o us in the parallel passage of Isaiah, where in the same character he says, "Their blood shall be sprinkled on my garments, and I will stain all my raiment."* The sentence pronounced upon Nebuchadnezzar was, that his body should be "wet with the dew of heaven;"† and it is thus translated in the Greek version, Απο της δροσου του ουρανου το σώμα αυτού εβαφη. Here the word signifies to sprinkle, or moisten by sprinkling, for his body was not wetted by being dipped in dew, but by its falling upon him. I do not intend to deny that ẞant ever means to dip, but that this is its only sense; and hence we may fairly conclude, that although its derivative Bartı also means to immerse, it does not follow that this is its only signification. Two examples have been quoted from the Apocryphal writings, in one of which it denotes washing without specifying the form, and in the other it seems to be synonymous with sprinkling. Judith is said to have washed herself in the camp, or by the camp at a fountain of water, εβαπτίζετο επί της πηγής του idatos The place, a fountain or spring, naturally excludes the idea of immersion, and the phrase is επι της πηγής, at the fountain, not εν τη πηγῇ, as it would have been if she had bathed in it. The son of Sirach, speaking of a person who has been purified from the pollution contracted by touching a dead body, calls him βαπτιζόμενος από νεκρού. But when we consult the law of Moses to which he refers, we find that he was purified by aspersion. That his uncleanness might be removed, the water of separation was sprinkled upon him, as you will see in the nineteenth chapter of Numbers. If then the word was so understood by Jewish writers in Greek, we may presume that it retains the same in the New Testament, or that this meaning may be assigned to it when circumstances do not forbid; and that it is unwarrantable to affirm, from the simple use of the term in reference to this ordinance of Christ, that we are bound to administer it only by immersion. "The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash," or baptize themselves, "they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing" or baptisms" of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." The washing of the hands was performed among the Jews by pouring water upon them, as appears from the express testimony of Scripture: "Elisha the son of Shaphat poured water on the hands of Elijah."** The "baptizing" after their return from market, probably signifies the same thing with washing their hands, as it is very improbable that on every such occasion they washed the whole body; and at any rate, if they put themselves to this trouble, the body would be washed in the same manner with the hands, by pouring water upon it. There is no reason to think that this baptism consisted in immersion. Cups and pots and brazen vessels may have been "baptized" by being plunged into water; but as the operation could have been performed equally well by pouring water into them, and upon them, we can draw no certain conclusion respecting the mode, and the words βαπτίζειν and βαπτισμός, convey nothing more than the general idea of washing. The last word in this passage, xw, is improperly rendered tables in our version, and the proper translation is beds or couches. These were the couches on which they reclined at their meals. They were so large as to hold several persons at the same time; and from their size it seems reasonable to suppose that they were "baptized," not by being immersed in water, but by being washed with the hand or sprinkled, to remove any real or fancied impurity. Hitherto we have found nothing to justify the confidence with which it has been asserted, that Barrio necessarily signifies to immerse. But to supply what may be wanting in the evidence arising from the word itself, it is alleged Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. Is. lxiii. 33. † Dan. iv. 23. + Judith xii. 7. εν that such phrases are joined with it, as clearly show that it was by dipping or plunging that baptism was originally administered. For example, John is said to have baptized in Jordan*-ev To Iopdary-standing, no doubt, in the water, and successively dipping his disciples. That the preposition often denotes the place in which any thing is done, cannot be denied; but among its many senses, it signifies also at, or nigh to. "Now, in the place- to TONGwhere he was crucified, there was a garden,"† not in the identical spot, but in its immediate vicinity. In like manner- uрyos Ev To waμ-is "the tower," not "in the pool of Siloam," but close by it. It has been remarked, that while Matthew says that John baptized "in Jordan," the Evangelist John tells us that he was baptizing "beyond Jordan;"§ and as we cannot suppose a contradiction between their statements, we must reconcile them by understanding Matthew to mean close by Jordan, and the other Evangelist, that the place was on the opposite bank of the river. Besides, although John had actually taken his station in the river, it does not follow that he immersed his disciples, because he might have chosen it for convenience, as the number to be baptized was great, that there might be a sufficient supply of water at hand to pour upon their heads or faces. The use of the prepositions and ex or, in reference to baptism, is supposed to furnish an argument equally conclusive in favour of immersion. It is related in the history of the Ethiopian eunuch, that he and Philip "went down both into the water-s to idup-and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water-ex rov idaros-the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Here it is said is an instance of baptism by immersion, as it could only be for that purpose that the Evangelist and his convert went into the water. It is certain that is does sometimes signify into, and ex out of; but it is equally certain that at other times the proper translation of the one is to, and of the other is from. When Jesus came-es To μvustov-to the sepulchre of Lazarus,** we know that he did not enter into it; and when ships came from Tiberias,tt-x Tißepiados, we do not suppose that they sailed out of the midst of the city, but that that was the place from which their voyage commenced. The preposition ex simply signifies the point from which, and s, the point to which a movement is made. In the present case nothing more is intimated by the sacred historian, than that Philip and the eunuch went to the place where they saw water, and that after baptism they both left it. A different preposition is used in the narrative of our Saviour's baptism, and our translators have improperly rendered ανεβη από του ύδατος, “he went up straightway out of the water," because the true sense of axo is from, not out of, and it marks the place from which he went up, without at all suggesting the idea that he had been in the water. There is an expression on which Baptists lay much stress as favouring their practice of immersion, which occurs in two passages. In both we are said to be "buried with Christ in baptism;" and hence it is inferred that we ought to be baptized by immersion, which only is emblematical of a burial. You will find the one passage in the sixth chapter of the Romans, and the other in the second chapter of the Colossians.