embarrassments. We have seen the millions of Israel baptized by Moses,
in the hours of one morning, they receiving the rite either collectively
in one body, or by tribe-families or tribes. It is very probable that
this was the manner in which the rite was ordinarily administered by
John to the throngs that attended on his ministry, and by the disciples
of Christ, when he “made and baptized more disciples than John.” The
Jews were familiar with the use of the hyssop bush as appointed in the
law, for administering the rite. There was nothing in the nature of the
ordinance, nor in the circumstances of the occasion, to render
inappropriate or improbable a resort to that mode. On the contrary,
every consideration, of convenience, of dignity, propriety and
edification, united to commend it as the most suitable way, the water
being sprinkled with a hyssop bush, and the recipients of the rite
presenting themselves in companies of suitable size, by scores or by
hundreds. Thus was set forth by a joint baptism the doctrine of Paul.
“By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”—1 Cor. xii, 13.
Such is the conclusion to which the analogy of the Scriptures points.
Such, I doubt not, was the form of administration that day. For the
present purpose, however, this much is clear and sufficient,—that the
record of Pentecost contains nothing incongruous to the previous history
and doctrine of baptism,—that on the contrary, the Spirit-baptism of
that day and all the circumstances, concur to the same conclusion which
the foregoing history indicates. “_Not immersion; but affusion_”—is the
unambiguous voice of Pentecost.
SECTION XCVI.—_Other Cases Illustrating the Mode._
The next case that illustrates the mode, is the baptism of the eunuch.
“As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the
eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?...
And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And
when they were come up out of the water.”—Acts viii, 36-39. To what has
been said already concerning this passage, one or two points only need
be added. Dr. Dale has pointed out the fact that the verb (_katebēsan_),
“they went down,” has primary reference to the chariot, out of which
they descended. He refers to the Septuagint of Judges iv, 15, “And
Sisera (_katebē_) _stepped down_ from his chariot;” and to Matt. xiv,
29,—“Peter (_katabas_) _stepping down_ from the boat walked on the
water, to go to Jesus.” The essential point, however, is that the
descent was not the baptism,—that, with the style of clothing, then as
now, worn in the east, nothing would have been more natural and
convenient than that they should have stepped into the water, as the
most convenient way of access, even though the baptism was to be
performed by sprinkling or pouring. “The place” (_periochē_, the
section), which the eunuch was reading, begins with Isa. lii, 13, and
includes the whole of liii. It is a continuous prophecy of the Messiah,
under the designation of God’s servant. In the fifty-third chapter, down
to the eleventh verse the pronoun “_he_” is used to designate the
subject of the account. It refers back to lii, 13, to which we must look
for the theme of the prophecy. “Behold _my servant_ shall deal
prudently.” When, therefore, the eunuch read liii, 7, 8,—“He was led as
a sheep to the slaughter,” and asked, “Of whom speaketh the prophet
this?” Philip must of necessity have turned back to the beginning of the
section, for the answer. In so doing, he finds this among the first
things said of the person described:—“As many were astonied at thee, his
visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons
of men, ... so shall he _sprinkle_ many nations.”—lii, 14, 15. This
prophecy, thus coinciding with that of Joel, which was the text of
Peter’s Pentecostal discourse, could not be overlooked by Philip, in his
instructions to the eunuch. The latter, although himself a Jew, was
identified with a Gentile nation. He was chamberlain, or treasurer, to
Candace, the queen of Meroe, in upper Egypt.[125] The prophecy,
therefore, “So shall he _sprinkle many nations_,” could not fail to
arrest his attention and elicit the story of Pentecost, as the beginning
of redemption to the Gentiles. That, with Christ’s baptizing office
brought thus into view, his ordinance concerning ritual baptism should
be announced, was not only a necessary result of the circumstances, but
was an essential part of that office which Philip was to perform.
“Disciple all nations, baptizing them.” In favor of the hypothesis that
the eunuch was immersed, there is nothing but the fact that they went
down to, or into the water. On behalf of his being sprinkled, is the
explicit testimony of the prophet as to the manner of the real baptism,
of which the ritual ordinance is the symbol.
Footnote 125:
Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi, 35) states this kingdom of which Meroe, on an
island in the Nile, was the chief city, to have been “now for a long
time,” governed by queens, who transmitted to each other the name of
Candace.
2. The baptism of the apostle Paul next presents itself. Of it we have
two brief accounts which are mutually supplementary. (Acts ix, 10-20;
xxii, 12-16.) After his vision of Jesus, on the way, he had lain for
three days in the house of Judas, in Damascus, blind, fasting and
prostrate. To him Ananias was sent and said to him—“And now, why
tarriest thou?” Why liest thou thus prostrate and desponding? “Arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord.”—Acts xxii, 16. Literally “(_Anastas, baptisai, kai apolusai_),
_Rising, be baptized, and let_ thy sins _be washed away_, calling upon
the name of the Lord.” Says Alexander, “Be baptized, is not a passive,
as in ii, 38, but the middle voice of the same verb, strictly meaning,
‘baptize thyself,’ or, rather, ‘cause thyself to be baptized,’ or suffer
(some one) to baptize thee. The form of the next verb [_apolusai_] is
the same, but can not be so easily expressed in English; as it has a
noun dependent on it. This peculiarity of form is only so far of
importance as it shows that Paul was to wash away his sins in the same
sense that he was to baptize himself; _i. e._ by consenting to receive
both from another. As his body was to be baptized by man; so, his sins
were to be washed away by God. The identity, or even the inseparable
union, of the two effects, is so far from being here affirmed, that they
are rather held apart, as things connected by the natural relation of
type and antitype, yet perfectly distinguishable in themselves, and
easily separable in experience.”[126] The exhortation, “Let thy sins be
washed away,” is intimately dependent upon the next clause,—“calling
upon the name of the Lord.”—Calling not as a mere reverential
invocation; nor as a mere profession or act of faith. But “calling on
him to purge away thy sins with the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost; and accepting the baptism of water as the
symbol and pledge of the other.”
Footnote 126:
Alexander, _in loco_.
In the parallel account, it is stated that “he received sight forthwith
(_kai anastas, ebaptisthe_) _and rising up, was baptized_.”—Acts ix, 18.
Thus, in both of these accounts, the same form of expression is used as
to the manner of the baptism,—a form which indicates that the
administration was immediate, upon his rising from his couch. “Rising
up, be baptized.” “And he, rising up, was baptized.” In the original,
the force of the expressions is even stronger, to the same effect. The
circumstances coincide with this interpretation. The prostration,
resulting from the vision by the way, from the blindness, and the three
days in which he was “without sight, and neither did eat nor drink”
(Acts ix, 9), must have been very great; and it was not until after his
baptism that “he received meat and was strengthened.”—Ib. 19. There is
no intimation of leaving the place. There is no word of such preparation
as an immersion would require. But the whole case stands in the
expression twice employed, from which but one meaning can be
deduced,—that he was baptized immediately, in his chamber, as he rose
from his couch, and stood before Ananias. Whatever the mode, it can not
have been immersion.
It has been asserted that Paul’s baptism was not ritual but spiritual.
The supposition is encumbered with the same difficulties which attend
the like idea respecting the baptism of Pentecost. The occasion of
Ananias being sent to him was the fact attested by the Lord
Jesus,—“Behold he prayeth.”—Prayer so attested lacked neither repentance
nor faith. He had, therefore, already received the baptism of the
Spirit,—that is his renewing grace; although not his miraculous gifts.
Moreover, the baptism which he received in his chamber was something to
which the ministry of Ananias was requisite, and for which his rising
from his couch was preparatory. None of these things harmonize with the
idea that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Nor was it implied in
the language of Ananias,—“That thou mightest receive thy sight and be
filled with the Holy Ghost.”—Acts ix, 17. With this is to be compared
the previous statement concerning him, made in vision by Jesus to
Ananias, “He hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming and
_putting his hand upon him_, that he might receive his sight.”—Ib. 12.
It was through the laying on of the hands of Ananias that Paul’s sight
was restored and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred upon
him. Such was the ordinary manner, as we have already seen, of the
imparting of those gifts; which was undoubtedly the nature of the
present endowment of Saul of Tarsus.
3. The baptism of the house of Cornelius is equally unfavorable to the
idea of immersion. (Acts x, 44-48.) The words of Peter admit of but one
construction. “Can any man forbid (_to udōr_) _the water_; that these
should not be baptized.”—Acts x, 47. We have already pointed out that
this language means that the water, as an instrument, was to be brought
to the place, in order to the baptism. Moreover, the baptism of this
company, thus, with water, was by Peter expressly predicated upon the
fact that they had been already baptized with the Holy Ghost, by his
outpouring upon them. “The Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard.”
“On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” “Can
any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”—Acts x, 44, 45, 47. And lest
there should be any possible doubt about the meaning of all this, Peter
explains himself to the church in Jerusalem,—“Then remembered I the word
of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”—Ib. xi, 16. Here again the facts
are decisive in favor of affusion.
