket in
which are bestowed repentance, faith, remission of sins,
justification, adoption, sanctification, the resurrection and
eternal life. (2.) The interpretation would not only make
this baptism a condition of salvation, but puts it in the position
of a co-ordinate but secondary condition with faith.—“He
that believeth and is baptized.” Whereas faith, as
just remarked, is one of the immediate phenomena of this
baptism. (3.) The text as thus explained represents the
Lord Jesus as commissioning his ministers to offer salvation
to sinners upon conditions one of which is to be performed
by them; but the other belongs to his own peculiar prerogative,
to which, in no circumstances, can they assume
an efficient relation. It interprets the message to be
preached thus: “Whoever believeth shall be saved; provided
I, Jesus, shall see fit to baptize him!”
.fn 122
Christic Baptism, p. 393.
.fn-
The text is a statement to the apostles, and through
them to the ministry in all ages, of their duties and the
.bn 438.png
.pn +1
results of their labors. With baptism as a ritual ordinance
of the gospel they had been familiar from the beginning
of John’s ministry, and of Christ’s in coincidence with it.
They had been fully instructed, as to the baptism of the
Spirit, which Christ was about to dispense, and which they
were to await; and as to the typical relation to it which
the ritual ordinance sustained. They are now commanded
to go forth and preach that gospel; not, as heretofore, to
Israel, only, but to every creature, in all the world; and
whereas, until now, none could be baptized,—none could
receive the token of the covenant, except those who were,
by circumcision, identified with Israel after the flesh,—he
indicates the removal of that restriction,—“Go teach all
nations, baptizing them.” Baptizing them with water,
which, only, they could administer; and in token of that
profession of faith, of which only they could take cognizance.
It is in view of these things, that the declaration
is made, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The repetition
shows that the emphasis of the passage rests on believing.
“You are to preach, and baptize those who profess to believe.
But let all, both preachers and hearers, beware of
trusting in the baptismal shadow. He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved. But he that believeth not,—his
baptism will not avail,—He shall be damned.” Assuredly,
had the Lord Jesus been stating conditions of salvation, as
concerning baptism, he knew how to set it on both sides
of the alternative.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCII.—The Formula of Baptism.
It is proper and necessary that such words be used in
the administration of Baptism, as shall give an intelligent
announcement of the nature and intent of the ordinance.
For this purpose nothing can be more appropriate than the
formula in universal use, in all the churches. But the
question arises whether the words thus employed were given
to be uttered as a formula necessary to the rite.
.bn 439.png
.pn +1
1. There is nothing whatever in the language of the
Lord Jesus, on the subject, to give countenance to the suggestion
in question. “Go ye, and 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.” We have already
seen that “baptizing into the name” means, not the utterance
in the baptism of any words or formula; but instruction
and consecration to the faith and service of the Triune
God, identified with the baptismal rite and signified by it.
But if such be the meaning of our Savior’s words, it excludes
the idea in question. “Baptizing them into the
name,” then, means something very different from “uttering
the name.” In fact, the more carefully the language
in question is examined, in itself, in its immediate connection,
and in its relation to the general scope of the gospel
and its history, the more evident will it appear that it was
not words that were present to the mind of Jesus, or by
him put into the mouths of his ministry, but the great
doctrine of baptism, in which the whole gospel is summed,—that
doctrine which was heralded by the baptist, and expounded
by the Lord Jesus in his discourse and prayer at
the supper. One who should teach that the Holy Spirit
is not a coequal Person of the Godhead, or that the Lord
Jesus is not the eternal and coequal Son, might administer
the rite, in the use of the formula. Yet would it not be
baptism in the intent of Jesus as here set forth.
2. The silence of all of the evangelists except Matthew
as to the words in question, is wholly inconsistent with the
supposition that they were given as a formula. The importance
of the rite is of common agreement. And resting
as it does as an obligation on every soul that hears the
gospel, it is the first and foremost of all the practical duties
of those who receive it. If, therefore, the formula
was now given as an element in the administration of the
ordinance, it is of the first and universal moment. How
.bn 440.png
.pn +1
then is it possible for three of the evangelists to have ignored
it, in their several versions of the gospel. Evidently
they attached to it no such significance as obtains with
those who hold it as of the essence of baptism.
3. The fact that it is not once used or alluded to, in
the whole subsequent history and epistles, is conclusive.
Those records are a testimony;—as much by silence, often,
as by utterance. But, on this subject, they are not silent.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter calls upon the inquirers to
be baptized “(epi) for the name’s sake of Jesus Christ.”—Acts
ii, 38. The Samaritans and the twelve disciples of
John at Ephesus were baptized “into the name of the
Lord Jesus.”—Acts viii, 16; xix, 5. And Paul distinctly
implies that the Corinthians were baptized into the same
name. “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?
or, were ye baptized into the name of Paul?”—1 Cor. i,
13. How these facts are consistent with obedience to
Christ’s command we have already seen. The only interpretation
which will harmonize the record is deduced from
that doctrine of baptism which has been unfolded in these
pages. He that is spiritually baptized into Jesus Christ,
thereby receives the Spirit and is united in Christ to the
Father. He is baptized into the Three.
Here, the doctrine of immersion is radically defective.
The form may be administered with the utterance of the
names of the Trinity. But its doctrine contains no testimony
to the Triune, nor recognition of any Person of the
Godhead. It relates altogether to the humanity of Christ,
whose burial it represents.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCIII.—The Administration on Pentecost.
On the day of Pentecost, in reply to the cry of the
repentant multitude,—“What shall we do?” Peter said,
“Repent and be baptized every one of you (epi to ‘onomati),
for the name’s sake of Jesus Christ (eis) unto the remission
of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
.bn 441.png
.pn +1
Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our
God shall call.... Then, they that gladly received his
word were baptized; and the same day there were added
unto them about three thousand souls.”—Acts ii, 37-41.
Dr. Dale denies this baptism to have been ritual, and
demands,—“Was there a visible Christian church in existence
at Pentecost? Was there any one competent to
organize a Christian church before Pentecost? Did not
the divine Head of the church himself furnish the materials
for a church organization, officers, and members, ‘that
day?’ Was there a Christian organization effected, as well
as a tri-millenary baptism administered ‘that day?’ Were
they organized and then baptized, or baptized and then
organized?”[123] These questions, coming with the authority
of the learned writer, are entitled to respectful consideration.
And although they have, in effect, been answered,
already, a few words will here be added, in direct response.
The Jewish church, as organized, according to the law of
Moses, under the ministry of the elders, was the Christian
church, on the day of Pentecost. But as that church had
become largely corrupt and apostate, and its rulers had
betrayed and crucified the Lord Jesus, her King, a separation
had become necessary, and the preaching and baptism
of the apostles was the means appointed by Him for eliminating
the apostate elements. The one hundred and
twenty who remained together in Jerusalem after the
ascension were but a small part of believing Israel, even
then; for the Lord Jesus was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once, after his resurrection. (1 Cor. xv, 6.)
But they, or the apostles alone, or one of them, would
have been abundantly sufficient as a center for gathering
the believing from among the apostate. They stood precisely
as did Moses in the midst of the congregation of
Israel, at the time of the apostasy of the golden calf, saying,—“Who
.bn 442.png
.pn +1
is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto
me.”—Ex. xxxii, 26. Hence the style in which the historian
of the Acts writes of the converts of Pentecost.
“Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized;
and the same day there were added about three thousand
souls.”—Acts ii, 41. They are not said to have been
“added to the church;” for they were the church, obeying
the call of her Head,—“Come out from among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing.”—2 Cor. vi, 17. They are, therefore, said to have
been “added (to them),”—that is, to the apostles; or more
literally “associated together,”—joined in one body. By
that act, they stood forth, the church of Jerusalem, divested
of the unbelieving elements. Accordingly, we read,
immediately after, that “the Lord added to the church
daily such as should be saved.”—Vs. 47. For all the purposes
of the occasion, on the day of Pentecost, there was
no farther organization necessary than that which existed
in the sanhedrim of the apostles, men inspired of the
Holy Ghost, and endowed by the Lord Jesus with authority
for presiding over his church in this transition period
of her history.
.fn 123
Dale’s Christic Baptism, p. 162.
.fn-
The baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost has
been already illustrated fully. That there was also a ritual
baptism, with water, I venture to regard as equally
certain. (1.) We have just seen that the apostolic commission
contained a command to baptize the disciples.
Peter, therefore, in inviting his hearers to repent and be
baptized, was simply following the literal terms of his instructions.
And had he omitted baptism,—that ritual
baptism which alone the apostles could administer—he
would have been acting in direct violation of his commission.
(2.) In his exhortation, the baptism is secondary to
repentance. This is the proper order of ritual baptism,
which is predicated on profession of repentance. But it is
the reverse as to the real baptism, which precedes repentance
.bn 443.png
.pn +1
and is its cause. (3.) The language used in describing
the result of the exhortation is conclusive.—“Then they
that gladly received his word were baptized.” The glad reception
of the word is stated as the antecedent ground of
receiving the baptism; the reverse, again, of the order in
real baptism. (4.) In the case of Cornelius and his house,
Peter based their baptizing with water upon the fact that
the spiritual phenomena were identical with those of the
day of Pentecost. “The Holy Ghost fell on them as on
us at the beginning.”—“Can any man forbid the water,
that these should not be baptized, which have received the
Holy Ghost, as well as we?”—Acts x, 47; xi, 15. This
argument would have been wholly inappropriate had there
been no water baptism on Pentecost.
But Dr. Dale urges another objection.—“While the
reception of these thousands that day into the church by
dipping into water, is improbable to absurdity, for reasons
both moral and physical, their reception by any ritual form
whatever, is, for moral considerations mainly, not without
embarrassment. These thousands were all personally strangers
to the apostles, mostly from foreign lands, Parthians,
Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Cretes, Arabians, etc.
An hour before, they were mockers of the work of the
Holy Ghost, and declared the apostles to be drunk. Now,
is there moral fitness in the reception of such men into the
church, by a rite without any personal intercourse, to learn
their moral condition? But the passage states that the
baptism was grounded in the ‘glad reception of the word’
preached. If the baptism was the work of the apostles,
then this knowledge must also be the knowledge of the
apostles; and if so, then it must have been obtained, either
by divine illumination, or by personal intercourse touching
repentance and faith, the knowledge of Christ and the duty
of baptism; then, how could the addition of three thousand
be made ‘that day?’”[124] The theory that, the baptism here
.bn 444.png
.pn +1
in question was spiritual and not ritual, is, here, self-condemned,
by the statement which truly represents it to
have been “grounded in the glad reception of the word
preached.” That word was, “Repent and be baptized.”
Its glad reception, therefore is equivalent to the exercise of
repentance, which is the immediate fruit of the spiritual
baptism, and therefore of necessity follows, but can not
precede it. The baptism, therefore, which was “grounded
in the glad reception of the word,” can have been no other
than ritual baptism. The fundamental fallacy of the argument
lies in the assumption, which we have before noticed,
that the Pentecostal transactions were incident to the organizing
of a new church; instead of being, as we have shown,
the separating of the existing church from the corrupt and
ungodly elements which had taken possession of it.
.fn 124
“Christic Baptism,” p. 158.
.fn-
It is asserted respecting the three thousand that, “an
hour before, they were mockers of the work of the Holy
Spirit.” A kindred statement is frequently heard, in illustration
of the fickleness of the multitude,—that those who
yesterday filled the air with shouts of “Hosanna!” to-day
cry, “Away with him.” Both representations are erroneous,
and tend to obscure the true state of the case. In the
Pentecostal scene, there were “some” mockers, and possibly,
nay, probably some of these were made trophies of
grace that day. But to represent the assembly as characteristically
of that class, involves an utter misconception
of the case as expressly stated by the sacred historian. He
represents them as “Jews, devout men, out of every nation
under heaven.”—Acts ii, 5. It was they, who came thronging
to the assembly of the apostles. It was characteristically
they who gladly received the word and were baptized. Nor
is the language of Peter to them incongruous to this view.
“Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands, have crucified
and slain.”—v. 23. Their rulers had done it, and the
whole people were responsible and polluted with the crime
of his blood, until they purged themselves, by separation
.bn 445.png
.pn +1
and baptism. So, the multitude who cried, “Hosanna!” were
“the multitude of the disciples,” from Galilee. (Luke xix,
37; compare Ib. xxii, 59.) For fear of the people, the conspirators
seized Jesus by betrayal, by night; and the cry
against him was uttered, at the instigation of the rulers
and priests, by their retainers and dependents. (Mark xv,
11.) “It was early,” when they brought Jesus before Pilate.
(John xviii, 28.) And it is probable that the sentence
was already passed and Jesus in the hands of the executioners,
before the Galileans who were accustomed, at
the feasts, to encamp on Olivet, had any knowledge of the
fearful tragedy of that day. These facts are all of importance,
in order to a just conception of the real nature of
the separation which began in Jerusalem on the day of
Pentecost, and ultimately extended throughout Judea, Galilee,
and Samaria, and to all parts of the world, where a
synagogue of the Jews was to be found. We do no service
to the truth, by underestimating the number of those
who in that day, were waiting for the consolation of Israel,
and “gladly received the word” of the rising of the Sun
of righteousness, in the person of the Lord Jesus.
From the foregoing considerations, we conclude it to be
certain that the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost
were baptized with water. The order of occurrences,
as it appears from the record was this: The preaching of
Peter was accompanied with the promised power, the baptism
of the Spirit being bestowed upon his hearers, by the
Lord Jesus. By that baptism was given to them repentance
and remission of sins. (Acts v, 31.) Upon their
correspondent profession, they were baptized with water;
and thereupon, they received the gifts of tongues and of
prophecy, in fulfillment of the promise of Christ (Mark
xvi, 17), and in accordance with the assurance given them
by Peter;—“Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to
you and to your children,”—the promise, to wit, which he
.bn 446.png
.pn +1
had before quoted from Joel, in explanation of the Pentecostal
signs.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCIV.—Symbolic Meaning of this Baptism.
The rite of immersion is inseparably identified with the
theory that ritual baptism is designed to symbolize the
burial of the Lord Jesus. By the advocates of this theory,
the baptism administered to the converts of Pentecost is
held to have been the original of the institution. By all,
that baptism must be recognized as a most conspicuous and
normal exemplification of the rite. We are perfectly willing
to stake the whole issue upon the question of the symbolic
meaning of the ordinance, as determined by the Scriptural
statements concerning that baptism.
It has been shown that the Old Testament baptisms
symbolized the gift from on high of the Spirit of life from
God. We have seen that John administered his baptism
as an announcement and symbol of that which the coming
One should dispense,—the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
We have heard the Lord Jesus appropriate to himself the
testimonies of John, and promise their fulfillment, in terms
by which the baptism to be administered by him was distinctly
identified as the antitype of that of John. “John
truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost.”—Acts i, 5. We have seen the promise
fulfilled, and heard the testimony of Peter, that therein
was accomplished the prophecy of Joel,—a prophecy in
which and the kindred language of the other prophets, the
baptisms of the Old Testament were so clearly interpreted.
We have seen that his baptizing office was the great end
of Christ’s exaltation, and the consummate function of his
scepter,—that by which he begins, carries on, and accomplishes
the salvation and the glory of his people; and that
this, his exaltation and saving power, were, on the day of
Pentecost, preached as the express ground of the call to
repent and be baptized, for his name’s sake. In view of
.bn 447.png
.pn +1
these facts, how is it possible, by argument or by sophistry,
to avoid the conclusion that the ritual baptism to which
Peter’s hearers were thus called, was designed to signify
that real baptism with which it was thus so closely identified?
But the evidence is more specific.
1. The sum and substance of the preaching of John
and of Jesus was the same, and reported by the evangelists
in the same words:—“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand.”
2. In both cases, this preaching was accompanied with
a ritual baptism, which was as identical as was the preaching.
Else, have we a house divided against itself,—the
one doctrine, attested by two rival rites, which, under one
and the same name, competed for acceptance with the Jews!
3. Of this baptism, Paul says, that “John verily baptized
with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people,
that they should believe on Him which should come
after, that is on Christ Jesus.”—Acts xix, 4. Of it, Mark
and Luke state that “John did baptize in the wilderness
and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.”—Mark i, 4; Luke iii, 3. And John himself declares,—“I
indeed baptize you with water, unto repentance:
but He ... shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire.”—Matt, iii, 11. It thus appears that this
baptism was identified with a doctrine the cardinal elements
of which are (1) repentance, and (2) faith in the Lord Jesus;
as the conditions precedent; and (3) the remission of sins, as
the result. These were what the ordinance meant. From
them it took its name,—“The baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins.”
4. On the day of Pentecost, this, precisely, was the
preaching and baptism of Peter. “Repent, and be baptized
every one of you, for the name’s sake of Jesus Christ,
unto the remission of sins.”—Acts ii, 38.
5. Peter had already proclaimed that the Lord Jesus,
“being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
.bn 448.png
.pn +1
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”—Ib. 33.
A few days afterward, he explained more precisely to the
rulers, the significance of this great fact.—“Him hath God
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour,
for to give to Israel repentance and (aphesin hamartiōn) remission
of sins.”—Ib. v, 31.
From these things it irrefragably follows, (1) that
whereas, Christ’s baptizing office is fulfilled by shedding
down his Spirit upon his people, the baptisms of John and
the disciples prior to the day of Pentecost, as well as that
administered by Peter and the twelve on that day, were
all proclaimed symbols of this the great reality; (2) that,
while the intent and end of Christ’s baptism is, through
the bestowal of the Spirit, to give repentance, faith, and
the remission of sins—the other baptisms and conspicuously,
that of the apostles on Pentecost, were designed to signify
and bear witness to that very thing. Not only are these
conclusions manifest and incontrovertible; but by them
and the facts on which they rest the idea of the burial of
Christ, as included in the symbolism of baptism, is not
merely ignored, but utterly excluded, as incongruous and
unmeaning, in that connection.
This impregnable conclusion is further fortified by the
fact already shown, that in this meaning of the rite and
in it only can be reconciled the two forms of expression,
“Baptizing into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost;” and,—“into the name of the
Lord Jesus.” Baptism shows forth the Triune Godhead
united in the salvation of man, and uniting the saved with
that blessed Godhead.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCV.—The Mode of the ritual Baptism on Pentecost.
As to the mode of the baptism of that day the evidence
is not doubtful. The assembled throng were “Jews, devout
men out of every nation,”—men whose cherished faith
.bn 449.png
.pn +1
and hopes all centered on Moses and the covenant made
and sealed with their fathers at Sinai. The baptismal seal
of that covenant, perpetuated in the sprinkled water of
separation, was familiar to them everywhere. They were
conversant with the prophecies which assured them that
in the latter days God would “sprinkle clean water upon
them,”—that the Messiah would “sprinkle many nations,”
and “pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh.” They are
now told by the apostles that these prophecies are announcements
of the baptizing office of the Lord Jesus,—that he,
being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, had,
in the exercise of his baptizing office, shed forth this,
which they saw and heard. And, in response to their
penitent cry, they are required to be “baptized for the
name’s sake of the Lord Jesus.” Is it possible to avoid
the conclusion that the baptism thus propounded was the
sprinkled baptism which was familiar to them all? Or, are
we to accept the opposite assumption? Then must Peter
have explained to the multitude.—“Our fathers, at Sinai,
were sealed to the covenant with the sprinkled blood and
water. In all generations of our race, the same seal has
been familiar, in the same office; as it is, this day, to you.
The prophets have explained the affusion of water as being
a symbol of the official work of the Messiah. In that
office and work, the reality of the Sinai rite is to-day fulfilled.
And now, ye are to be baptized into the name of
the Lord Jesus; but with another baptism,—a baptism
dislocated from all relation to the past,—a baptism severed
from all analogy, even, or association of ideas with that of
the Spirit, which is this day dispensed by the Lord Jesus.
He baptizes by outpouring; but ye must be dipped. He
baptizes by a pouring out of the Spirit, of which, in the
prophecies, and in the baptisms of our fathers, living water
was the constant symbol; but to you, dipped in that living
water, it is to become the symbol of the sepulchre of
.bn 450.png
.pn +1
Joseph, in which the body of Jesus was laid. His baptism
gives repentance and remission of sins; and the baptism
to be received by you might seem to mean this very
thing; for it is conditioned upon repentance and is ‘unto
remission.’ But it means not that; but the burial of the
dead body of Jesus.”
And now, where shall the water be found, for the immersion
of these thousands? And by what miracle shall the
rite be performed, “decently and in order,” within the hours
of that day? For, not only is the record specific, which
limits the time,—but the supposition of a delay implies the
encumbrance of after time, of which each day had its own
duties and labors, its own converts and baptisms. It is
demonstrably possible for the twelve apostles to have baptized
the entire multitude by sprinkling in the ordinary
manner in which we administer the rite within four or five
hours. But such was not, as I conceive, the manner of the
administration. No mere rite could without disparagement
endure such repetition for hour after hour. The reiteration
must obscure and obliterate the spiritual significance
of the rite. The attention of the witnesses would become
exhausted and diverted, and the monotony of the form
would inevitably become a weariness and an offense. By
such a manner of observance, the very intent of the ordinance
would be lost, and this as much in one form, as in
another.
But we are not reduced to the necessity of encountering
these obvious embarrassments. We have seen the millions
of Israel baptized by Moses, in the hours of one morning,
they receiving the rite either collectively in one body,
or by tribe-families or tribes. It is very probable that this
was the manner in which the rite was ordinarily administered
by John to the throngs that attended on his ministry,
and by the disciples of Christ, when he “made and baptized
more disciples than John.” The Jews were familiar
with the use of the hyssop bush as appointed in the law,
.bn 451.png
.pn +1
for administering the rite. There was nothing in the nature
of the ordinance, nor in the circumstances of the occasion,
to render inappropriate or improbable a resort to
that mode. On the contrary, every consideration, of convenience,
of dignity, propriety and edification, united to
commend it as the most suitable way, the water being
sprinkled with a hyssop bush, and the recipients of the
rite presenting themselves in companies of suitable size, by
scores or by hundreds. Thus was set forth by a joint baptism
the doctrine of Paul. “By one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body.”—1 Cor. xii, 13.
Such is the conclusion to which the analogy of the
Scriptures points. Such, I doubt not, was the form of
administration that day. For the present purpose, however,
this much is clear and sufficient,—that the record
of Pentecost contains nothing incongruous to the previous
history and doctrine of baptism,—that on the contrary,
the Spirit-baptism of that day and all the circumstances,
concur to the same conclusion which the foregoing history
indicates. “Not immersion; but affusion”—is the unambiguous
voice of Pentecost.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCVI.—Other Cases Illustrating the Mode.
The next case that illustrates the mode, is the baptism
of the eunuch. “As they went on their way, they came
unto a certain water. And the eunuch said, See, here is
water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?... And he
commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he
baptized him. And when they were come up out of the
water.”—Acts viii, 36-39. To what has been said already
concerning this passage, one or two points only need be
added. Dr. Dale has pointed out the fact that the verb
(katebēsan), “they went down,” has primary reference to
the chariot, out of which they descended. He refers to
the Septuagint of Judges iv, 15, “And Sisera (katebē)
.bn 452.png
.pn +1
stepped down from his chariot;” and to Matt. xiv, 29,—“Peter
(katabas) stepping down from the boat walked on
the water, to go to Jesus.” The essential point, however,
is that the descent was not the baptism,—that, with the
style of clothing, then as now, worn in the east, nothing
would have been more natural and convenient than that
they should have stepped into the water, as the most convenient
way of access, even though the baptism was to be
performed by sprinkling or pouring. “The place” (periochē,
the section), which the eunuch was reading, begins with
Isa. lii, 13, and includes the whole of liii. It is a continuous
prophecy of the Messiah, under the designation of
God’s servant. In the fifty-third chapter, down to the
eleventh verse the pronoun “he” is used to designate the
subject of the account. It refers back to lii, 13, to which
we must look for the theme of the prophecy. “Behold
my servant shall deal prudently.” When, therefore, the
eunuch read liii, 7, 8,—“He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter,” and asked, “Of whom speaketh the prophet
this?” Philip must of necessity have turned back to the
beginning of the section, for the answer. In so doing, he
finds this among the first things said of the person described:—“As
many were astonied at thee, his visage was
so marred more than any man, and his form more than
the sons of men, ... so shall he sprinkle many nations.”—lii,
14, 15. This prophecy, thus coinciding with that of Joel,
which was the text of Peter’s Pentecostal discourse, could
not be overlooked by Philip, in his instructions to the eunuch.
