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 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.

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 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 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 repeatedly 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 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 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, 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 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.

Footnote 112:

The “_Greeting_” (_Chairein_) Acts xv, 23; is found nowhere else in

the New Testament, save in James i, 1.

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.

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

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 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.

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 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 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 cup. 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.

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.

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

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 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 “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, 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 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.

Footnote 113:

Alexander on Acts, xxi, 20.

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 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 colonists were sent to take possession

of the soil. Jerusalem in fact became a Gentile city.”[116]

Footnote 114:

Eusebius iii, 11; iv, 5, 6.

Footnote 115:

Etheridge’s Jerusalem and Tiberias, p. 71.

Footnote 116:

Etheridge, Ibid. p. 72.

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.

Footnote 117:

Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Cent. II., Part II., Ch. v, 1, 2.

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 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 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 uncircumcised. 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 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 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, 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.

PART XV.

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

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 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.

Footnote 118:

Institutes, Book IV, chap, xvi, §37.

Footnote 119:

Dale’s “Christic Baptism,” pp. 430, 431.

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 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 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 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 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 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]

Footnote 120:

See Alexander on Acts xiv, 5.

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.

NOTE.—How can we consistently restore excommunicated persons without

rebaptism? Is not the prevalent practice a 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?

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 whatsoever 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 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.

Footnote 121:

In Dale, Christic Baptism, p. 205.

_Epi_, in this connection, has the general meaning of, because of,—on

account of,—with reference to,—_for_; and the 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 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 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. 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.”—Joh. 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.

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!”

Footnote 122:

Christic Baptism, p. 393.

The text is a statement to the apostles, and through them to the

ministry in all ages, of their duties and the 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

Footnote 123:

Dale’s Christic Baptism, p. 162.

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 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 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.

Footnote 124:

“Christic Baptism,” p. 158.

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 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

had before quoted from Joel, in explanation of the Pentecostal signs.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.