4. The Philippian jailer and his family are the only remaining instance
in which illustrative circumstances are recorded. (Acts xvi, 25-34.) As
bearing upon the mode, these are, that at midnight, in the jail, upon
his professed repentance and faith, the jailer was baptized, “he and all
his straightway.”—Acts xvi, 33. This too was before he had taken Paul
and Silas out of the jail proper, into his own apartments. The
impossibility of the rite, administered in such circumstances, having
been immersion, would seem evident. Nor is it admissible, as proposed by
Baptist writers, to suppose that the jailer and his family with the
prisoners went out to the river and were there immersed. The suggestion
is not only contradicted by the record, which describes the baptism as
having been (_parachrēma_) “straightway,” with neither time nor action
intervening. But it would have been an act of official dereliction,
involving peril to the jailer’s life, and rendering the message of Paul
to the magistrates, the next day, an impudent pretence. They sent the
sergeants to the jailer, saying, “Let these men go.” “But Paul said unto
them, They have beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have
cast us into prison. And now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily,
but let them come themselves and fetch us out.”—Ib. 37. Is this the
language of men who had already stolen out of the prison, by night?
We have thus passed in review every instance of Christian baptism
mentioned in the New Testament, in which any particulars are given. The
only other cases named are the Samaritans (Acts viii, 12, 13, 15), Lydia
(Ib. xvi, 15), the Corinthians (Ib. xviii, 8; 1 Cor. i, 14-17), and the
twelve disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts xix, 1-5). Of them we are only
informed that they were baptized. As to the cases which we have examined
it is certainly remarkable and significant that with the exception of
the eunuch, they each present physical difficulties in the way of
immersion, serious if not insurmountable; and that in the excepted case,
the utmost that can be said is, that nothing appears to render immersion
physically impossible; while the connection of the occasion points
distinctly to a sprinkled baptism.
The cumulative argument arising out of these baptisms is overwhelming.
They can not have been by immersion.
SECTION XCVII.—“_Baptized into Moses._”
The baptism of Israel into Moses, is pertinent here, as illustrating the
apostolic style of conception and language on the subject. “All our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were
all baptized (_eis_) _into_ Moses, (_en_) _by_ the cloud and (_en_) _by_
the sea.”—1 Cor. x, 1, 2.
We have already seen the typical relation which Moses and Israel, and
the covenant with them sustained to the Lord Jesus and the true Israel,
and the better covenant, as expounded by Paul to the Hebrews. The
language here cited from the same apostle derives its form from the same
conception. Israel in the bondage of Egypt,—Moses sent to them as a
deliverer,—the passage out of the land of bondage, through the Red
Sea,—the destruction of Pharaoh in the sea and the cutting off thus of
Israel from all dependence or subjection to him,—their consequent faith
in Moses and submission to his authority,—the covenant made with them
through him as Mediator,—their nourishment in the wilderness on the
bread of heaven, and the water from the Rock,—and their final passage
through the Jordan and entrance into the promised land,—are the elements
of a typical system the antitypes of which are to be sought, not in the
visible church and its ritual ordinances, but in Christ and his body,
the invisible church, and the spiritual and heavenly realities which it
enjoys. According to this conception, the “baptism into Moses” finds its
antitype in the baptism into Christ, by which his people are emancipated
from the bondage of Satan and brought under the yoke of Christ. And as
that baptism is instrumentally accomplished by the Spirit, whereby they
all are baptized into one body of which Christ is the Head, so the
baptism of Israel was instrumentally effected “_by_ the cloud and _by_
the sea;” they being by the cloud protected from the Egyptians and
directed through the receding sea; while “the Lord looked unto the host
of the Egyptians, through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and
troubled the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels,” and the
returning sea swallowed them up.—Ex. xiv, 23-28. Here was an immersion.
But it was of the Egyptians. Here was a baptism,—of the children of
Israel,—into Moses,—not into water,—not into cloud, or sea or both
together. There were not two baptisms, but one, and in order to make it
an immersion “in the cloud and in the sea,” the baptism “into Moses”
must be obliterated. The Baptist figment which we have seen stated by
Dr. Kendrick, of the “double wall of water rolled up on each side, and
the column of fiery cloud stretching its enshrouding folds above them,”
is not merely an idle imagination. But it is an imagination in direct
and palpable contradiction to the record of Moses. The Israelites were
indeed under the cloud. But it was _before_ they entered the sea, and
not during their march through it. “The Angel of God which went before
the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the
cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came
between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a
cloud and darkness to them; but it gave light by night to these; so that
the one came not near the other all the night. And Moses stretched out
his hand over the sea ... and the waters were divided. And the children
of Israel went into the midst of the sea.”—Ex. xiv, 19-22. Thus, before
the sea was divided, Israel were “under the cloud,” as it passed back
from their front, to become an intercepting barrier between them and the
pursuing host. But, during the march through the sea, the cloud was
_between_ the two hosts, and not “enshrouding” Israel above. Thus, as by
the touch of Ithuriel’s spear, the figment of immersion vanishes in the
presence of the word of truth, and in its stead appear the ransomed
tribes marching upon the sands between walls of water, miles apart, the
open heavens above them and the cloud moving as a protecting curtain, in
their rear. The attempt to find immersion here, is futile.
That the preposition, _en_, is rightly here translated, _by_, as
indicating the instrumental cause, in the baptism, is illustrated by an
example a little farther on in the same epistle. “_By_ one Spirit, are
we all baptized _into_ one body.”—1 Cor. xii, 13. Here, Christ is the
Baptizer, the Spirit is the instrument, and union with Christ and his
body the result. So, of Israel, Jehovah was the Baptizer, the cloud and
the sea were the instruments, and union with Moses the result. Just
before, they had been in a state of open mutiny. (Ex. xiv, 11, 12.) But
now, says the record, “the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of
the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. And
Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians, and
the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant
Moses.”—Ib. 30, 31. Their changed state of mind was attested by the song
of their triumph which rang out over the unconscious and now peaceful
waters. “Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the
horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”—Ib. xv, 1-21. Thus
have we a signal example of such a change of state or experience as even
Dr. Conant admits to have been designated by the word, _baptizo_. From
under the power and fear of Pharaoh, they came into the trust and
obedience of Moses. They were “baptized into Moses.” The only intimation
of instrumental mode in this baptism, to be found in the Scriptures,
occurs in the Psalmist’s vivid description of the scene. “The clouds
poured out water, the skies sent out a sound, thine arrows also went
abroad.”—Ps. lxxvii, 17.
PART XVI.
THE FAMILY AND THE CHILDREN.
SECTION XCVIII.—_Christ and the Children._
At this stage of our inquiry, we note the following points which have
important bearings upon the relation of the children to the church. (1.)
We have seen that, in the establishing of the covenant with Abraham,—the
promises of which were blessings to the natural offspring of the
patriarch, and through them, salvation to the world,—its seal was set
upon all the males of his household,—through whom the descent was to be
counted,—at the age of eight days. (2.) We have seen that in the Sinai
covenant, by which in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, the church
was constituted in the family of Israel, the same fundamental principles
of family unity and parental headship were recognized and incorporated
in the constitution of the church; and that in accordance therewith, the
children and bondservants, both male and female, were included in its
terms, with the family head; endowed with all its rights and privileges;
bound under its responsibilities; and sealed with its baptismal seal.
(3.) We have seen that it was into this church, as thus constituted and
existing, and without change in its constitutional principles, or form
of organization, that through the ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles
were graffed; thus fulfilling the promise to Abraham, that in his seed
should all families of the earth be blessed; a promise fulfilled not
only in salvation accomplished through the promised Seed of Abraham, but
in the reception thus of the Gentiles into the bosom of the church of
Israel.
It now remains to be ascertained whether there is any thing in the
principles of the gospel, as set forth in the New Testament, in the
practical rules therein recorded, or in the facts of its history, to
require or justify the extruding of the children from the place and
privileges hitherto enjoyed;—whether there is any thing to lead us to
the conclusion that the coming of Christ has straitened the grace of
God, and withdrawn from the babes of us Gentiles that privilege of
acceptance which was enjoyed by the little ones of Israel, from the day
of the covenant at Sinai.
1. As the place of the children was originally conferred and secured by
express statute and repeated enactments of confirmation, we have a right
to expect the abrogation of the privileges thus established to be
accomplished in terms as specific and imperative as were the laws by
which they were conferred. But no one has ever pretended to produce such
a statute of abrogation. Confessedly the New Testament is absolutely
silent as to such an act,—a silence fatal to the theories which deny a
place to the babes in the family of God.