The latter, although himself a Jew, was identified
with a Gentile nation. He was chamberlain, or treasurer,
to Candace, the queen of Meroe, in upper Egypt.[125] The
prophecy, therefore, “So shall he sprinkle many nations,”
.bn 453.png
.pn +1
could not fail to arrest his attention and elicit the story
of Pentecost, as the beginning of redemption to the Gentiles.
That, with Christ’s baptizing office brought thus into
view, his ordinance concerning ritual baptism should be
announced, was not only a necessary result of the circumstances,
but was an essential part of that office which
Philip was to perform. “Disciple all nations, baptizing
them.” In favor of the hypothesis that the eunuch was
immersed, there is nothing but the fact that they went
down to, or into the water. On behalf of his being
sprinkled, is the explicit testimony of the prophet as to
the manner of the real baptism, of which the ritual ordinance
is the symbol.
.fn 125
Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi, 35) states this kingdom of which
Meroe, on an island in the Nile, was the chief city, to have
been “now for a long time,” governed by queens, who transmitted
to each other the name of Candace.
.fn-
2. The baptism of the apostle Paul next presents itself.
Of it we have two brief accounts which are mutually supplementary.
(Acts ix, 10-20; xxii, 12-16.) After his
vision of Jesus, on the way, he had lain for three days in
the house of Judas, in Damascus, blind, fasting and prostrate.
To him Ananias was sent and said to him—“And
now, why tarriest thou?” Why liest thou thus prostrate
and desponding? “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”—Acts xxii, 16.
Literally “(Anastas, baptisai, kai apolusai), Rising, be baptized,
and let thy sins be washed away, calling upon the name
of the Lord.” Says Alexander, “Be baptized, is not a passive,
as in ii, 38, but the middle voice of the same verb,
strictly meaning, ‘baptize thyself,’ or, rather, ‘cause thyself
to be baptized,’ or suffer (some one) to baptize thee.
The form of the next verb [apolusai] is the same, but can
not be so easily expressed in English; as it has a noun dependent
on it. This peculiarity of form is only so far of
importance as it shows that Paul was to wash away his
sins in the same sense that he was to baptize himself; i. e.
by consenting to receive both from another. As his body
was to be baptized by man; so, his sins were to be washed
away by God. The identity, or even the inseparable union,
.bn 454.png
.pn +1
of the two effects, is so far from being here affirmed, that
they are rather held apart, as things connected by the natural
relation of type and antitype, yet perfectly distinguishable
in themselves, and easily separable in experience.”[126]
The exhortation, “Let thy sins be washed away,”
is intimately dependent upon the next clause,—“calling
upon the name of the Lord.”—Calling not as a mere reverential
invocation; nor as a mere profession or act of faith.
But “calling on him to purge away thy sins with the washing
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; and
accepting the baptism of water as the symbol and pledge
of the other.”
.fn 126
Alexander, in loco.
.fn-
In the parallel account, it is stated that “he received
sight forthwith (kai anastas, ebaptisthe) and rising up, was
baptized.”—Acts ix, 18. Thus, in both of these accounts,
the same form of expression is used as to the manner of
the baptism,—a form which indicates that the administration
was immediate, upon his rising from his couch. “Rising
up, be baptized.” “And he, rising up, was baptized.”
In the original, the force of the expressions is even stronger,
to the same effect. The circumstances coincide with this
interpretation. The prostration, resulting from the vision by
the way, from the blindness, and the three days in which he
was “without sight, and neither did eat nor drink” (Acts ix,
9), must have been very great; and it was not until after his
baptism that “he received meat and was strengthened.”—Ib.
19. There is no intimation of leaving the place. There
is no word of such preparation as an immersion would require.
But the whole case stands in the expression twice
employed, from which but one meaning can be deduced,—that
he was baptized immediately, in his chamber, as he
rose from his couch, and stood before Ananias. Whatever
the mode, it can not have been immersion.
It has been asserted that Paul’s baptism was not ritual
but spiritual. The supposition is encumbered with the
.bn 455.png
.pn +1
same difficulties which attend the like idea respecting the
baptism of Pentecost. The occasion of Ananias being sent
to him was the fact attested by the Lord Jesus,—“Behold
he prayeth.”—Prayer so attested lacked neither repentance
nor faith. He had, therefore, already received the baptism
of the Spirit,—that is his renewing grace; although not his
miraculous gifts. Moreover, the baptism which he received
in his chamber was something to which the ministry of
Ananias was requisite, and for which his rising from his
couch was preparatory. None of these things harmonize
with the idea that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Nor was it implied in the language of Ananias,—“That
thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy
Ghost.”—Acts ix, 17. With this is to be compared the
previous statement concerning him, made in vision by Jesus
to Ananias, “He hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias
coming and putting his hand upon him, that he might
receive his sight.”—Ib. 12. It was through the laying on
of the hands of Ananias that Paul’s sight was restored and
the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred upon him.
Such was the ordinary manner, as we have already seen,
of the imparting of those gifts; which was undoubtedly the
nature of the present endowment of Saul of Tarsus.
3. The baptism of the house of Cornelius is equally
unfavorable to the idea of immersion. (Acts x, 44-48.)
The words of Peter admit of but one construction. “Can
any man forbid (to udōr) the water; that these should not
be baptized.”—Acts x, 47. We have already pointed out
that this language means that the water, as an instrument,
was to be brought to the place, in order to the baptism.
Moreover, the baptism of this company, thus, with water,
was by Peter expressly predicated upon the fact that they
had been already baptized with the Holy Ghost, by his
outpouring upon them. “The Holy Ghost fell upon all
them which heard.” “On the Gentiles also was poured
out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” “Can any man forbid
.bn 456.png
.pn +1
the water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”—Acts x, 44, 45, 47.
And lest there should be any possible doubt about the
meaning of all this, Peter explains himself to the church
in Jerusalem,—“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.”—Ib. xi, 16. Here
again the facts are decisive in favor of affusion.
4. The Philippian jailer and his family are the only remaining
instance in which illustrative circumstances are
recorded. (Acts xvi, 25-34.) As bearing upon the mode,
these are, that at midnight, in the jail, upon his professed
repentance and faith, the jailer was baptized, “he and all
his straightway.”—Acts xvi, 33. This too was before he
had taken Paul and Silas out of the jail proper, into his
own apartments. The impossibility of the rite, administered
in such circumstances, having been immersion, would seem
evident. Nor is it admissible, as proposed by Baptist
writers, to suppose that the jailer and his family with the
prisoners went out to the river and were there immersed.
The suggestion is not only contradicted by the record,
which describes the baptism as having been (parachrēma)
“straightway,” with neither time nor action intervening.
But it would have been an act of official dereliction, involving
peril to the jailer’s life, and rendering the message
of Paul to the magistrates, the next day, an impudent pretence.
They sent the sergeants to the jailer, saying, “Let
these men go.” “But Paul said unto them, They have
beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have
cast us into prison. And now do they thrust us out privily?
Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and
fetch us out.”—Ib. 37. Is this the language of men who
had already stolen out of the prison, by night?
We have thus passed in review every instance of
Christian baptism mentioned in the New Testament, in
which any particulars are given. The only other cases
.bn 457.png
.pn +1
named are the Samaritans (Acts viii, 12, 13, 15), Lydia
(Ib. xvi, 15), the Corinthians (Ib. xviii, 8; 1 Cor. i, 14-17),
and the twelve disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts xix,
1-5). Of them we are only informed that they were baptized.
As to the cases which we have examined it is certainly
remarkable and significant that with the exception
of the eunuch, they each present physical difficulties in the
way of immersion, serious if not insurmountable; and that
in the excepted case, the utmost that can be said is, that
nothing appears to render immersion physically impossible;
while the connection of the occasion points distinctly to a
sprinkled baptism.
The cumulative argument arising out of these baptisms
is overwhelming. They can not have been by immersion.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCVII.—“Baptized into Moses.”
The baptism of Israel into Moses, is pertinent here, as
illustrating the apostolic style of conception and language
on the subject. “All our fathers were under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized (eis)
into Moses, (en) by the cloud and (en) by the sea.”—1 Cor.
x, 1, 2.
We have already seen the typical relation which Moses
and Israel, and the covenant with them sustained to the
Lord Jesus and the true Israel, and the better covenant,
as expounded by Paul to the Hebrews. The language here
cited from the same apostle derives its form from the same
conception. Israel in the bondage of Egypt,—Moses sent
to them as a deliverer,—the passage out of the land of
bondage, through the Red Sea,—the destruction of Pharaoh
in the sea and the cutting off thus of Israel from all dependence
or subjection to him,—their consequent faith in
Moses and submission to his authority,—the covenant made
with them through him as Mediator,—their nourishment
in the wilderness on the bread of heaven, and the water
from the Rock,—and their final passage through the Jordan
.bn 458.png
.pn +1
and entrance into the promised land,—are the elements
of a typical system the antitypes of which are to be sought,
not in the visible church and its ritual ordinances, but in
Christ and his body, the invisible church, and the spiritual
and heavenly realities which it enjoys. According to this
conception, the “baptism into Moses” finds its antitype in
the baptism into Christ, by which his people are emancipated
from the bondage of Satan and brought under the
yoke of Christ. And as that baptism is instrumentally
accomplished by the Spirit, whereby they all are baptized
into one body of which Christ is the Head, so the baptism
of Israel was instrumentally effected “by the cloud and by
the sea;” they being by the cloud protected from the Egyptians
and directed through the receding sea; while “the
Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians, through the
pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the Egyptians,
and took off their chariot wheels,” and the returning sea
swallowed them up.—Ex. xiv, 23-28. Here was an immersion.
But it was of the Egyptians. Here was a baptism,—of
the children of Israel,—into Moses,—not into
water,—not into cloud, or sea or both together. There
were not two baptisms, but one, and in order to make it
an immersion “in the cloud and in the sea,” the baptism
“into Moses” must be obliterated. The Baptist figment
which we have seen stated by Dr. Kendrick, of the “double
wall of water rolled up on each side, and the column of
fiery cloud stretching its enshrouding folds above them,” is
not merely an idle imagination. But it is an imagination
in direct and palpable contradiction to the record of Moses.
The Israelites were indeed under the cloud. But it was before
they entered the sea, and not during their march through
it. “The Angel of God which went before the camp of
Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of
the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind
them. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians
and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness
.bn 459.png
.pn +1
to them; but it gave light by night to these; so that the
one came not near the other all the night. And Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea ... and the waters
were divided. And the children of Israel went into the
midst of the sea.”—Ex. xiv, 19-22. Thus, before the sea
was divided, Israel were “under the cloud,” as it passed
back from their front, to become an intercepting barrier
between them and the pursuing host. But, during the
march through the sea, the cloud was between the two
hosts, and not “enshrouding” Israel above. Thus, as by
the touch of Ithuriel’s spear, the figment of immersion
vanishes in the presence of the word of truth, and in its
stead appear the ransomed tribes marching upon the sands
between walls of water, miles apart, the open heavens
above them and the cloud moving as a protecting curtain,
in their rear. The attempt to find immersion here, is futile.
That the preposition, en, is rightly here translated, by,
as indicating the instrumental cause, in the baptism, is
illustrated by an example a little farther on in the same
epistle. “By one Spirit, are we all baptized into one
body.”—1 Cor. xii, 13. Here, Christ is the Baptizer, the
Spirit is the instrument, and union with Christ and his
body the result. So, of Israel, Jehovah was the Baptizer,
the cloud and the sea were the instruments, and union with
Moses the result. Just before, they had been in a state of
open mutiny. (Ex. xiv, 11, 12.) But now, says the record,
“the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the
Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the
sea-shore. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord
did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared the Lord,
and believed the Lord and his servant Moses.”—Ib. 30,
31. Their changed state of mind was attested by the song
of their triumph which rang out over the unconscious and
now peaceful waters. “Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath
triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he
thrown into the sea.”—Ib. xv, 1-21. Thus have we a signal
.bn 460.png
.pn +1
example of such a change of state or experience as
even Dr. Conant admits to have been designated by the
word, baptizo. From under the power and fear of Pharaoh,
they came into the trust and obedience of Moses. They
were “baptized into Moses.” The only intimation of instrumental
mode in this baptism, to be found in the Scriptures,
occurs in the Psalmist’s vivid description of the
scene. “The clouds poured out water, the skies sent out
a sound, thine arrows also went abroad.”—Ps. lxxvii, 17.
.bn 461.png
.pn +1
.sp 5
.h3
Part XVI. | THE FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCVIII.—Christ and the Children.
At this stage of our inquiry, we note the following
points which have important bearings upon the relation
of the children to the church. (1.) We have seen
that, in the establishing of the covenant with Abraham,—the
promises of which were blessings to the natural offspring
of the patriarch, and through them, salvation to
the world,—its seal was set upon all the males of his household,—through
whom the descent was to be counted,—at
the age of eight days. (2.) We have seen that in the Sinai
covenant, by which in fulfillment of the promises to
Abraham, the church was constituted in the family of
Israel, the same fundamental principles of family unity
and parental headship were recognized and incorporated in
the constitution of the church; and that in accordance
therewith, the children and bondservants, both male and
female, were included in its terms, with the family head;
endowed with all its rights and privileges; bound under its
responsibilities; and sealed with its baptismal seal. (3.)
We have seen that it was into this church, as thus constituted
and existing, and without change in its constitutional
principles, or form of organization, that through the
ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles were graffed; thus
fulfilling the promise to Abraham, that in his seed should
all families of the earth be blessed; a promise fulfilled
not only in salvation accomplished through the promised
Seed of Abraham, but in the reception thus of the Gentiles
into the bosom of the church of Israel.
.bn 462.png
.pn +1
It now remains to be ascertained whether there is any
thing in the principles of the gospel, as set forth in the
New Testament, in the practical rules therein recorded, or in
the facts of its history, to require or justify the extruding
of the children from the place and privileges hitherto enjoyed;—whether
there is any thing to lead us to the conclusion
that the coming of Christ has straitened the grace
of God, and withdrawn from the babes of us Gentiles that
privilege of acceptance which was enjoyed by the little
ones of Israel, from the day of the covenant at Sinai.
1. As the place of the children was originally conferred
and secured by express statute and repeated enactments of
confirmation, we have a right to expect the abrogation
of the privileges thus established to be accomplished in
terms as specific and imperative as were the laws by which
they were conferred. But no one has ever pretended to
produce such a statute of abrogation. Confessedly the New
Testament is absolutely silent as to such an act,—a silence
fatal to the theories which deny a place to the babes in
the family of God.
2. The facts and principles set forth in the New Testament
supply no argument for the exclusion of the children.
First, is that touching incident which is recorded with
more or less fullness in each of the synoptical gospels. In
reply to the question who of the apostles should be greatest
in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, being in a house in
Capernaum,—probably in the house of one of them, several
of whom lived there,—he “called a little child unto
him and set him in the midst of them,”—“and (enagkalisamenos)
having folded it in his arms, he said unto them,”
“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as
this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in
my name receiveth me.”—Matt. xviii, 1-5; Mark ix, 36;
.bn 463.png
.pn +1
Luke ix, 46-48. With this is to be connected that kindred
fact which occurred a few days afterward, and is also recorded
in each of the three synoptical gospels. “Then
were there brought unto him little children, that he should
put his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked
them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children and forbid
them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of
heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed
thence.”—Matt. xix, 13-15. Mark and Luke add that he
said, “Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive
the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter
therein. And (enagkalisamenos) folding them in his arms, he
put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”—Mark x,
13-16; Luke xviii, 15-17. Of these little children, Luke
tells us that they were (brephē) babes. That these incidents
in the life of our Savior were of special significance is indicated
by the fact that they are both given by each of the
evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. As to their meaning,—(1.)
These children all were, at the time, actual members
of that visible kingdom of God the church of Israel,
in the bosom of which Jesus himself lived and died. (2.)
That church was the type and representative of the invisible
church and kingdom. (3.) Of all members of the visible
church, Jesus selects the little child of the first incident
and the babes of the second, as the fittest types or
representatives of the temper and spirit which will have
admittance and honor in the heavenly kingdom. (4.) He
was much displeased, that his disciples should attempt to
prevent their being brought, in their unconsciousness and
helplessness, into his personal presence, for recognition and
a blessing from him. (5.) Both the child in the house, and
the babes brought to him, he folded in his arms, and upon
the latter he laid his hands and blessed them. He was the
great Shepherd, as himself testifies,—“I am the good
Shepherd.”—John x, 11. Of him the prophet wrote,—“He
shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them
.bn 464.png
.pn +1
in his bosom.”—Isa. xl, 11. And we ask,—Can any one
venture to deny that, by these acts, so distinctly referring
to the prophecy, Jesus designed to recognize and claim the
babes as lambs of his fold? As before remarked, these
babes were undeniably members of the church, at the time
of these occurrences. If the Lord Jesus designed to leave
them in undisturbed possession of the rights and privileges
heretofore enjoyed, with his benediction added thereto,
all this is clear and intelligible. But, if they were to
be deprived and excluded, how are these things to be
reconciled?
Another incident, in circumstances even more ,
presents itself. After his resurrection, Jesus met
with his disciples at the Sea of Galilee. “When they had
dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea,
Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him,
Feed my lambs.”—John xxi, 15. Peter was present in
the house in Capernaum, when Jesus took the child in his
arms. Nay, it is not improbable that it was Peter’s house,
and Peter’s child. He was present when the babes were
brought for blessing, and saw and heard all that then occurred.
He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews,—the chief
apostle of the circumcision. When he received this charge
from the Master, in which were commended to his love
and care, first, the lambs, and afterward the sheep; and
when he pondered this charge and legacy, in the light of
the fifteen centuries during which the place of the children
had been unquestioned and unquestionable, and in remembrance
of those demonstrative facts which he had seen and
heard,—would he understand it as implying a command to
purge and renovate the fold, by the exclusion of the lambs?
And when, a few days after, or, possibly on this very
same occasion, he as the apostle through whom the doors
of the gospel were to be opened to the Gentiles, with the
rest, received that great command,—“Go disciple all nations,
.bn 465.png
.pn +1
baptizing them,”—are we to conceive it possible that
he understood it to mean that he must be very tender of
the Jewish lambs, bringing them into the fold and school
of Christ, but must drive out the children of the Gentiles
as unclean?
3. Under the ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles
were called and graffed into the church of Israel. In the
church, thus constituted as already shown, some congregations
were composed of Jews alone, some, of Gentiles, and
some, of the two classes associated together; but in them
all Jewish influences were pervasive and paramount. Now,
is it to be imagined that without a word of command from
Christ or the apostles, the Jewish believers would unanimously,
gratuitously, and in silence, surrender the place of
their children in the church, just at the moment when the
privileges thereto incident had become so much more
manifest, by the coming of Christ, and the brightness, by
his rising, shed upon the gospel day? And even if such a
thing could be imagined possible, what else would it have
been but a wicked apostasy and rejection of the grace given
them? But, that no such apostasy did take place, is assuredly
testified by the silence of the record, and by all
the circumstances. That, in the churches of the circumcision,
and among Jewish believers everywhere, the children
occupied their old status is beyond controversy or question.
Of this, their circumcision is of itself conclusive proof.
And as, from the days of Abraham, that rite certified
them seed of the patriarch and heirs of the promises,—and
at Sinai they were introduced, by baptism, into the
pale of the church and the privileges of that covenant,—so
their continued enjoyment alike of the privileges and the
seals must stand forever certain, till some prophet shall
arise to tell us when, and how, and for what cause, they
were divested of rights once bestowed by Him whose “gifts
and callings are without repentance.”
And if, by a special clause in the very covenant of
.bn 466.png
.pn +1
Sinai itself, grace to the Gentiles was reserved, in harmony
with abundant grace to Israel, the baptism of Israel’s
babes into the fold of that covenant, that day, was a foretokening
and pledge of the same grace to the children of the
Gentiles, when the times of the Gentiles shall have come.
They are not the seed of Abraham, and therefore receive
not the seal of his covenant in their flesh. But baptism is
theirs,—the seal of the Sinai covenant, in which, now, the
rights of the Gentiles are equal. “For there is no difference
between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord
over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”—Rom. x, 12.
.sp 2
.h4
Section XCIX.—“Else were your Children unclean but now\
are they Holy.”
We have the express testimony of inspiration, to the
children’s right within the pale of the church. Says Paul
to the Corinthians,—“The unbelieving husband is sanctified
by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by
the husband. Else were your children unclean; but now
are they holy.”—1 Cor. vii, 14. The significance of this
declaration, as concerning the children, depends upon the
meaning of the words, unclean (akathartoi), and holy
Both of them come into the New Testament, from the Septuagint
version of the Old. In the Greek of that version,
the word (akathartos) does not appear in the books of Moses
until we come to the laws of ritual uncleanness and
purifying, which have been so largely discussed in these
pages. Then, beginning with the fifth chapter of Leviticus,
it occurs in that book in about eighty-seven places, in
all of which it designates the ritually unclean; being applied
alike to things and persons. In Numbers and Deuteronomy,
it appears about thirty times, in the same sense.
In the entire Old Testament, the word is used about one
hundred and forty times; and with the exception of half a
dozen passages in which it indicates the moral offensiveness
of sin, it is invariably employed in one and the same
.bn 467.png
.pn +1
sense,—to designate persons and things that by virtue of
ritual defilements were excluded from the pale of the covenant
and the sanctuary. If we add to this the related
noun (akatharsia) the force of these considerations is greatly
increased. It, in like manner, first occurs in Leviticus, as
the designation of the uncleannesses which were described
by the adjective (akathartos), unclean. It occurs about fifty
times, and with a few exceptions in which it describes the
vileness of sin, is constantly used in the ritual sense.
The other word (hagios) holy, has a history and meaning,
equally clear and well defined. It has primary reference
to the sum of the divine perfections, in view of which God
is designated, the holy One. Thence, it is transferred to
designate those moral attributes in men which are after the
likeness of God’s holiness; as, in the admonition which is
often repeated in the books of Moses, “Be ye holy, for I
am holy.” Again, it is used to denote the relation sustained
to God by things devoted to his use or service.
Thus, the tabernacle and all its parts and furniture were
holy. In this sense, the word was used in the covenant
with Israel. “Ye shall be unto me a holy nation (ethnos
hagion.”)—Ex. xix, 6. The acceptance of this covenant,
and the seal of baptism by which it was confirmed established
Israel as “holy” unto the Lord. Prior to that covenant
the word had never been applied to men. But from
that transaction forward Israel was recognized in that character.
Thus, alluding to the covenant, Moses says to them,—“Thou
art a holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord
thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself
above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”—Deut.
vii, 6. Upon this title and the covenant ground of
it, Moses insists with great emphasis, recurring to the theme
again and again. (See Deut. xiv, 2, 21; xxvi, 19; xxviii,
9.) It is in view of this covenant provision that the distinctive
appellation of Israel in the prophets is, “the holy
people;” and to the same source is to be referred the familiar
.bn 468.png
.pn +1
designation of “saints,” that is, holy ones, which is constantly
employed, especially in the Psalms. Thus, the Lord
says in Ps. 1, 5,—“Gather my saints together unto me;
those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.”