2. The facts and principles set forth in the New Testament supply no
argument for the exclusion of the children. First, is that touching
incident which is recorded with more or less fullness in each of the
synoptical gospels. In reply to the question who of the apostles
should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, being in a house
in Capernaum,—probably in the house of one of them, several of whom
lived there,—he “called a little child unto him and set him in the
midst of them,”—“and (_enagkalisamenos_) _having folded it in his
arms_, he said unto them,” “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be
converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this
little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso
shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”—Matt.
xviii, 1-5; Mark ix, 36; Luke ix, 46-48. With this is to be connected
that kindred fact which occurred a few days afterward, and is also
recorded in each of the three synoptical gospels. “Then were there
brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them
and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer
little children and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is
the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed
thence.”—Matt. xix, 13-15. Mark and Luke add that he said, “Verily I
say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. And (_enagkalisamenos_)
_folding them in his arms_, he put his hands upon them, and blessed
them.”—Mark x, 13-16; Luke xviii, 15-17. Of these little children,
Luke tells us that they were (_brephē_) _babes_. That these incidents
in the life of our Savior were of special significance is indicated by
the fact that they are both given by each of the evangelists, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. As to their meaning,—(1.) These children all were, at
the time, actual members of that visible kingdom of God the church of
Israel, in the bosom of which Jesus himself lived and died. (2.) That
church was the type and representative of the invisible church and
kingdom. (3.) Of all members of the visible church, Jesus selects the
little child of the first incident and the babes of the second, as the
fittest types or representatives of the temper and spirit which will
have admittance and honor in the heavenly kingdom. (4.) He was much
displeased, that his disciples should attempt to prevent their being
brought, in their unconsciousness and helplessness, into his personal
presence, for recognition and a blessing from him. (5.) Both the child
in the house, and the babes brought to him, he folded in his arms, and
upon the latter he laid his hands and blessed them. He was the great
Shepherd, as himself testifies,—“I am the good Shepherd.”—John x, 11.
Of him the prophet wrote,—“He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and
carry them in his bosom.”—Isa. xl, 11. And we ask,—Can any one venture
to deny that, by these acts, so distinctly referring to the prophecy,
Jesus designed to recognize and claim the babes as lambs of his fold?
As before remarked, these babes were undeniably members of the church,
at the time of these occurrences. If the Lord Jesus designed to leave
them in undisturbed possession of the rights and privileges heretofore
enjoyed, with his benediction added thereto, all this is clear and
intelligible. But, if they were to be deprived and excluded, how are
these things to be reconciled?
Another incident, in circumstances even more significant, presents
itself. After his resurrection, Jesus met with his disciples at the Sea
of Galilee. “When they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”—John
xxi, 15. Peter was present in the house in Capernaum, when Jesus took
the child in his arms. Nay, it is not improbable that it was Peter’s
house, and Peter’s child. He was present when the babes were brought for
blessing, and saw and heard all that then occurred. He was a Hebrew of
the Hebrews,—the chief apostle of the circumcision. When he received
this charge from the Master, in which were commended to his love and
care, _first_, the lambs, and afterward the sheep; and when he pondered
this charge and legacy, in the light of the fifteen centuries during
which the place of the children had been unquestioned and
unquestionable, and in remembrance of those demonstrative facts which he
had seen and heard,—would he understand it as implying a command to
purge and renovate the fold, by the exclusion of the lambs? And when, a
few days after, or, possibly on this very same occasion, he as the
apostle through whom the doors of the gospel were to be opened to the
Gentiles, with the rest, received that great command,—“Go disciple all
nations, baptizing them,”—are we to conceive it possible that he
understood it to mean that he must be very tender of the Jewish lambs,
bringing them into the fold and school of Christ, but must drive out the
children of the Gentiles as unclean?
3. Under the ministry of the apostles, the Gentiles were called and
graffed into the church of Israel. In the church, thus constituted as
already shown, some congregations were composed of Jews alone, some, of
Gentiles, and some, of the two classes associated together; but in them
all Jewish influences were pervasive and paramount. Now, is it to be
imagined that without a word of command from Christ or the apostles, the
Jewish believers would unanimously, gratuitously, and in silence,
surrender the place of their children in the church, just at the moment
when the privileges thereto incident had become so much more manifest,
by the coming of Christ, and the brightness, by his rising, shed upon
the gospel day? And even if such a thing could be imagined possible,
what else would it have been but a wicked apostasy and rejection of the
grace given them? But, that no such apostasy did take place, is
assuredly testified by the silence of the record, and by all the
circumstances. That, in the churches of the circumcision, and among
Jewish believers everywhere, the children occupied their old status is
beyond controversy or question. Of this, their circumcision is of itself
conclusive proof. And as, from the days of Abraham, that rite certified
them seed of the patriarch and heirs of the promises,—and at Sinai they
were introduced, by baptism, into the pale of the church and the
privileges of that covenant,—so their continued enjoyment alike of the
privileges and the seals must stand forever certain, till some prophet
shall arise to tell us when, and how, and for what cause, they were
divested of rights once bestowed by Him whose “gifts and callings are
without repentance.”
And if, by a special clause in the very covenant of Sinai itself, grace
to the Gentiles was reserved, in harmony with abundant grace to Israel,
the baptism of Israel’s babes into the fold of that covenant, that day,
was a foretokening and pledge of the same grace to the children of the
Gentiles, when the times of the Gentiles shall have come. They are not
the seed of Abraham, and therefore receive not the seal of his covenant
in their flesh. But baptism is theirs,—the seal of the Sinai covenant,
in which, now, the rights of the Gentiles are equal. “For there is no
difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is
rich unto all that call upon him.”—Rom. x, 12.
SECTION XCIX.—“_Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy._”
We have the express testimony of inspiration, to the children’s right
within the pale of the church. Says Paul to the Corinthians,—“The
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife
is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children _unclean_; but now
are they _holy_.”—1 Cor. vii, 14. The significance of this declaration,
as concerning the children, depends upon the meaning of the words,
_unclean_ (_akathartoi_), and _holy_ (_hagioi_). Both of them come into
the New Testament, from the Septuagint version of the Old. In the Greek
of that version, the word (_akathartos_) does not appear in the books of
Moses until we come to the laws of ritual uncleanness and purifying,
which have been so largely discussed in these pages. Then, beginning
with the fifth chapter of Leviticus, it occurs in that book in about
eighty-seven places, in all of which it designates the ritually unclean;
being applied alike to things and persons. In Numbers and Deuteronomy,
it appears about thirty times, in the same sense. In the entire Old
Testament, the word is used about one hundred and forty times; and with
the exception of half a dozen passages in which it indicates the moral
offensiveness of sin, it is invariably employed in one and the same
sense,—to designate persons and things that by virtue of ritual
defilements were excluded from the pale of the covenant and the
sanctuary. If we add to this the related noun (_akatharsia_) the force
of these considerations is greatly increased. It, in like manner, first
occurs in Leviticus, as the designation of the _uncleannesses_ which
were described by the adjective (_akathartos_), _unclean_. It occurs
about fifty times, and with a few exceptions in which it describes the
vileness of sin, is constantly used in the ritual sense.
The other word (_hagios_) _holy_, has a history and meaning, equally
clear and well defined. It has primary reference to the sum of the
divine perfections, in view of which God is designated, the _holy_ One.
Thence, it is transferred to designate those moral attributes in men
which are after the likeness of God’s holiness; as, in the admonition
which is often repeated in the books of Moses, “Be ye holy, for I am
holy.” Again, it is used to denote the relation sustained to God by
things devoted to his use or service. Thus, the tabernacle and all its
parts and furniture were holy. In this sense, the word was used in the
covenant with Israel. “Ye shall be unto me a _holy nation_ (_ethnos
hagion_.”)—Ex. xix, 6. The acceptance of this covenant, and the seal of
baptism by which it was confirmed established Israel as “holy” unto the
Lord. Prior to that covenant the word had never been applied to men. But
from that transaction forward Israel was recognized in that character.
Thus, alluding to the covenant, Moses says to them,—“Thou art a holy
people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a
special people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of
the earth.”—Deut. vii, 6. Upon this title and the covenant ground of it,
Moses insists with great emphasis, recurring to the theme again and
again. (See Deut. xiv, 2, 21; xxvi, 19; xxviii, 9.) It is in view of
this covenant provision that the distinctive appellation of Israel in
the prophets is, “the holy people;” and to the same source is to be
referred the familiar designation of “saints,” that is, holy ones, which
is constantly employed, especially in the Psalms. Thus, the Lord says in
Ps. 1, 5,—“Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a
covenant with me by sacrifice.” Here, not only is the title used, but
the ground of it is stated. It is that public profession and covenant of
which sacrifice was essential as a seal, and incorporated as such in the
baptismal rite.
Such is the testimony of the Old Testament, respecting these words. The
church of Corinth was composed largely of Jews, who as we have seen
still maintained the ordinances of the synagogue after as well as before
their conversion to Christ. In those assemblies, James declares that
“Moses of old time hath in every city, them that preach him, being read
in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”—Acts xv, 21. The Corinthian
disciples, therefore, never attended those services without hearing the
words in question used; and used in this continual sense of ritual
uncleanness and ritual purity.
In the New Testament, the words in question are employed in strict
accordance with the Old Testament usage. But as the ritual law here
sinks into comparative obscurity, _akathartos_, more frequently means
the loathsomeness of sin. Of the twenty-eight places in which it is
found, it in twenty, describes “_unclean_ spirits,” or demons. But when
the question arises of the right of the Gentiles to a part with Israel,
in the covenant and the church, the ritual meaning of the word, again
comes forward. Peter in his vision pleads that he had “never eaten any
thing common, or _unclean_.”—Acts x, 14. The lesson which that vision
taught him was, that he “should not call any man common or
_unclean_.”—Ib. 28. And he afterward said of the house of Cornelius that
God “put no difference between us and them, (_katharisas_) _cleansing_
their hearts by faith.”—Ib. xv, 9. Except the place in question, in
which the relation of the children to the church is in view, and that of
Peter, concerning the like relation of believing Gentiles, the word is
invariably used in the New Testament to designate that moral character
of which ritual uncleanness was the figure.
So, too, as to (_hagioi_) “_holy_,” or “saints”—it is the peculiar and
distinctive appellation in the New Testament, as in the Old, for those
whom we would call “members of the church.” In the Acts of the Apostles,
some half a dozen times, the title of “disciples,” is used; once, Peter
employs the name of “Christian” (1 Pet. iv, 16); and Paul once speaks of
“the believers.” (1 Tim. iv, 12.) But, with these exceptions, the
appellation universally used is (_hagioi_) “saints.” It thus occurs
about fifty-six times, of which forty are in the epistles of Paul, the
author of the passage in question. In fact, this is the designation
which he uniformly employs in this very epistle and his second to the
same church to designate the members of the church. “Dare any of you,
having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust and not
before the _saints_?”—1 Cor. vi, 1. “As in all the churches of the
_saints_.” (Ib. xiv, 33.) “Paul ... unto the church of God which is in
Corinth, with all the _saints_ which are in all Achaia.”—2 Cor. i, 1.
The source of this title, moreover, as derived from the Sinai covenant,
is indicated by Peter, who quotes the terms of that covenant and applies
them to the New Testament church. “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, a _holy nation_ (_ethnos hagion_), a peculiar people.”—1
Peter ii, 9. As in the Old Testament, so in the New, the word, _hagios_,
invariably means, either, that holiness which is essential in God, and
which, in his creatures is a bond of consecration to him; or, the
characteristic of persons and things separated by a peculiar dedication
and appropriation to his use and service.
The alternative to which the facts reduce us, is this:—that Paul, master
as he was of the Mosaic system and of the language in which it is
recorded,—in his reference to the children, used the words,
_akathartoi_, and, _hagioi_, in their familiar ritual signification; or
that he meant to deceive his readers. For, that the heirs of the
covenant were in fact a holy people to God, was an express and
fundamental specification in the covenant. And that the children were
comprehended in this provision was no more questionable than was the
existence of the covenant itself. Whatever therefore the meaning of
Paul, his readers could not possibly understand his language in any but
one way:—“_Else were your children excluded from the pale of the
covenant; but now are they embraced in it._”
The attempt is made to evade the overwhelming force of the facts, on
this point, by a most extraordinary interpretation. It is asserted that
Paul means,—“Else were your children illegitimate, but now are they
legitimate.” The doctrine thus attributed to the apostle, is in the
first place, false and abominable in morals. It is an assertion that no
child is legitimate, unless one or other of its parents be a Christian.
In the second place, it is an interpretation false to the whole
testimony of the Scriptures as to the meaning of the words. In all the
multitude of places in which they are to be found, there is not one to
give the slightest color of sanction to it. It is nothing less than a
desperate and unscrupulous attempt to silence the voice of God’s
testimony because it is in terms of grace to our children.
Paul’s language is, in fact, an application to the children, of the same
general principle of divine grace, which governed him in the
circumcision of Timothy. The Hebrew blood of Timothy’s mother was held
to entitle him to part in the Abrahamic covenant, although his father
was a Greek. So, Paul pronounces the children of believers, Gentiles and
Jews, to be _clean_, as comprehended in the Sinai covenant, and the
gospel church, even though one parent should be an unbeliever.
It is only to be farther considered, that as those only who are baptized
of the Spirit are spiritually clean, so the Scriptures know nothing of
ritual cleanness, except by baptism with water; and that the command,
“Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them,” makes the baptizing
co-extensive with the discipleship,—that is, with admission to the
school of Christ, and pale of the covenant.
SECTION C.—_Household Baptisms._
We have seen the grace of God expressed toward the children of his
people, under the Mosaic economy, by their being embraced with their
parents in the terms of the covenant. We have seen their admission
thereto announced and confirmed by the seal of baptism. We have seen no
token of the withdrawal of that grace by the Lord Jesus when in person
on earth. We have heard, on the contrary, his confirmation of it in
terms as strong as language can furnish. We have seen that same
covenant, its terms unchanged, and its seal the same, thrown open,
through the ministry of the apostles, to the Gentiles, and heard the
testimony of the apostle, that our children are not unclean,—offensive
to God, but holy,—acceptable before him. We now proceed to consider the
facts and principles involved in the household baptisms, which are
described in the New Testament. First, however, it is proper to make an
important correction in the aspect in which the subject is commonly
viewed and discussed. The principle which the Scriptures set forth and
establish is not that of the baptism and membership of _infants_, as
such. The fundamental element of the visible church, as conceived and
set forth, in Scripture, is not the individual, but the family. As God
planted the earth in families, so in the covenant with Abraham he laid
down the family society as the foundation stone, on which, at Sinai, the
church was builded; and hence the organization of the church of Israel
upon the family principle, and its government by the eldership, the
representatives of its families. Under this constitution, the infants,
were of course included. But the designation and discussion of the
subject, under their name, as if it were a question of _infant_ baptism
and _infant_ membership, distinctively, does injustice to the subject,
as it leaves out of sight and practically excludes the fundamental
principle involved. That principle is, parental headship, and the
consequent grace of God bestowed on the _families_ of his people,—their
children and bond servants,—as identified in and represented by them.
1. The first case of household baptism mentioned is that of
Lydia,—“whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things
which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household,
she besought us saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord,
come into my house and abide there.”—Acts xvi, 14, 15. Here, the
essential facts are, (1.) that the house of Lydia were by the inspired
historian, recognized in no other capacity than as being (_oikos autēs_)
_her house_. Their number, their names, their ages, their distinctive
relation to her, whether as children or servants, their several or joint
sentiments toward the gospel,—on all these points he is silent. The one
single fact to which he directs our attention is Lydia’s property in
them. (2.) Of Lydia alone it is said that the Lord opened her heart; and
upon this fact exclusively is predicated her baptism and that of her
house. Should any surmise that her house also believed, we do not
object, provided the surmise is not to be made an essential part of the
record. If it be insisted that they believed and therefore were
baptized, we reply that had such been the conception of the sacred
writer, it would have been as easy, and far more important for him to
have stated their faith, as he has recorded their baptism. The
supposition that they did in fact believe, only renders his silence on
that point the more significant. (3.) These facts occurred in the
ministry of that same Paul whom we have just seen to testify that the
children of believers are holy. In a word Luke states the fact of the
baptism, and the ground of it. Lydia believed, and she was baptized and
her house. Because of her faith, to her and to her house the old, the
everlasting, covenant was fulfilled,—“to be a God to thee and to thy
seed after thee.”
2. The baptism, which soon followed, of the jailer and his house is
equally explicit on this point. He said to Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what
must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word
of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the
same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he
and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he
set meat before them, and (_ēgalliasato panoiki, pepisteukōs tō Theō_,)
rejoiced with his house, he believing in God.”—Acts xvi, 30-34. Here,
again, we have a construction which remarkably ignores the question
whether his house, as well as he, believed. It may he assumed that they
were all of an age to hear and understand the gospel. It may be assumed
that they, so understanding, believed also. But it may not be assumed
that such knowledge and faith were the ground of their baptism, because
the sacred writer puts it upon a different ground. It was as identified
with him—as belonging to him, that they were included in the rite. “He
was baptized,—he and all _his_.” Thus their relation to him is the
defining term. “He and _all_ that were his.”—He and _none but_ his; and
they _because_ they were his. Such is the force of the expression as it
stands. In the same direction looks the closing expression. “He rejoiced
with all his house,—he believing.” That his house did not believe we
neither assert nor deny. The point of importance is, that their faith is
no element of the case, as stated on the record, upon which was grounded
their baptism. The alternative is clear and inevitable. Either he, only,
of all his house did in fact believe; or, if his household shared in his
faith, the remarkable manner in which, in the narrative, they are
associated with him in his baptism and joy, but omitted from the
statement which describes him alone, as believing, was an express and
designed intimation that his personal faith was the controlling element
in the case, according to the terms of the everlasting covenant,—“to be
a God to thee, and to _thy seed_ after thee,” and the assurance given
him by Paul,—“Believe, ... and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” He
was recognized and dealt with as the head of his house, precisely as was
Abraham.