Here, not only is the title used, but the ground of it is
stated. It is that public profession and covenant of which
sacrifice was essential as a seal, and incorporated as such in
the baptismal rite.
Such is the testimony of the Old Testament, respecting
these words. The church of Corinth was composed largely
of Jews, who as we have seen still maintained the ordinances
of the synagogue after as well as before their conversion
to Christ. In those assemblies, James declares that
“Moses of old time hath in every city, them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”—Acts
xv, 21. The Corinthian disciples, therefore, never
attended those services without hearing the words in question
used; and used in this continual sense of ritual uncleanness
and ritual purity.
In the New Testament, the words in question are employed
in strict accordance with the Old Testament usage.
But as the ritual law here sinks into comparative obscurity,
akathartos, more frequently means the loathsomeness of sin.
Of the twenty-eight places in which it is found, it in
twenty, describes “unclean spirits,” or demons. But when
the question arises of the right of the Gentiles to a part
with Israel, in the covenant and the church, the ritual
meaning of the word, again comes forward. Peter in his
vision pleads that he had “never eaten any thing common,
or unclean.”—Acts x, 14. The lesson which that vision
taught him was, that he “should not call any man common
or unclean.”—Ib. 28. And he afterward said of the
house of Cornelius that God “put no difference between
us and them, (katharisas) cleansing their hearts by faith.”—Ib.
xv, 9. Except the place in question, in which the relation
of the children to the church is in view, and that
.bn 469.png
.pn +1
of Peter, concerning the like relation of believing Gentiles,
the word is invariably used in the New Testament to designate
that moral character of which ritual uncleanness was
the figure.
So, too, as to (hagioi) “holy,” or “saints”—it is the peculiar
and distinctive appellation in the New Testament, as in the
Old, for those whom we would call “members of the
church.” In the Acts of the Apostles, some half a dozen
times, the title of “disciples,” is used; once, Peter employs
the name of “Christian” (1 Pet. iv, 16); and Paul once
speaks of “the believers.” (1 Tim. iv, 12.) But, with
these exceptions, the appellation universally used is (hagioi)
“saints.” It thus occurs about fifty-six times, of which
forty are in the epistles of Paul, the author of the passage
in question. In fact, this is the designation which he
uniformly employs in this very epistle and his second
to the same church to designate the members of the
church. “Dare any of you, having a matter against
another, go to law before the unjust and not before the
saints?”—1 Cor. vi, 1. “As in all the churches of the
saints.” (Ib. xiv, 33.) “Paul ... unto the church of
God which is in Corinth, with all the saints which are in all
Achaia.”—2 Cor. i, 1. The source of this title, moreover,
as derived from the Sinai covenant, is indicated by Peter,
who quotes the terms of that covenant and applies them to
the New Testament church. “Ye are a chosen generation,
a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ethnos hagion), a peculiar
people.”—1 Peter ii, 9. As in the Old Testament, so in
the New, the word, hagios, invariably means, either, that
holiness which is essential in God, and which, in his creatures
is a bond of consecration to him; or, the characteristic
of persons and things separated by a peculiar dedication and
appropriation to his use and service.
The alternative to which the facts reduce us, is this:—that
Paul, master as he was of the Mosaic system and of
the language in which it is recorded,—in his reference to
.bn 470.png
.pn +1
the children, used the words, akathartoi, and, hagioi, in their
familiar ritual signification; or that he meant to deceive
his readers. For, that the heirs of the covenant were in
fact a holy people to God, was an express and fundamental
specification in the covenant. And that the children were
comprehended in this provision was no more questionable
than was the existence of the covenant itself. Whatever
therefore the meaning of Paul, his readers could not possibly
understand his language in any but one way:—“Else
were your children excluded from the pale of the covenant; but
now are they embraced in it.”
The attempt is made to evade the overwhelming force
of the facts, on this point, by a most extraordinary interpretation.
It is asserted that Paul means,—“Else were
your children illegitimate, but now are they legitimate.”
The doctrine thus attributed to the apostle, is in the first
place, false and abominable in morals. It is an assertion
that no child is legitimate, unless one or other of its
parents be a Christian. In the second place, it is an interpretation
false to the whole testimony of the Scriptures as
to the meaning of the words. In all the multitude of
places in which they are to be found, there is not one to give
the slightest color of sanction to it. It is nothing less
than a desperate and unscrupulous attempt to silence the
voice of God’s testimony because it is in terms of grace to
our children.
Paul’s language is, in fact, an application to the children,
of the same general principle of divine grace, which
governed him in the circumcision of Timothy. The Hebrew
blood of Timothy’s mother was held to entitle him to
part in the Abrahamic covenant, although his father was
a Greek. So, Paul pronounces the children of believers,
Gentiles and Jews, to be clean, as comprehended in the
Sinai covenant, and the gospel church, even though one
parent should be an unbeliever.
It is only to be farther considered, that as those only
.bn 471.png
.pn +1
who are baptized of the Spirit are spiritually clean, so the
Scriptures know nothing of ritual cleanness, except by
baptism with water; and that the command, “Go, disciple
all nations, baptizing them,” makes the baptizing co-extensive
with the discipleship,—that is, with admission to the
school of Christ, and pale of the covenant.
.sp 2
.h4
Section C.—Household Baptisms.
We have seen the grace of God expressed toward the
children of his people, under the Mosaic economy, by their
being embraced with their parents in the terms of the covenant.
We have seen their admission thereto announced
and confirmed by the seal of baptism. We have seen no
token of the withdrawal of that grace by the Lord Jesus
when in person on earth. We have heard, on the contrary,
his confirmation of it in terms as strong as language
can furnish. We have seen that same covenant, its terms
unchanged, and its seal the same, thrown open, through
the ministry of the apostles, to the Gentiles, and heard the
testimony of the apostle, that our children are not unclean,—offensive
to God, but holy,—acceptable before him.
We now proceed to consider the facts and principles involved
in the household baptisms, which are described in
the New Testament. First, however, it is proper to make
an important correction in the aspect in which the subject
is commonly viewed and discussed. The principle which
the Scriptures set forth and establish is not that of the
baptism and membership of infants, as such. The fundamental
element of the visible church, as conceived and
set forth, in Scripture, is not the individual, but the family.
As God planted the earth in families, so in the covenant
with Abraham he laid down the family society as the foundation
stone, on which, at Sinai, the church was builded;
and hence the organization of the church of Israel upon
the family principle, and its government by the eldership,
the representatives of its families. Under this constitution,
.bn 472.png
.pn +1
the infants, were of course included. But the designation
and discussion of the subject, under their name, as if it
were a question of infant baptism and infant membership,
distinctively, does injustice to the subject, as it leaves out
of sight and practically excludes the fundamental principle
involved. That principle is, parental headship, and the
consequent grace of God bestowed on the families of his
people,—their children and bond servants,—as identified
in and represented by them.
1. The first case of household baptism mentioned is
that of Lydia,—“whose heart the Lord opened, that she
attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And
when she was baptized, and her household, she besought
us saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord,
come into my house and abide there.”—Acts xvi, 14, 15.
Here, the essential facts are, (1.) that the house of Lydia
were by the inspired historian, recognized in no other capacity
than as being (oikos autēs) her house. Their number, their
names, their ages, their distinctive relation to her, whether
as children or servants, their several or joint sentiments
toward the gospel,—on all these points he is silent. The
one single fact to which he directs our attention is Lydia’s
property in them. (2.) Of Lydia alone it is said that the
Lord opened her heart; and upon this fact exclusively is
predicated her baptism and that of her house. Should any
surmise that her house also believed, we do not object, provided
the surmise is not to be made an essential part of
the record. If it be insisted that they believed and therefore
were baptized, we reply that had such been the conception
of the sacred writer, it would have been as easy,
and far more important for him to have stated their faith,
as he has recorded their baptism. The supposition that
they did in fact believe, only renders his silence on that
point the more significant. (3.) These facts occurred in the
ministry of that same Paul whom we have just seen to
testify that the children of believers are holy. In a word
.bn 473.png
.pn +1
Luke states the fact of the baptism, and the ground of it.
Lydia believed, and she was baptized and her house. Because
of her faith, to her and to her house the old, the
everlasting, covenant was fulfilled,—“to be a God to thee
and to thy seed after thee.”
2. The baptism, which soon followed, of the jailer and
his house is equally explicit on this point. He said to
Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And
they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their
stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And
when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before
them, and (ēgalliasato panoiki, pepisteukōs tō Theō,) rejoiced
with his house, he believing in God.”—Acts xvi,
30-34. Here, again, we have a construction which remarkably
ignores the question whether his house, as well
as he, believed. It may he assumed that they were all of
an age to hear and understand the gospel. It may be
assumed that they, so understanding, believed also. But
it may not be assumed that such knowledge and faith were
the ground of their baptism, because the sacred writer puts
it upon a different ground. It was as identified with him—as
belonging to him, that they were included in the rite.
“He was baptized,—he and all his.” Thus their relation to
him is the defining term. “He and all that were his.”—He
and none but his; and they because they were his.
Such is the force of the expression as it stands. In the
same direction looks the closing expression. “He rejoiced
with all his house,—he believing.” That his house did not
believe we neither assert nor deny. The point of importance
is, that their faith is no element of the case, as stated
on the record, upon which was grounded their baptism.
The alternative is clear and inevitable. Either he, only,
of all his house did in fact believe; or, if his household
.bn 474.png
.pn +1
shared in his faith, the remarkable manner in which, in the
narrative, they are associated with him in his baptism and
joy, but omitted from the statement which describes him
alone, as believing, was an express and designed intimation
that his personal faith was the controlling element in the
case, according to the terms of the everlasting covenant,—“to
be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee,” and the
assurance given him by Paul,—“Believe, ... and thou
shalt be saved and thy house.” He was recognized and
dealt with as the head of his house, precisely as was
Abraham.
3. Paul declares that he “baptized (ton Stephana oikon)
the house of Stephanas.”—1 Cor. i, 16. Here, again, there
is no discrimination of individuals. The characteristic upon
which he predicates the baptism is the relation which he
indicates. It was the house of Stephanas, as such, whom
he baptized.
Respecting these cases, it may be admitted that if taken
separately, they would constitute no conclusive evidence to
the present purpose. But such is not their position. They
stand as one element in a series of facts and principles
which together present a cumulative argument conclusive
and unanswerable. These begin with the Abrahamic covenant
and the family principle there established. They
the Sinai constitution, in which the same principle
was ineffaceably engraved. They comprehend the opening
of the doors of the church thereon founded, to the Gentile
world, with this principle unimpaired. They reveal the
love of Christ to the babes, in the history and instructions
of his personal ministry, and in his parting commission to
Peter. They hold up the testimony of Paul, that the
babes of believers are “saints.” It is in the presence of
these great facts, inscribed in letters of light upon the records
of fifteen hundred years; and in the absence of any
thing whatever to contravene their testimonies, or to set
aside the conclusions thence following, that the household
.bn 475.png
.pn +1
baptisms in question are to be considered. The children
and household were once unquestionably embraced in God’s
covenant with his church. “Everlasting,” was by His finger
written on the face of that covenant. (Gen. xvii, 7.) In its
terms, as announced at Sinai, place for the Gentiles was expressly
reserved; and upon their ultimate admission, no
trace of change, in these respects, appears in the record. On
the contrary, in the cases just examined, we have the most
conclusive evidence, in view of the foregoing facts, that
the position of the family has not been changed by the
coming of Christ, and the giving of the gospel to the Gentiles.
It still continues a unit under the parental head;
and the same grace which blessed the seed of Abraham
because of his faith,—the same which, at Sinai, embraced
the children with their parents, in the covenant and the
fold, still extends those privileges to the children of Gentiles
who believe. They are holy.