3. Paul declares that he “baptized (_ton Stephana oikon_) the house of
Stephanas.”—1 Cor. i, 16. Here, again, there is no discrimination of
individuals. The characteristic upon which he predicates the baptism is
the relation which he indicates. It was the house of Stephanas, as such,
whom he baptized.
Respecting these cases, it may be admitted that if taken separately,
they would constitute no conclusive evidence to the present purpose. But
such is not their position. They stand as one element in a series of
facts and principles which together present a cumulative argument
conclusive and unanswerable. These begin with the Abrahamic covenant and
the family principle there established. They include the Sinai
constitution, in which the same principle was ineffaceably engraved.
They comprehend the opening of the doors of the church thereon founded,
to the Gentile world, with this principle unimpaired. They reveal the
love of Christ to the babes, in the history and instructions of his
personal ministry, and in his parting commission to Peter. They hold up
the testimony of Paul, that the babes of believers are “saints.” It is
in the presence of these great facts, inscribed in letters of light upon
the records of fifteen hundred years; and in the absence of any thing
whatever to contravene their testimonies, or to set aside the
conclusions thence following, that the household baptisms in question
are to be considered. The children and household were once
unquestionably embraced in God’s covenant with his church.
“_Everlasting_,” was by His finger written on the face of that covenant.
(Gen. xvii, 7.) In its terms, as announced at Sinai, place for the
Gentiles was expressly reserved; and upon their ultimate admission, no
trace of change, in these respects, appears in the record. On the
contrary, in the cases just examined, we have the most conclusive
evidence, in view of the foregoing facts, that the position of the
family has not been changed by the coming of Christ, and the giving of
the gospel to the Gentiles. It still continues a unit under the parental
head; and the same grace which blessed the seed of Abraham because of
his faith,—the same which, at Sinai, embraced the children with their
parents, in the covenant and the fold, still extends those privileges to
the children of Gentiles who believe. They are holy.
CONCLUSION.
And now, at the goal, we turn to survey the broad field of our
explorations, and to note the accumulated results. From this vantage
point, many things appear in a light of peculiar instructiveness and
beauty. But one feature stands out in proportions of loftiness, and
glory, which cast all else into the shade of insignificance. As with
rapt spirits, we gaze, the high throne is revealed where sits the Son of
man,—his human form robed in the Father’s glory,—his countenance
blending the infinite majesty of God, with the fullness of grace and
truth,—his brow adorned with a diadem of many crowns, and all power in
heaven and earth, in his hand. The heavens are astonished at the
presence of his glory, and the adoring angels, prostrate, await his
bidding. The fullness of the Spirit is his; and his office thus exalted
it is, to baptize us sinners with that Spirit,—to give us thus,
repentance and remission of sins and sanctifying grace, and to raise us
up from the dead and make us sit with him in the heavenly places where
he reigns. This is the central sun of the system which we have explored.
From this baptism of the Spirit all the ordinances here examined, derive
their instructive light and beauty. It is the original,—the heavenly
pattern whence their form and office were divinely transcribed. It is,
therefore, the rule and standard to which all baptismal rites and
doctrines must be brought.
Tried by this rule, the figment of baptismal regeneration stands exposed
in naked falsehood and dishonor; arrogating to men a share of the
sovereign prerogatives of our glorious Baptizer; subordinating the
functions of his grace to their will and wisdom, their fidelity and
zeal.
The rite of immersion too,—already discountenanced by the united voice
of the Scriptures,—when brought to this supreme and final test, is
utterly wanting.
It is discountenanced by the transaction at Sinai, in which the church
was separated out of the world and consecrated to God by a baptism of
sprinkled water and blood.
It is discountenanced by the rites which certified and sealed the
restoration of the healed leper to the communion of Israel.
It is discountenanced by the water of purifying with which the Levites
were sprinkled, in their consecration to the service of God’s sanctuary.
It is discountenanced by the ordinance which appointed the water of
separation, to be sprinkled as the ordinary and perpetuated form of the
Sinai baptism, for sealing admission to the benefits of the Sinai
covenant.
It is excluded by the declaration of the son of Sirach that the
sprinkling of the unclean with the water of separation was a baptizing.
It is discountenanced by the sprinkled baptism of the thirty-two
thousand infants and youths of Midian, whereby they were received into
the fold of the covenant and the church.
It is condemned by every voice in the Psalms and the prophets which
breathes a sense of the sinner’s need, or anticipates the blessings of
Messiah’s grace, in the language of these ordinances.
It is excluded by the explicit testimony of the apostle Paul, that these
ordinances were baptisms.
It is condemned by the implacable war which it of necessity wages
against the identity of the church from the day of the assembly at
Sinai,—by its repudiation of the Old Testament church—the church of
Moses and the prophets, which was for fifteen centuries a lone beacon
light among the nations, God’s only witness amid the gloom of thick
darkness which enshrouded the world.
It is discountenanced by the voice of John’s baptism which heralded and
symbolized the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost; and is excluded by
all the circumstances of his ministry, which show that he could not have
immersed his disciples, and that he would not have done it, though he
could.
It is discountenanced by the whole style of the evangelists and
apostles, who speak of baptism and its relations in the language of the
Old Testament, and recognize it as a symbol of the outpouring of
Pentecost.
It is excluded by the records of Christian baptisms as given by Luke,
which, beginning with the three thousand of Pentecost and ending with
the jailer of Philippi and his house, present an array of difficulties
in the way of immersion, which are severally inexplicable, and together
overwhelming.
It is condemned by its association with the kindred denial of the place
which God has assigned to the family and the children in his fold and
his covenant; and by all the facts which demonstrate their God-given and
inalienable rights therein.
It is utterly condemned by the fact that it maims the symmetry and
completeness of the sacramental system of the Christian church. Whilst
the Old Testament sacraments exhibit in just proportions every part and
feature of the plan of grace, and whilst the genuine ordinances of the
New Testament, in like proportions, abbreviate the whole, exhibiting in
the holy supper the sacrament of Christ’s humiliation and sacrifice, and
in baptism that of his exaltation and glory, his power and grace,—the
system in question, recognizes indeed, with us, in the Lord’s supper,
the memorial of Christ’s suffering and death, but in baptism can see
nothing but the symbol of his burial, and so leaves him and all our
hopes shut up and sealed in the sepulchre of Joseph.
It is signally discountenanced by the remarkable fact that in every rite
and every figure in which the Scriptures represent the active exercise
by the Messiah of his official functions, the form of action is
affusion, whether it be with the blood of atonement at the sanctuary of
Israel,—the water, mingled with ashes or blood, which sprinkled the
unclean,—the anointing oil poured upon the head; or the fires of justice
rained down from heaven.
But why dwell upon minor particulars! The rite in question is condemned
and excluded by the whole tenor of the Scriptures, which demonstrate
that _baptizo_ as there used _does not_ mean, to immerse, and which
reveal no vestige of other testimony in behalf of the rite, but
everywhere show evidence abundant and conclusive against it.
But the capital and paramount consideration still remains, in the fact
that this rite will not assimilate with, nor recognize the baptism which
Christ dispenses from his throne. It ignores the exaltation whence that
baptism descends, and refuses to testify of its outpouring of grace. And
hence, although administered with the use of the words, it is not in the
sense intended by the Lord Jesus, baptism “into the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;” for its doctrine has no relation
to those blessed Persons, nor to our union with them. It is wholly
occupied with another theme. Whilst the true baptism exultingly points
upward to the throne of Christ’s glory, this rite looks downward ever to
the grave.
To our readers we leave the question,—What one trait or characteristic
of Scriptural baptism is traceable in this rite of immersion, in
doctrine, or in form?
In entire consistency with a spirit of true Christian love and
fellowship toward our brethren of the Baptist churches, we can not but
realize an indignant revolt against this rite, so imperious in its
claims, so devoid of evidence, so hostile to the true baptism of the
Christian church, so efficient in creating division therein,—this rite
in the zeal of which, those who reject it have been denied any part in
the church of God, or place at his table, or portion in his covenant.
Not such the ordinance which her glorious Head has bestowed upon his
church, nor such the principles which he has taught her to cherish;—an
ordinance in which is shown forth and celebrated the glory of his
exaltation and his grace,—an ordinance which baptizes us into his name
and that of the blessed Godhead, by setting forth the doctrine of that
Godhead and of our union with it in Christ by the Spirit,—an ordinance
which seals upon the brows of our babes that same blessing which they
received in His own arms and from His own hands, in the days of his
flesh;—and principles which teach us to recognize and embrace in the
bonds of love and the fellowship of the covenant and of the church all
those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,
both their Lord and ours, even though they may grievously err respecting
outward rites and forms.
Now to Him, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be
honor and glory, for ever. Amen.
SCRIPTURES
ILLUSTRATED IN THE FOREGOING PAGES.