.bn 476.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
Conclusion.
.sp 2
And now, at the goal, we turn to survey the broad
field of our explorations, and to note the accumulated
results. From this vantage point, many things appear in
a light of peculiar instructiveness and beauty. But one
feature stands out in proportions of loftiness, and glory,
which cast all else into the shade of insignificance. As
with rapt spirits, we gaze, the high throne is revealed where
sits the Son of man,—his human form robed in the Father’s
glory,—his countenance blending the infinite majesty
of God, with the fullness of grace and truth,—his brow
adorned with a diadem of many crowns, and all power in
heaven and earth, in his hand. The heavens are astonished
at the presence of his glory, and the adoring angels,
prostrate, await his bidding. The fullness of the Spirit is
his; and his office thus exalted it is, to baptize us sinners
with that Spirit,—to give us thus, repentance and remission
of sins and sanctifying grace, and to raise us up from
the dead and make us sit with him in the heavenly places
where he reigns. This is the central sun of the system
which we have explored. From this baptism of the Spirit
all the ordinances here examined, derive their instructive
light and beauty. It is the original,—the heavenly pattern
whence their form and office were divinely transcribed.
It is, therefore, the rule and standard to which all baptismal
rites and doctrines must be brought.
Tried by this rule, the figment of baptismal regeneration
stands exposed in naked falsehood and dishonor; arrogating
to men a share of the sovereign prerogatives of our
glorious Baptizer; subordinating the functions of his grace
to their will and wisdom, their fidelity and zeal.
.bn 477.png
.pn +1
The rite of immersion too,—already discountenanced
by the united voice of the Scriptures,—when brought to
this supreme and final test, is utterly wanting.
It is discountenanced by the transaction at Sinai, in
which the church was separated out of the world and consecrated
to God by a baptism of sprinkled water and blood.
It is discountenanced by the rites which certified and
sealed the restoration of the healed leper to the communion
of Israel.
It is discountenanced by the water of purifying with
which the Levites were sprinkled, in their consecration to
the service of God’s sanctuary.
It is discountenanced by the ordinance which appointed
the water of separation, to be sprinkled as the ordinary
and perpetuated form of the Sinai baptism, for sealing admission
to the benefits of the Sinai covenant.
It is excluded by the declaration of the son of Sirach
that the sprinkling of the unclean with the water of separation
was a baptizing.
It is discountenanced by the sprinkled baptism of the
thirty-two thousand infants and youths of Midian, whereby
they were received into the fold of the covenant and the
church.
It is condemned by every voice in the Psalms and the
prophets which breathes a sense of the sinner’s need, or
anticipates the blessings of Messiah’s grace, in the language
of these ordinances.
It is excluded by the explicit testimony of the apostle
Paul, that these ordinances were baptisms.
It is condemned by the implacable war which it of
necessity wages against the identity of the church from
the day of the assembly at Sinai,—by its repudiation of
the Old Testament church—the church of Moses and the
prophets, which was for fifteen centuries a lone beacon light
among the nations, God’s only witness amid the gloom of
thick darkness which enshrouded the world.
.bn 478.png
.pn +1
It is discountenanced by the voice of John’s baptism
which heralded and symbolized the outpouring of the Spirit
on Pentecost; and is excluded by all the circumstances of
his ministry, which show that he could not have immersed
his disciples, and that he would not have done it, though
he could.
It is discountenanced by the whole style of the evangelists
and apostles, who speak of baptism and its relations
in the language of the Old Testament, and recognize it as
a symbol of the outpouring of Pentecost.
It is excluded by the records of Christian baptisms as
given by Luke, which, beginning with the three thousand
of Pentecost and ending with the jailer of Philippi and his
house, present an array of difficulties in the way of immersion,
which are severally inexplicable, and together overwhelming.
It is condemned by its association with the kindred denial
of the place which God has assigned to the family and
the children in his fold and his covenant; and by all the
facts which demonstrate their God-given and inalienable
rights therein.
It is utterly condemned by the fact that it maims the
symmetry and completeness of the sacramental system of
the Christian church. Whilst the Old Testament sacraments
exhibit in just proportions every part and feature of
the plan of grace, and whilst the genuine ordinances of
the New Testament, in like proportions, abbreviate the
whole, exhibiting in the holy supper the sacrament of
Christ’s humiliation and sacrifice, and in baptism that of
his exaltation and glory, his power and grace,—the system
in question, recognizes indeed, with us, in the Lord’s supper,
the memorial of Christ’s suffering and death, but in
baptism can see nothing but the symbol of his burial, and
so leaves him and all our hopes shut up and sealed in the
sepulchre of Joseph.
It is signally discountenanced by the remarkable fact
.bn 479.png
.pn +1
that in every rite and every figure in which the Scriptures
represent the active exercise by the Messiah of his official
functions, the form of action is affusion, whether it be with
the blood of atonement at the sanctuary of Israel,—the
water, mingled with ashes or blood, which sprinkled the
unclean,—the anointing oil poured upon the head; or the
fires of justice rained down from heaven.
But why dwell upon minor particulars! The rite in
question is condemned and excluded by the whole tenor of
the Scriptures, which demonstrate that baptizo as there used
does not mean, to immerse, and which reveal no vestige of
other testimony in behalf of the rite, but everywhere show
evidence abundant and conclusive against it.
But the capital and paramount consideration still remains,
in the fact that this rite will not assimilate with, nor
recognize the baptism which Christ dispenses from his
throne. It ignores the exaltation whence that baptism descends,
and refuses to testify of its outpouring of grace.
And hence, although administered with the use of the
words, it is not in the sense intended by the Lord Jesus,
baptism “into the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Ghost;” for its doctrine has no relation to
those blessed Persons, nor to our union with them. It is
wholly occupied with another theme. Whilst the true baptism
exultingly points upward to the throne of Christ’s
glory, this rite looks downward ever to the grave.
To our readers we leave the question,—What one trait
or characteristic of Scriptural baptism is traceable in this
rite of immersion, in doctrine, or in form?
In entire consistency with a spirit of true Christian love
and fellowship toward our brethren of the Baptist churches,
we can not but realize an indignant revolt against this rite,
so imperious in its claims, so devoid of evidence, so hostile
to the true baptism of the Christian church, so efficient in
creating division therein,—this rite in the zeal of which,
those who reject it have been denied any part in the church
.bn 480.png
.pn +1
of God, or place at his table, or portion in his covenant.
Not such the ordinance which her glorious Head has bestowed
upon his church, nor such the principles which he
has taught her to cherish;—an ordinance in which is shown
forth and celebrated the glory of his exaltation and his
grace,—an ordinance which baptizes us into his name and
that of the blessed Godhead, by setting forth the doctrine
of that Godhead and of our union with it in Christ by the
Spirit,—an ordinance which seals upon the brows of our
babes that same blessing which they received in His own
arms and from His own hands, in the days of his flesh;—and
principles which teach us to recognize and embrace in
the bonds of love and the fellowship of the covenant and of
the church all those who in every place call upon the name
of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their Lord and ours, even
though they may grievously err respecting outward rites
and forms.
Now to Him, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the
only wise God, be honor and glory, for ever. Amen.
.bn 481.png
.pn +1
.h2
SCRIPTURES | ILLUSTRATED IN THE FOREGOING PAGES.
.ix
Genesis.
— i, 26, p. #268#;
— ii, 10, p. #32#;
— iii, 15, p. #41#;
— xii, 1-3, p. #37#;
— xv, 1+, p. #38#;
— xvii, 1-21, p. #39#;
— xvii, 7, p. #59#;
— xxii, 16-18, p. #41#;
— xxxvii, 31, p. #158#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Exodus.
— vi, 2-8, p. #42#;
— xix, 3-5, p. #43#;
— xix, 3-21, p. #27#, #43#, #45#;
— xix, 5, p. #45#;
— xix, 6, p. #46#;
— xx, 24, p. #164#;
— xxiv, 5, 8, p. #26#, #29#;
— xxv, 21, p. #54#;
— xxv, 40, p. #128#;
— xl, 12, p. #131#, #133#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Leviticus.
— i, 9, p. #134#;
— xiii, 45, 46, p. #63#;
— xiv, 7-9, p. #66#;
— xiv, 8, 9, p. #114#;
— xxiii, 36, p. #148#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Numbers.
— vi, 9, p. #114#;
— vi, 18, p. #115#;
— viii, 7, p. #114#;
— xix, 1-22, p. #96#;
— xix, 2-19, p. #68#, #73#, #96#;
— xix, 12, 13, 19, p. #168#;
— xxix, 12-38, p. #144#;
— xxxi, 19-24, p. #82#;
— xxxi, 23, p. #138#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Deuteronomy.
— iv, 10, p. #51#;
— xvi, 13-15, p. #148#;
— xxi, 3-9, p. #123#;
— xxi, 12, p. #114#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
2 Kings.
— iii, 11, p. #123#;
— v, 10, 14, p. #157#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Job.
— ix, 30, 31, p. #111#, #158#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Psalm.
— viii, 4-8, p. #269#;
— li, 2-10, p. #61#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Isaiah.
— i, 16,17, p. #116#;
— vi, 5-7, p. #64#;
— xix, 19, p. #154#;
— xxi, 4, p. #295#;
— lii, 15, p. #140#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Ezekiel.
— xvi, 8, 9, p. #74#;
— xxii, 24, p. #89#;
— xxxvii, 1-14, p. #301#;
— xxxvii, 12-15, p. #94#;
— xlvii, 1-12, p. #32#, #33#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Haggai.
— ii, 11, 14, p. #227#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Zechariah.
— xiv, 8, p. #34#, #148#, #151#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Malachi.
— iii, 2, 3, p. #287#;
— iv, 1-4, p. #291#;
— iv, 4, p. #243#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Matthew.
— iii, 5, 6, p. #233#;
— iii, 11, p. #241#, 284;
— iii, 13-15, p. #247#;
— xvii, 3, p. #230#;
— xviii, 1-5, p. #462#;
— xix, 13-15, p. #463#;
— xx, 20-23, p. #258#;
— xxvi, 28, p. #225#;
— xxvii, 24, p. #123#;
— xxviii, 19, 20, p. #380#, #424#, #431#, #435#, #439#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Mark.
— i, 4, p. #318#;
— vii, 1-4, p. #210#, #216#;
— vii, 3, 4, p. #21#, #210#;
— ix, 4, p. #230#;
— ix, 36, p. #462#;
— x, 13-16, p. #463#;
— xvi, 15, 16, p. #380#, #424#, #437#.
.bn 482.png
.pn +1
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Luke.
— i, 17, p. #228#;
— ii, 22, p. #85#;
— iii, 16, p. #284#;
— iii, 21, 22, p. #254#;
— vii, 37, 38, 44, p. #124#, #125#;
— ix, 31, p. #230#;
— ix, 46-48, p. #462#;
— xi, 29, p. #214#;
— xi, 38, p. #21#, #209#, #214#;
— xii, 49-53, p. #265#;
— xviii, 15-17, p. #463#;
— xxiv, 44-46, p. #100#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
John.
— i, 33, p. #280#;
— ii, 18-22, p. #101#;
— iii, 5, p. #384#;
— iii, 23, p. #360#;
— iv, 14, p. #308#;
— vii, 37, 38, p. #308#;
— ix, 4, p. #109#;
— xi, 25, 26, p. #92#, #95#;
— xiv, 16,17, 25, 26, p. #277#;
— xv, 26, p. #277#, 281;
— xvi, 7-15, p. #277#;
— xvii, 22, p. #320#;
— xx, 17, p. #272#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Acts.
— ii, 2, p. #299#;
— ii, 3, p. #310#;
— ii, 4, p. #313#;
— ii, 38, p. #433#;
— viii, 36-39, p. #451#;
— ix, 18, p. #454#;
— x, 47, p. #455#;
— xv, 10, p. #406#;
— xvi, 14, 15, p. #472#;
— xvi, 30-34, p. #473#;
— xvi, 33, p. #456#;
— xviii, 18, p. #399#;
— xix, 1-7, p. #429#;
— xix, 2, p. #315#;
— xix, 4, p. #318#, #447#;
— xxii, 16, p. #453#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Romans.
— vi, 1-11, p. #364#;
— vi, 4, p. #320#;
— xi, 17-24, p. #418#, #422#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
1 Corinthians.
— i, 16, p. #474#;
— vii, 14, p. #466#;
— x, 1, 2, p. #453#;
— xii, 13, p. #357#;
— xv, 4, p. #100#;
— xv, 25-27, p. #269#;
— xv, 29, p. #170#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
2 Corinthians.
— iii, 2, 3, 6, p. #382#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Ephesians.
— iv, 3-16, p. #330#;
— iv, 5, p. #333#;
— v, 25-27, p. #390#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Colossians.
— ii, 9-13, p. #371#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Titus.
— iii, 4-7, p. #323#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Hebrews.
— ii, 5-8, p. #269#;
— iv, 4-9, p. #65#;
— vi, 7-9, p. #35#;
— vi, 17-20, p. #41#;
— ix, 8, 9, p. #103#;
— xiii, 11-13, p. #97#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
1 Peter.
— ii, 9, p. #469#;
— iii, 17-22, p. #333#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
1 John.
— v, 18, 19, p. #110#.
.ix-
.sp 1
.ix
Revelation.
— i, 12, 13, p. #311#;
— xxii, 1, 2, p. #32#.
.ix-
.bn 483.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
INDEX.
.sp 2
.ix
Ablution, Mode of domestic, page 119.
Abrahamic covenant, p. #37#.
“My covenant,” p. #43#.
Everlasting, p. #40#, #43#.
Circumcision, its seal, p. #40#, #58#.
An adumbration of the covenant of grace, p. #40#.
Administration of the great Baptizer, p. #338#.
Agora,—the market, p. #214#.
Akiva, Rabbi, p. #213#.
Alexander, Dr. Addison, quoted, p. #287#, #301#, #310#, #453#.
Ambrose on Levitical baptism, p. #194#.
Angel of his presence, p. #223#.
Anointing of Christ, p. #254#.
Apocrypha, their value, p. #153#.
Aristophanes quoted, p. #186#, #325#.
Armstrong quoted, p. #259#.
Ashes of the red heifer, p. #68#, #98#.
Ashes of calves, at Rome, p. #185#.
Assembly, Day of the, p. #51#.
Athenaeus quoted, p. #325#.
Augustine quoted, p. #303#.
Aztec baptism of Infants, p. #191#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Babylonian Gemara, p. #78#.
Babylonian rabbinic schools, p. #78#, #81#.
Baptism—Argument from the real, p. #343#.
And circumcision, p. #58#.
Originated in the Old Testament, p. #21#.
Of Israel, p. #25#, #29#.
.bn 484.png
Levitical, p. #25#.
Of Naaman, p. #157#.
History of Christian, p. #424#.
On Pentecost, p. #440#.
Its symbolic meaning, p. #92#, #446#.
Baptism of fire, p. #284#.
Baptism of the Holy Ghost, p. #273#, #277#, #299#, #322#, #331#.
Baptism of Repentance and remission, p. #318#, #331#, #447#.
Baptism of Jesus by John, p. #247#.
“Baptism that I am baptized with,” p. #257#.
Baptisma and Baptismos, p. #156#.
Baptisms, Divers, imposed on Israel, p. #22#, #103#.
Baptisms of things, p. #136#, #219#.
Baptismal formula. There is none, p. #438#.
Baptismal regeneration, p. #377#.
“Baptized for the dead,” p. #170#.
“Baptized from the dead,” p. #169#.
Baptized into Christ, p. #321#, #332#, #368#.
Baptized into one body, p. #357#.
Baptized into Moses, p. #350#, #457#.
Baptizing administration of Christ, p. #338#.
Baptizing office of Christ, p. #273#.
Baptizo, p. #153#.
Conant’s definitions, p. #155#, #347#.
Kendrick’s admissions, p. #349#.
It sounds best! p. #352#.
It knows not the resurrection, p. #347#.
.bn 485.png
.pn +1
Baptizōntai and rantizōntai, p. #216#.
Barthelemi, Abbe, quoted, p. #184#.
“Believeth and is baptized,” p. #437#.
Blood of Sprinkling, p. #30#.
Blood and water, and blood alone, p. #97#.
“Born of water and of the Spirit,” p. #384#.
Brahminism the source of ritual immersion, p. #80#.
Breath of Christ—the Spirit, p. #299#.
Bryant’s Odyssey quoted, p. #127#.
“Buried by baptism,” p. #364#.
“Buried in baptism,” p. #371#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Calvin on the baptizing commission, p. #424#.
Canaan, Office of the land of, p. #48#.
Candlestick, Seven-branched, p. #311#.
Carson quoted, p. #23#, #89#, #205#, #368#.
Charter of the church, p. #53#.
Childbirth uncleanness, p. #62#.
Children and Christ, p. #461#.
Children clean, holy, p. #466#.
Children of Midian baptized, p. #81#.
Christ did not institute baptism, p. #428#.
Christ and the children, p. #461#.
Christian baptism one with John’s, p. #424#.
Christian fathers on Levitical baptism, p. #192#.
Christ’s baptism by John, p. #247#.
It sealed him Surety of the covenant, p. #252#.
Christ’s “baptism that I am baptized with,” p. #257#.
Christ’s baptizing office, p. #273#.
Its two functions, p. #274#, #284#, #297#.
His administration, p. #338#.
.bn 486.png
.pn +1
Church defined, p. #49#.
Origin of its name, p. #51#.
Its charter, p. #53#.
Church and children, p. #461#, #466#.
Church of Israel, p. #49#, #411#, #441#.
The Gentiles graffed in, p. #418#.
Circe, Ulysses’ bath in her palace, p. #127#.
Circumcision. Its office, p. #24#, #58#, #373#.
Circumcision and Baptism, p. #58#.
Common Prayer Book on baptism, p. #354#.
Conant on baptizo, p. #155#, #347#.
Converts of Pentecost. Their character, p. #444#.
Were baptized with water, p. #440#.
Cornelius’ baptism, p. #432#, #455#.
Council, of Ephesus, p. #281#;
of Jerusalem, p. #394#;
of Nice, p. #281#;
of Trent, p. #431#.
Covenant, Abrahamic, p. #37#;
of Sinai, p. #42#.
Its champions, Elijah and Elisha, p. #166#;
John, p. #230#.
It was the marriage, p. #37#, #49#.
It and the better covenant, p. #224#.
The Messenger of the covenant, p. #223#.
Cyril of Alexandria, on Levitical baptism, p. #195#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Dr. Dale quoted, p. #279#, #441#, #443#, #451#.
“Day of the assembly,” p. #51#.
A day, a symbol of a lifetime, p. #109#.
Dead. Defilement by, p. #62#.
The rites of cleansing, p. #68#.
The meaning, p. #96#.
Dead Sea, as a type, p. #32#, #34#.
Didymus Alexandrinus, p. #378#.
Divers baptisms imposed on Israel, p. #22#.
What were they? p. #103#.
.ix-
.bn 487.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.ix
Ebrard quoted, p. #294#.
Ecclēsia. Origin of the name, p. #51#.
Egypt and Israel, p. #179#.
Egyptian bathing, p. #120#.
Egyptian baptism, p. #189#.
Elders. Their origin, p. #53#.
Eleusinian mysteries, p. #188#.
Elijah and Elisha, champions of the covenant, p. #166#, #229#.
Elijah and John, p. #229#.
Ellicott (Bishop) on loutron, p. #323#.
End of the Baptist argument, p. #374#.
England, Church of—Baptistic, p. #323#, note; #354#.
Enon, The Springs, p. #360#.
Etheridge quoted, p. #78#, #80#, #169#, #417#, #418#.
Ethiopian eunuch, p. #451#.
Euripides quoted, p. #186#, #187#.
Eusebius quoted, p. #417#.
Evidence of O. T. summed, p. #196#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Family and the church, p. #53#.
Fathers of the church, on Levitical baptism, p. #192#;
on the old covenant and the new, p. #377#.
Feet. Their typical meaning, p. #134#.
Their washing, p. #124#.
Festival of pouring water, p. #143#.
It and the Eleusinia, p. #189#.
Figure of immersion not in the Old Testament, p. #23#.
Fire, The Baptism of, p. #284#.
The manner of it, p. #296#.
Formula of Baptism, p. #434#, #438#.
Furniture and utensils baptized, p. #136#, #219#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Ganges. Immersion thence, p. #80#.
Gemara of Babylonia, p. #78#;
of Jerusalem, p. #78#.
.bn 488.png
Gentiles, place reserved in the Sinai covenant, p. #46#.
Israel’s intercession for them, p. #47#, #147#.
Graffed in, p. #418#.
Gentile purifyings, p. #8#, #181#, #189#, #191#.
Godhead. Order of precedence, p. #274#.
Gospel in the Old Testament baptism, p. #95#.
Greek bath, p. #121#, #127#, #200#, #207#, #324#.
Their purifyings, p. #181#.
Grote, on Greek purifyings, p 181.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Hair shaved, p. #102#, #114#, #399#.
Hakkodesh, Rabbi Judah, p. #78#.
Hebrew-Christian church, p. #411#.
Hellenistic Greek, p. #151#.
Herodotus on Greek purifyings, p. #182#.
Hillel and Shammai on proselyte baptism, p. #79#.
Homer quoted, p. #127#, #325#.
Household and church, p. #53#, #461#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Imitations of baptism by the heathen, p. #8#, #178#, #189#.
Immersion. None in the Old Testament ritual, p. #23#.
None in its figures, p. #24#.
Not by the priests, p. #128#.
Nor by the people, p. #115#, #116#, #119#, #134#.
Nor by the Pharisees, p. #208#.
The facilities unavailable, p. #126#.
Its incongruities, p. #202#.
Its origin, p. #80#.
India. Immersion thence, p. #80#.
Infant baptism,
— in Israel, p. #81#, #82#,
— among the Aztecs, p. #191#,
— among the Romans, p. #187#,
— in the Christian church, p. #461#, #466#, #471#.
“Into Christ,” and “into the name of Christ,” p. #365#, #434#.
.bn 489.png
.pn +1
“Into the name,” p. #431#.
“Into the name of Christ,” and, of the Three, p. #435#.
Israel a priest kingdom, p. #46#.
Israel at John’s coming, p. #225#.
Israel compared with the Christian church, p. #305#.
Issues. Unclean by, p. #62#.
The cleansing, p. #69#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Jailer of Philippi, p. #456#.
Jerome on Levitical baptism, p. #194#.
Jerusalem council, p. #394#.
Jerusalem Gemara, p. #78#.
Jesus, baptized by John, p. #247#;
his anointing, p. #254#.
“The baptism that I am baptized with,” p. #257#.
The great baptizer, p. #267#, #297#.
John and Elijah, p. #228#.
John’s mission, p. #221#.
His baptism no novelty, p. #21#.
Its nature and end, p. #228#.
Identical with that of Christ, p. #425#.
Its mode, p. #237#, #241#.
Josephus quoted, p. #156#, #176#, #178#, #240#, #250#, #327#.
Judith’s story and baptism, p. #172#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Kabala, whence derived, p. #80#.
Kābas defined, p. #117#.
Kendrick on baptizo, p. #349#, #458#.
Kingdom of heaven defined, p. #267#.
Christ’s coronation, p. #273#.
Kingdom of priests, p. #46#.
Koran quoted, p. #174#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
“Lambs in his arms,” p. #463#.
Laver of the Tabernacle, p. #129#.
Laver (loutron) of Paul, p. #323#.
Leprosy, unclean, p. #63#, #161#.
Rites of cleansing, p. #66#, #163#.
Levi, Rabbi, quoted, p. #147#.
.bn 490.png
Levites baptized, p. #85#.
Levitical baptisms all one, p. #86#.