GENESIS.
— i, 26, p. 268;
— ii, 10, p. 32;
— iii, 15, p. 41;
— xii, 1-3, p. 37;
— xv, 1+, p. 38;
— xvii, 1-21, p. 39;
— xvii, 7, p. 59;
— xxii, 16-18, p. 41;
— xxxvii, 31, p. 158.
EXODUS.
— vi, 2-8, p. 42;
— xix, 3-5, p. 43;
— xix, 3-21, p. 27, 43, 45;
— xix, 5, p. 45;
— xix, 6, p. 46;
— xx, 24, p. 164;
— xxiv, 5, 8, p. 26, 29;
— xxv, 21, p. 54;
— xxv, 40, p. 128;
— xl, 12, p. 131, 133.
LEVITICUS.
— i, 9, p. 134;
— xiii, 45, 46, p. 63;
— xiv, 7-9, p. 66;
— xiv, 8, 9, p. 114;
— xxiii, 36, p. 148.
NUMBERS.
— vi, 9, p. 114;
— vi, 18, p. 115;
— viii, 7, p. 114;
— xix, 1-22, p. 96;
— xix, 2-19, p. 68, 73, 96;
— xix, 12, 13, 19, p. 168;
— xxix, 12-38, p. 144;
— xxxi, 19-24, p. 82;
— xxxi, 23, p. 138.
DEUTERONOMY.
— iv, 10, p. 51;
— xvi, 13-15, p. 148;
— xxi, 3-9, p. 123;
— xxi, 12, p. 114.
2 KINGS.
— iii, 11, p. 123;
— v, 10, 14, p. 157.
JOB.
— ix, 30, 31, p. 111, 158.
PSALM.
— viii, 4-8, p. 269;
— li, 2-10, p. 61.
ISAIAH.
— i, 16,17, p. 116;
— vi, 5-7, p. 64;
— xix, 19, p. 154;
— xxi, 4, p. 295;
— lii, 15, p. 140.
EZEKIEL.
— xvi, 8, 9, p. 74;
— xxii, 24, p. 89;
— xxxvii, 1-14, p. 301;
— xxxvii, 12-15, p. 94;
— xlvii, 1-12, p. 32, 33.
HAGGAI.
— ii, 11, 14, p. 227.
ZECHARIAH.
— xiv, 8, p. 34, 148, 151.
MALACHI.
— iii, 2, 3, p. 287;
— iv, 1-4, p. 291;
— iv, 4, p. 243.
MATTHEW.
— iii, 5, 6, p. 233;
— iii, 11, p. 241, 284;
— iii, 13-15, p. 247;
— xvii, 3, p. 230;
— xviii, 1-5, p. 462;
— xix, 13-15, p. 463;
— xx, 20-23, p. 258;
— xxvi, 28, p. 225;
— xxvii, 24, p. 123;
— xxviii, 19, 20, p. 380, 424, 431, 435, 439.
MARK.
— i, 4, p. 318;
— vii, 1-4, p. 210, 216;
— vii, 3, 4, p. 21, 210;
— ix, 4, p. 230;
— ix, 36, p. 462;
— x, 13-16, p. 463;
— xvi, 15, 16, p. 380, 424, 437.
LUKE.
— i, 17, p. 228;
— ii, 22, p. 85;
— iii, 16, p. 284;
— iii, 21, 22, p. 254;
— vii, 37, 38, 44, p. 124, 125;
— ix, 31, p. 230;
— ix, 46-48, p. 462;
— xi, 29, p. 214;
— xi, 38, p. 21, 209, 214;
— xii, 49-53, p. 265;
— xviii, 15-17, p. 463;
— xxiv, 44-46, p. 100.
JOHN.
— i, 33, p. 280;
— ii, 18-22, p. 101;
— iii, 5, p. 384;
— iii, 23, p. 360;
— iv, 14, p. 308;
— vii, 37, 38, p. 308;
— ix, 4, p. 109;
— xi, 25, 26, p. 92, 95;
— xiv, 16,17, 25, 26, p. 277;
— xv, 26, p. 277, 281;
— xvi, 7-15, p. 277;
— xvii, 22, p. 320;
— xx, 17, p. 272.
ACTS.
— ii, 2, p. 299;
— ii, 3, p. 310;
— ii, 4, p. 313;
— ii, 38, p. 433;
— viii, 36-39, p. 451;
— ix, 18, p. 454;
— x, 47, p. 455;
— xv, 10, p. 406;
— xvi, 14, 15, p. 472;
— xvi, 30-34, p. 473;
— xvi, 33, p. 456;
— xviii, 18, p. 399;
— xix, 1-7, p. 429;
— xix, 2, p. 315;
— xix, 4, p. 318, 447;
— xxii, 16, p. 453.
ROMANS.
— vi, 1-11, p. 364;
— vi, 4, p. 320;
— xi, 17-24, p. 418, 422.
1 CORINTHIANS.
— i, 16, p. 474;
— vii, 14, p. 466;
— x, 1, 2, p. 453;
— xii, 13, p. 357;
— xv, 4, p. 100;
— xv, 25-27, p. 269;
— xv, 29, p. 170.
2 CORINTHIANS.
— iii, 2, 3, 6, p. 382.
EPHESIANS.
— iv, 3-16, p. 330;
— iv, 5, p. 333;
— v, 25-27, p. 390.
COLOSSIANS.
— ii, 9-13, p. 371.
TITUS.
— iii, 4-7, p. 323.
HEBREWS.
— ii, 5-8, p. 269;
— iv, 4-9, p. 65;
— vi, 7-9, p. 35;
— vi, 17-20, p. 41;
— ix, 8, 9, p. 103;
— xiii, 11-13, p. 97.
1 PETER.
— ii, 9, p. 469;
— iii, 17-22, p. 333.
1 JOHN.
— v, 18, 19, p. 110.
REVELATION.
— i, 12, 13, p. 311;
— xxii, 1, 2, p. 32.
INDEX.
Ablution, Mode of domestic, page 119.
Abrahamic covenant, p. 37.
“My covenant,” p. 43.
Everlasting, p. 40, 43.
Circumcision, its seal, p. 40, 58.
An adumbration of the covenant of grace, p. 40.
Administration of the great Baptizer, p. 338.
_Agora_,—the market, p. 214.
Akiva, Rabbi, p. 213.
Alexander, Dr. Addison, quoted, p. 287, 301, 310, 453.
Ambrose on Levitical baptism, p. 194.
Angel of his presence, p. 223.
Anointing of Christ, p. 254.
Apocrypha, their value, p. 153.
Aristophanes quoted, p. 186, 325.
Armstrong quoted, p. 259.
Ashes of the red heifer, p. 68, 98.
Ashes of calves, at Rome, p. 185.
Assembly, Day of the, p. 51.
Athenaeus quoted, p. 325.
Augustine quoted, p. 303.
Aztec baptism of Infants, p. 191.
Babylonian Gemara, p. 78.
Babylonian rabbinic schools, p. 78, 81.
Baptism—Argument from the real, p. 343.
And circumcision, p. 58.
Originated in the Old Testament, p. 21.
Of Israel, p. 25, 29.
Levitical, p. 25.
Of Naaman, p. 157.
History of Christian, p. 424.
On Pentecost, p. 440.
Its symbolic meaning, p. 92, 446.
Baptism of fire, p. 284.
Baptism of the Holy Ghost, p. 273, 277, 299, 322, 331.
Baptism of Repentance and remission, p. 318, 331, 447.
Baptism of Jesus by John, p. 247.
“Baptism that I am baptized with,” p. 257.
_Baptisma_ and _Baptismos_, p. 156.
Baptisms, Divers, imposed on Israel, p. 22, 103.
Baptisms of things, p. 136, 219.
Baptismal formula. There is none, p. 438.
Baptismal regeneration, p. 377.
“Baptized for the dead,” p. 170.
“Baptized from the dead,” p. 169.
Baptized into Christ, p. 321, 332, 368.
Baptized into one body, p. 357.
Baptized into Moses, p. 350, 457.
Baptizing administration of Christ, p. 338.
Baptizing office of Christ, p. 273.
_Baptizo_, p. 153.
Conant’s definitions, p. 155, 347.
Kendrick’s admissions, p. 349.
It sounds best! p. 352.
It knows not the resurrection, p. 347.
_Baptizōntai_ and _rantizōntai_, p. 216.
Barthelemi, Abbe, quoted, p. 184.
“Believeth and is baptized,” p. 437.
Blood of Sprinkling, p. 30.
Blood and water, and blood alone, p. 97.
“Born of water and of the Spirit,” p. 384.
Brahminism the source of ritual immersion, p. 80.
Breath of Christ—the Spirit, p. 299.
Bryant’s Odyssey quoted, p. 127.
“Buried by baptism,” p. 364.
“Buried in baptism,” p. 371.
Calvin on the baptizing commission, p. 424.
Canaan, Office of the land of, p. 48.