Lewis’ Origines Hebraeae quoted, p. #146#, #149#.
Libation vase of Osor-Ur, p. #189#.
Life to the dead, meant by baptism, p. #92#.
Lightfoot quoted, p. #143#, #146#, #149#.
Living water. Its meaning, p. #31#, #133#, #387#.
Lord’s supper is the passover, p. #408#.
Lynch, “Dead Sea Expedition” quoted, p. #122#, #125#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Maimonides on proselyte baptism, p. #76#.
Malachi, and John, p. #291#.
Manuscripts of New Testament. Care in their transcription, p. #217#.
Maitland, “Church of the Catacombs,” p. #124#.
Market. Baptism after, p. #214#.
Marriage feast, p. #209#, #211#.
Messenger of the covenant, p. #223#.
Metaphor of water, p. #89#, #386#.
Midianite children, baptism, p. #81#.
Mishna described, p. #78#.
Mission of John, p. #221#.
Missions. The new spirit imparted, p. #304#.
Mode implied in the meaning of self-washing, p. #115#.
Mohammedan washing before prayer, p. #174#.
Moore, T. V., on Malachi, p. #291#.
Mosheim quoted, p. #189#, #418#.
“Much water there,” p. #360#.
Murder, expiation, p. #123#.
Among the Greeks, p. #182#, #184#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Naaman’s baptism, p. #157#.
New Testament Greek, p. #151#.
.bn 491.png
.pn +1
New Testament Church, how organized, p. #393#, #411#, #418#.
Nidda, Water of, p. #74#.
Noah saved by water, p. #333#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Old Testament evidence summed p. #196#.
Onkelos, Targum of, p. #77#.
Order of precedence in the Godhead, p. #274#.
Mediatorial order, p. #275#.
Ordinances of testimony in Israel, p. #54#.
Osor-Ur. Libation vase, p. #189#.
Ovid on purifyings, p. #184#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Palestine. Central position, p. #49#, #178#.
Its geology and water, p. #120#.
Palestinian Gemara, p. #78#.
Passover described, p. #24#, #410#.
Perpetuated in the supper, p. #408#.
Pentecost, p. #297#.
The Spirit baptism then given, p. #299#, #304#, #313#, #318#.
The gifts imparted, p. #313#, #318#.
The Spirit of missions then given, p. #304#.
Pharisees. The sect, p. #236#, #412#.
Their purifyings, p. #209#.
Philip and the eunuch, p. #451#.
Philo Judaeus on the Levitical baptism, p. #77#, #175#, #187#, #327#.
Phœnicia and Israel, p. #179#, #183#.
Plato quoted, p. #181#, #245#.
Pliny quoted, p. #452#.
Plutarch quoted, p. #326#.
Pool’s Synopsis quoted, p. #149#.
Pouring of water. The festival, p. #143#.
Pouring water—in ablutions, p. #119#, #124#.
among the Greeks, p. #324#.
.bn 492.png
.pn +1
Pouring water in ritual washings of the hands, p. #123#, #173#.
Prayer. Washings before, p. #173#.
In the Koran, p. #174#.
Priesthood of Aaron, His inauguration, p. #131#, #248#.
It was no rule to Christ, p. #248#.
Age of office, p. #249#.
Priesthood of Christ not after Aaron’s pattern, p. #250#.
Priest-kingdom, Israel, p. #46#, #150#.
Priests’ self-washings not immersions, p. #128#.
Pumbaditha rabbinic seminary, p. #78#.
Purifying of Jesus and Mary, p. #84#.
Purifyings of the Jews, p. #208#.
Purifyings of things, p. #102#, #136#, #219#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Rabbi.
Akiva, p. #213#.
Hillel, p. #79#.
Judah Hakkodesh, p. #78#.
Maimonides, p. #76#, #79#.
Shammai, p. #79#.
Solomon, p. #149#.
Rabbinic baptism of Proselytes, p. #76#, #81#.
Rabbinic Schools, p. #78#.
Rabbinic traditions of the red heifer, p. #142#.
Rāhatz, defined, p. #118#.
Rantizōntai and Baptizōntai, p. #216#.
Rebaptism. Note on, p. #430#.
of John’s disciples, p. #429#.
Red heifer. The ashes, p. #68#, #69#.
In Philo, p. #175#.
in Josephus, p. #176#.
Rabbinic traditions, p. #142#.
Remission. Baptism of, p. #96#, #244#, #318#.
Resurrection symbolized by baptism, p. #92#, #257#, #265#.
Resurrection and baptizo, p. #347#.
Revised Version on loutron, p. #323#.
.bn 493.png
.pn +1
Revival at Sinai, p. #28#.
Baptism of the converts, p. #29#.
Revival under Hezekiah, p. #139#.
Purifying them, p. #139#.
Revival under John’s ministry, p. #232#.
Revival of Pentecost, p. #297#, #318#.
Ritual law. Its office, p. #54#.
Its relation to the Sinai covenant, p. #56#.
It had no immersions, p. #23#, #115#, #116#, #119#, #128#, #134#.
It remains in force, p. #393#.
The Gentiles exempted, p. #395#, #406#.
Paul kept and enforced it, p. #396#, #402#.
Rushing mighty wind of Pentecost, p. #299#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Sacraments of the Old Testament, p. #24#;
of the New, p. #408#, #424#.
Sahagun quoted, p. #192#.
Sacrifice defined, p. #24#.
Sadducees. The sect, p. #412#, #413#.
Saints. Origin of the title, p. #47#, #469#.
Scrivener on the Greek MSS., p. #218#.
Sea of brass, p. #130#.
Sea water. Its meaning, p. #32#.
Idolatrous use of it, p. #187#.
Self-washings, p. #101#, #108#.
Their relation to the sprinklings, p. #164#, #105#, #136#.
Separation. Water of, p. #68#, #73#.
Septuagint. Its origin, p. #152#.
Seven candlesticks, p. #128#, #311#.
Seven days uncleanness, p. #60#, #64#, #98#.
Seven sprinklings, p. #67#, #98#.
Seventh day. Symbolic meaning, p. #64#, #98#.
Shammai and Hillel on proselyte baptism, p. #79#.
.bn 494.png
.pn +1
Shasters, p. #80#.
Shātaph, defined, p. #117#.
Shaving off the hair, p, #114#.
By Paul, p. #399#.
Sinai. The scene, p. #27#.
The covenant, p. #42#, #45#.
Relation of the Gentiles, p. #46#, #53#, #56#.
Place reserved for them, p. #46#.
Its conditions, p. #42#.
Its promises, p. #45#.
The revival there, p. #28#.
The baptism, p. #29#.
Smith’s Dictionary quoted, p. #127#, #184#, #188#, #247#, #324#, #363#.
Socrates and Phaedrus, p. #245#.
Solomon, Rabbi, quoted, p. #149#.
Son of man. His kingdom, p. #267#.
His administration, p. #338#.
Sophocles quoted, p. #325#, #326#.
Sora rabbinic school, p. #78#.
Sprinkling represents rain, p. #35#.
Its meaning, p. #88#, #99#.
State of the N. T. question, p. #201#.
Susannah’s story, p. #122#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Tābal. Its meaning, p. #79#, #157#.
Tabernacle. Its symbolic structure, p. #128#.
Tabernacles. The feast of, p. #144#.
Talmud described, p. #78#.
Talmudic baptism, p. #76#.
Targums described, p. #77#.
Ten commandments, the eternal law of the covenant, p. #43#.
Tertullian quoted, p. #193#, #378#.
Theodosia Earnest quoted, p. #233#, #236#.
Theophrastus quoted, p. #324#.
Things purified, p. #102#, #136#, #219#.
Third day. Its typical meaning, p. #100#.
Thomson. The Land and the Book, p. #34#.
Tiberias rabinnic school, p. #78#.
Tongues as of fire, p. #310#.
.bn 495.png
.pn +1
Tongues. Other, p. #313#.
Transcription of the N. T. Care in it, p. #217#.
Transfiguration of Jesus, p. #230#.
Trinity. Order of precedence, p. #274#.
Procession of the Spirit, p. #281#.
Typical structure of the tabernacle, p. #128#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Ulysses’ bath, p. #127#.
Unclean. Its meaning, p. #60#, #466#.
Unclean seven days. The meaning, p. #60#, #98#.
How cleansed, p. #65#.
Unclean till even. Two causes, p. #108#.
The meaning, p. #109#.
Union wrought by baptism, p. #322#, #332#.
Utensils and furniture baptized, p. #136#, #219#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Various reading of Mark vii, 4, p. #216#.
Vedas, referred to, p. #80#.
Virgil quoted on purifyings, p. #186#.
.ix-
.bn 496.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.ix
Waldenses referred to, p. #49#.
Washing. Before prayer, p. #173#.
Mohammedan, p. #174#.
Washing, the hands, p. #111#.
the hands and feet, p. #111#, #124#.
the garments, p. #112#.
the flesh, p. #113#.
Washings of the people. Domestic, p. #119#.
Ritual, p. #134#, #210#.
Of the priests, p. #128#.
Before meals, p #210#.
“Washing of water by the word,” p. #390#.
Water, fresh and salt, p. #31#, #32#.
Water, Metaphor of, p. #387#.
Water. Festival of outpouring, p. #143#.
Wilkinson’s Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, p. #120#.
Wind, Rushing mighty,—of Pentecost, p. #299#.
Witness. Israel’s office, p. #47#, #54#.
.ix-
.sp 2
.ix
Zend Avesta, referred to, p. #80#.
Zion. Out of her the law, p. #420#.
Zoroaster referred to, p. #80#.
.ix-
.ni
.if h
.dv class='footnotes'
.ce
Footnotes
.fm lz=h rend=y
.fm rend=y
.dv-
.if-
.pb
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note
Spelling and punctuation, where printer or editorial errors were obvious, has been corrected.
Some idiosyncracies should be noted. In several captions, there is a period following the
word ‘Sir’, as ‘Sir. Wm. Hamilton’, implying an abbreviation. This also appears once in the
text, and once without the period. All are given here as printed. The variant spellings
‘sepulchre’ and ‘sepulcher’ are both used frequently, and are all retained.
The following table summarizes the resolution of any other errors. Errors in the
formatting or punctuation of the index entries were corrected with no further comment
here.
.ta l:8 l:45 l:15
| But in order [?] adequate appreciation | sic: missing word?
| And, when they left Eg[py/yp]t | Transposed.
| about fifteen feet by seven and a half[,/.] | Replaced.
| they s[ie/ei]ze | Transposed.
| it may be, by tradit[i]on>, from the parents of the race | Added.
| [the goddess of water].[’] | Added.
| it is interpreted, “to the elbows,[”] | Added.
| whilst Paul used the[ the] word | Removed.
| Heb. viii[i], 6. | Removed.
| or the favor of the rabble[,/.] | Replaced.
| that two years afterw[e/a]rd the evangelist | Replaced.
| I have kept the faith[?/!] | Replaced.
| to involve his government in[./,] chaos, God in the mystery | Replaced.
| [(](loutra) libations | Removed.
| “quickened as to the spirit[./,]” | Replaced.
| and his rest shall be glorious.”—Isa. xi, [1, ]10. | Removed.
| So, the prop[eh/he]cy cited by Peter | Transposed.
| obscuring of[ of] the subject | Removed.
| [“]Likewise reckon ye also yourselves | Added.
| That church had or[i]ginally incorporated | Added.
| I have spoken unto you.[”] | Added.
| the apostle repeat[a/e]dly and unqualifiedly asserted | Replaced.
| and distributed a second cup[,/.] | Replaced.
| Let him not become uncircumcised[.] | Added.
| to observe all things whatso[e]ver | Added.
| that believed on his name.”—J[no/oh]. i, 12. | Replaced.
| signif[inif]icant | Removed.
| unclean (akathartoi), and holy (hagioi[,/.])| Replaced.
| They [in-]include the Sinai constitution | Removed.
.ta-
.dv-
CHECK ON 466.21 & 326.16 if the inline pm can be fixed.....