Candlestick, Seven-branched, p. 311.
Carson quoted, p. 23, 89, 205, 368.
Charter of the church, p. 53.
Childbirth uncleanness, p. 62.
Children and Christ, p. 461.
Children clean, holy, p. 466.
Children of Midian baptized, p. 81.
Christ did not institute baptism, p. 428.
Christ and the children, p. 461.
Christian baptism one with John’s, p. 424.
Christian fathers on Levitical baptism, p. 192.
Christ’s baptism by John, p. 247.
It sealed him Surety of the covenant, p. 252.
Christ’s “baptism that I am baptized with,” p. 257.
Christ’s baptizing office, p. 273.
Its two functions, p. 274, 284, 297.
His administration, p. 338.
Church defined, p. 49.
Origin of its name, p. 51.
Its charter, p. 53.
Church and children, p. 461, 466.
Church of Israel, p. 49, 411, 441.
The Gentiles graffed in, p. 418.
Circe, Ulysses’ bath in her palace, p. 127.
Circumcision. Its office, p. 24, 58, 373.
Circumcision and Baptism, p. 58.
Common Prayer Book on baptism, p. 354.
Conant on _baptizo_, p. 155, 347.
Converts of Pentecost. Their character, p. 444.
Were baptized with water, p. 440.
Cornelius’ baptism, p. 432, 455.
Council, of Ephesus, p. 281;
of Jerusalem, p. 394;
of Nice, p. 281;
of Trent, p. 431.
Covenant, Abrahamic, p. 37;
of Sinai, p. 42.
Its champions, Elijah and Elisha, p. 166;
John, p. 230.
It was the marriage, p. 37, 49.
It and the better covenant, p. 224.
The Messenger of the covenant, p. 223.
Cyril of Alexandria, on Levitical baptism, p. 195.
Dr. Dale quoted, p. 279, 441, 443, 451.
“Day of the assembly,” p. 51.
A day, a symbol of a lifetime, p. 109.
Dead. Defilement by, p. 62.
The rites of cleansing, p. 68.
The meaning, p. 96.
Dead Sea, as a type, p. 32, 34.
Didymus Alexandrinus, p. 378.
Divers baptisms imposed on Israel, p. 22.
What were they? p. 103.
Ebrard quoted, p. 294.
_Ecclēsia_. Origin of the name, p. 51.
Egypt and Israel, p. 179.
Egyptian bathing, p. 120.
Egyptian baptism, p. 189.
Elders. Their origin, p. 53.
Eleusinian mysteries, p. 188.
Elijah and Elisha, champions of the covenant, p. 166, 229.
Elijah and John, p. 229.
Ellicott (Bishop) on _loutron_, p. 323.
End of the Baptist argument, p. 374.
England, Church of—Baptistic, p. 323, note; 354.
Enon, The Springs, p. 360.
Etheridge quoted, p. 78, 80, 169, 417, 418.
Ethiopian eunuch, p. 451.
Euripides quoted, p. 186, 187.
Eusebius quoted, p. 417.
Evidence of O. T. summed, p. 196.
Family and the church, p. 53.
Fathers of the church, on Levitical baptism, p. 192;
on the old covenant and the new, p. 377.
Feet. Their typical meaning, p. 134.
Their washing, p. 124.
Festival of pouring water, p. 143.
It and the Eleusinia, p. 189.
Figure of immersion not in the Old Testament, p. 23.
Fire, The Baptism of, p. 284.
The manner of it, p. 296.
Formula of Baptism, p. 434, 438.
Furniture and utensils baptized, p. 136, 219.
Ganges. Immersion thence, p. 80.
Gemara of Babylonia, p. 78;
of Jerusalem, p. 78.
Gentiles, place reserved in the Sinai covenant, p. 46.
Israel’s intercession for them, p. 47, 147.
Graffed in, p. 418.
Gentile purifyings, p. 8, 181, 189, 191.
Godhead. Order of precedence, p. 274.
Gospel in the Old Testament baptism, p. 95.
Greek bath, p. 121, 127, 200, 207, 324.
Their purifyings, p. 181.
Grote, on Greek purifyings, p 181.
Hair shaved, p. 102, 114, 399.
Hakkodesh, Rabbi Judah, p. 78.
Hebrew-Christian church, p. 411.
Hellenistic Greek, p. 151.
Herodotus on Greek purifyings, p. 182.
Hillel and Shammai on proselyte baptism, p. 79.
Homer quoted, p. 127, 325.
Household and church, p. 53, 461.
Imitations of baptism by the heathen, p. 8, 178, 189.
Immersion. None in the Old Testament ritual, p. 23.
None in its figures, p. 24.
Not by the priests, p. 128.
Nor by the people, p. 115, 116, 119, 134.
Nor by the Pharisees, p. 208.
The facilities unavailable, p. 126.
Its incongruities, p. 202.
Its origin, p. 80.
India. Immersion thence, p. 80.
Infant baptism,
— in Israel, p. 81, 82,
— among the Aztecs, p. 191,
— among the Romans, p. 187,
— in the Christian church, p. 461, 466, 471.
“Into Christ,” and “into the name of Christ,” p. 365, 434.
“Into the name,” p. 431.
“Into the name of Christ,” and, of the Three, p. 435.
Israel a priest kingdom, p. 46.
Israel at John’s coming, p. 225.
Israel compared with the Christian church, p. 305.
Issues. Unclean by, p. 62.
The cleansing, p. 69.
Jailer of Philippi, p. 456.
Jerome on Levitical baptism, p. 194.
Jerusalem council, p. 394.
Jerusalem Gemara, p. 78.
Jesus, baptized by John, p. 247;
his anointing, p. 254.
“The baptism that I am baptized with,” p. 257.
The great baptizer, p. 267, 297.
John and Elijah, p. 228.
John’s mission, p. 221.
His baptism no novelty, p. 21.
Its nature and end, p. 228.
Identical with that of Christ, p. 425.
Its mode, p. 237, 241.
Josephus quoted, p. 156, 176, 178, 240, 250, 327.
Judith’s story and baptism, p. 172.
Kabala, whence derived, p. 80.
_Kābas_ defined, p. 117.
Kendrick on _baptizo_, p. 349, 458.
Kingdom of heaven defined, p. 267.
Christ’s coronation, p. 273.
Kingdom of priests, p. 46.
Koran quoted, p. 174.
“Lambs in his arms,” p. 463.
Laver of the Tabernacle, p. 129.
Laver (_loutron_) of Paul, p. 323.
Leprosy, unclean, p. 63, 161.
Rites of cleansing, p. 66, 163.
Levi, Rabbi, quoted, p. 147.
Levites baptized, p. 85.
Levitical baptisms all one, p. 86.
Lewis’ Origines Hebraeae quoted, p. 146, 149.
Libation vase of Osor-Ur, p. 189.
Life to the dead, meant by baptism, p. 92.
Lightfoot quoted, p. 143, 146, 149.
Living water. Its meaning, p. 31, 133, 387.
Lord’s supper is the passover, p. 408.
Lynch, “Dead Sea Expedition” quoted, p. 122, 125.
Maimonides on proselyte baptism, p. 76.
Malachi, and John, p. 291.
Manuscripts of New Testament. Care in their transcription, p. 217.
Maitland, “Church of the Catacombs,” p. 124.
Market. Baptism after, p. 214.
Marriage feast, p. 209, 211.
Messenger of the covenant, p. 223.
Metaphor of water, p. 89, 386.
Midianite children, baptism, p. 81.
Mishna described, p. 78.
Mission of John, p. 221.
Missions. The new spirit imparted, p. 304.
Mode implied in the meaning of self-washing, p. 115.
Mohammedan washing before prayer, p. 174.
Moore, T. V., on Malachi, p. 291.
Mosheim quoted, p. 189, 418.
“Much water there,” p. 360.
Murder, expiation, p. 123.
Among the Greeks, p. 182, 184.
Naaman’s baptism, p. 157.
New Testament Greek, p. 151.
New Testament Church, how organized, p. 393, 411, 418.
_Nidda_, Water of, p. 74.
Noah saved by water, p. 333.
Old Testament evidence summed p. 196.
Onkelos, Targum of, p. 77.
Order of precedence in the Godhead, p. 274.
Mediatorial order, p. 275.
Ordinances of testimony in Israel, p. 54.
Osor-Ur. Libation vase, p. 189.
Ovid on purifyings, p. 184.
Palestine. Central position, p. 49, 178.
Its geology and water, p. 120.
Palestinian Gemara, p. 78.
Passover described, p. 24, 410.
Perpetuated in the supper, p. 408.
Pentecost, p. 297.
The Spirit baptism then given, p. 299, 304, 313, 318.
The gifts imparted, p. 313, 318.
The Spirit of missions then given, p. 304.
Pharisees. The sect, p. 236, 412.
Their purifyings, p. 209.
Philip and the eunuch, p. 451.
Philo Judaeus on the Levitical baptism, p. 77, 175, 187, 327.
Phœnicia and Israel, p. 179, 183.
Plato quoted, p. 181, 245.
Pliny quoted, p. 452.
Plutarch quoted, p. 326.
Pool’s Synopsis quoted, p. 149.
Pouring of water. The festival, p. 143.
Pouring water—in ablutions, p. 119, 124.
among the Greeks, p. 324.
Pouring water in ritual washings of the hands, p. 123, 173.
Prayer. Washings before, p. 173.
In the Koran, p. 174.
Priesthood of Aaron, His inauguration, p. 131, 248.
It was no rule to Christ, p. 248.
Age of office, p. 249.
Priesthood of Christ not after Aaron’s pattern, p. 250.
Priest-kingdom, Israel, p. 46, 150.
Priests’ self-washings not immersions, p. 128.
Pumbaditha rabbinic seminary, p. 78.
Purifying of Jesus and Mary, p. 84.
Purifyings of the Jews, p. 208.
Purifyings of things, p. 102, 136, 219.
Rabbi.
Akiva, p. 213.
Hillel, p. 79.
Judah Hakkodesh, p. 78.
Maimonides, p. 76, 79.
Shammai, p. 79.
Solomon, p. 149.
Rabbinic baptism of Proselytes, p. 76, 81.
Rabbinic Schools, p. 78.
Rabbinic traditions of the red heifer, p. 142.
_Rāhatz_, defined, p. 118.
_Rantizōntai_ and _Baptizōntai_, p. 216.
Rebaptism. Note on, p. 430.
of John’s disciples, p. 429.
Red heifer. The ashes, p. 68, 69.
In Philo, p. 175.
in Josephus, p. 176.
Rabbinic traditions, p. 142.
Remission. Baptism of, p. 96, 244, 318.
Resurrection symbolized by baptism, p. 92, 257, 265.
Resurrection and _baptizo_, p. 347.
Revised Version on _loutron_, p. 323.
Revival at Sinai, p. 28.
Baptism of the converts, p. 29.
Revival under Hezekiah, p. 139.
Purifying them, p. 139.
Revival under John’s ministry, p. 232.
Revival of Pentecost, p. 297, 318.
Ritual law. Its office, p. 54.
Its relation to the Sinai covenant, p. 56.
It had no immersions, p. 23, 115, 116, 119, 128, 134.
It remains in force, p. 393.
The Gentiles exempted, p. 395, 406.
Paul kept and enforced it, p. 396, 402.
Rushing mighty wind of Pentecost, p. 299.
Sacraments of the Old Testament, p. 24;
of the New, p. 408, 424.
Sahagun quoted, p. 192.
Sacrifice defined, p. 24.
Sadducees. The sect, p. 412, 413.
Saints. Origin of the title, p. 47, 469.
Scrivener on the Greek MSS., p. 218.
Sea of brass, p. 130.
Sea water. Its meaning, p. 32.
Idolatrous use of it, p. 187.
Self-washings, p. 101, 108.
Their relation to the sprinklings, p. 164, 105, 136.
Separation. Water of, p. 68, 73.
Septuagint. Its origin, p. 152.
Seven candlesticks, p. 128, 311.
Seven days uncleanness, p. 60, 64, 98.
Seven sprinklings, p. 67, 98.
Seventh day. Symbolic meaning, p. 64, 98.
Shammai and Hillel on proselyte baptism, p. 79.
Shasters, p. 80.
_Shātaph_, defined, p. 117.
Shaving off the hair, p, 114.
By Paul, p. 399.
Sinai. The scene, p. 27.
The covenant, p. 42, 45.
Relation of the Gentiles, p. 46, 53, 56.
Place reserved for them, p. 46.
Its conditions, p. 42.
Its promises, p. 45.
The revival there, p. 28.
The baptism, p. 29.
Smith’s Dictionary quoted, p. 127, 184, 188, 247, 324, 363.
Socrates and Phaedrus, p. 245.
Solomon, Rabbi, quoted, p. 149.
Son of man. His kingdom, p. 267.
His administration, p. 338.
Sophocles quoted, p. 325, 326.
Sora rabbinic school, p. 78.
Sprinkling represents rain, p. 35.
Its meaning, p. 88, 99.
State of the N. T. question, p. 201.
Susannah’s story, p. 122.
_Tābal._ Its meaning, p. 79, 157.
Tabernacle. Its symbolic structure, p. 128.
Tabernacles. The feast of, p. 144.
Talmud described, p. 78.
Talmudic baptism, p. 76.
Targums described, p. 77.
Ten commandments, the eternal law of the covenant, p. 43.
Tertullian quoted, p. 193, 378.
Theodosia Earnest quoted, p. 233, 236.
Theophrastus quoted, p. 324.
Things purified, p. 102, 136, 219.
Third day. Its typical meaning, p. 100.
Thomson. The Land and the Book, p. 34.
Tiberias rabinnic school, p. 78.
Tongues as of fire, p. 310.
Tongues. Other, p. 313.
Transcription of the N. T. Care in it, p. 217.
Transfiguration of Jesus, p. 230.
Trinity. Order of precedence, p. 274.
Procession of the Spirit, p. 281.
Typical structure of the tabernacle, p. 128.
Ulysses’ bath, p. 127.
Unclean. Its meaning, p. 60, 466.
Unclean seven days. The meaning, p. 60, 98.
How cleansed, p. 65.
Unclean till even. Two causes, p. 108.
The meaning, p. 109.
Union wrought by baptism, p. 322, 332.
Utensils and furniture baptized, p. 136, 219.
Various reading of Mark vii, 4, p. 216.
Vedas, referred to, p. 80.
Virgil quoted on purifyings, p. 186.
Waldenses referred to, p. 49.
Washing. Before prayer, p. 173.
Mohammedan, p. 174.
Washing, the hands, p. 111.
the hands and feet, p. 111, 124.
the garments, p. 112.
the flesh, p. 113.
Washings of the people. Domestic, p. 119.
Ritual, p. 134, 210.
Of the priests, p. 128.
Before meals, p 210.
“Washing of water by the word,” p. 390.
Water, fresh and salt, p. 31, 32.
Water, Metaphor of, p. 387.
Water. Festival of outpouring, p. 143.
Wilkinson’s Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, p. 120.
Wind, Rushing mighty,—of Pentecost, p. 299.
Witness. Israel’s office, p. 47, 54.
Zend Avesta, referred to, p. 80.
Zion. Out of her the law, p. 420.
Zoroaster referred to, p. 80.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
Spelling and punctuation, where printer or editorial errors were
obvious, has been corrected.
Some idiosyncracies should be noted. In several captions, there is a
period following the word ‘Sir’, as ‘Sir. Wm. Hamilton’, implying an
abbreviation. This also appears once in the text, and once without the
period. All are given here as printed. The variant spellings ‘sepulchre’
and ‘sepulcher’ are both used frequently, and are all retained.
The following table summarizes the resolution of any other errors.
Errors in the formatting or punctuation of the index entries were
corrected with no further comment here.
95.34 But in order [?] adequate appreciation _sic_: missing
word?
121.20 And, when they left Eg[py/yp]t Transposed.
130.31 about fifteen feet by seven and a half[,/.] Replaced.
172.20 they s[ie/ei]ze Transposed.
189.23 it may be, by tradit[i]on>, from the parents Added.
of the race
192.7 [the goddess of water].[’] Added.
211.24 it is interpreted, “to the elbows,[”] Added.
220.21 whilst Paul used the[ the] word Removed.
224.24 Heb. viii[i], 6. Removed.
226.35 or the favor of the rabble[,/.] Replaced.
235.5 that two years afterw[e/a]rd the evangelist Replaced.
263.4 I have kept the faith[?/!] Replaced.
276.19 to involve his government in[./,] chaos, God Replaced.
in the mystery
326.16 [(](_loutra_) _libations_ Removed.
334.16 “quickened as to the spirit[./,]” Replaced.
340.12 and his rest shall be glorious.”—Isa. xi, [1, Removed.
]10.
344.27 So, the prop[eh/he]cy cited by Peter Transposed.
348.31 obscuring of[ of] the subject Removed.
365.5 [“]Likewise reckon ye also yourselves Added.
354.9 That church had or[i]ginally incorporated Added.
392.27 I have spoken unto you.[”] Added.
401.12 the apostle repeat[a/e]dly and unqualifiedly Replaced.
asserted
410.16 and distributed a second cup[,/.] Replaced.
420.7 Let him not become uncircumcised[.] Added.
431.13 to observe all things whatso[e]ver Added.
436.13 that believed on his name.”—J[no/oh]. i, 12. Replaced.
464.12 signif[inif]icant Removed.
466.21 _unclean_ (_akathartoi_), and _holy_ Replaced.
(_hagioi_[,/.])
474.24 They [in-]include the Sinai constitution Removed.
CHECK ON 466.21 & 326.16 if the inline pm can be fixed.....