§§ There is an appearance of childishness in thus explaining the expression, which is manifestly figurative. In the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle first says, that we are baptized into the death of Christ, and then adds, that "we are buried with him in baptism;" referring not to the form, but to the import of the ordinance, by which it is signified, that through his death we become dead to sin, or are delivered from its power. In the very next verse he expresses the same idea by another figure, when he † John xix. 41. * Matth. iii. 6. Acts viii. 38, 39. + Luke xiii. 4. § John i. 28. says, that "we have been planted together in the likeness of his death." How comes it to be supposed that the one figure refers to the mode of baptism rather than the other? Why should it resemble burying more than planting? What reason can be assigned for laying hold of the one expression in preference to the other, but the desire to support a hypothesis? Would it not have been more suitable to the character of honest and intelligent interpreters of Scripture, to conclude that as there is a mixture of figures, the Apostle did not allude to any external rite, and merely intended by both to signify that baptism is a sign of our fellowship with Christ in his death? Besides, Baptists proceed upon an erroneous idea of our Saviour's burial, into which it is strange that any person should have fallen, who had read the New Testament with any degree of attention. They seem to think that he was buried after the manner of our country, where a dead body may be said to be immersed in the earth, because it is let down into a grave and covered with mould. Had his body been interred, we might have fancied a resemblance between its burial and the plunging of the baptized into water. But nothing is more remote from the truth. The sepulchre of Christ was an apartment hewn out of a rock, the floor of which was on a level with the ground, or depressed only a little below the surface, and which was so capacious that a person could sit and stand upright in it. Here his body was deposited, and was covered only with the grave-clothes. Let Baptists now point out the resemblance between the plung ing of the baptized into water, and the burial of Christ. No two things in the world are more unlike, and this silly argument vanishes into smoke. We have seen that nothing certain can be learned from the original term BaЯTIČE, because it has different meanings, signifying sometimes to immerse, and sometimes to wash. When a word is used to denote an action which is figurative, it seems a fair way of determining its sense, to observe how the thing which the action represents is in other places expressed. As the water in baptism is emblematical of the influences of the Spirit, we may bring to the illustration of the term to baptize, the passages of Scripture which speak of the communication of those influences; and there is not one of them which alludes to immersion. The Holy Ghost is said "to fall" upon men, to be “poured out" upon them; and in reference to the same subject, God promises "to sprinkle clean water upon us," "to be as the dew unto Israel,' "* and that his grace shall" come down as rain upon the mown grass, and as showers which water the earth." If water is a significant emblem of the Spirit, because it purifies, is it not reasonable to suppose that a resemblance was intended between the application of the water and the manner in which the communication of the Spirit is described? It is by no means probable that God should speak of his own operations in one way, and symbolically represent them in a different way; that he should promise to sprinkle or pour out his Spirit upon us, and to confirm this promise would command us to be plunged into water. There would be no analogy in this case between the promise and the seal; and the discrepance would give rise to a confusion of ideas. This I conceive to be an argument of considerable force in favour of our mode of administering baptism, and an objection against immersion which cannot be easily evaded. I may add, that there is little probability that the baptisms recorded in the New Testament were performed by immersion. We have already considered the case of John, and shown that he did not baptize in Jordan itself, but on its banks. It is not very credible, that the three thousand converts on the day of Penticost were dipped. There was a pool in Jerusalem, called the pool of Siloam; but we do not know whether from its size and situation it could have been fit for the purpose. Besides the gross indecency of it, it would have been a tedious process, if all this multitude had put off and put on their clothes Acts x. 44. Zech, xii. 10. Ezek, xxxvi. 25. Hos. xiv. 5, † Ps. lxxii. 6. VOL. II.-18. 212 in public; and it is very unlikely that they were plunged with their garments upon them. When whole families were baptized in their own houses, there is no reason to think that, on every occasion, a sufficient quantity of water could be found for immersion. We are certain, that in very few of our houses the baptism of immersion could be practised; and the houses of the Jews and Greeks, we presume, were not better accommodated. Some men seem to believe that, in the Apostolic age, every house had a font or bath; but why they believe this no man can tell, except that it suits their hypothesis. The Apos tles could not administer baptism by immersion in every place; so that if this had been the mode, when they had made converts they must have often been under the necessity of leading them away to a pond or river, and, in many regions of the east, must sometimes have made long journeys in order to find one. But there is not a single fact in the New Testament which gives countenance to this idea. The narrative implies that they baptized converts on the spot, and, consequently, that only a small quantity of water was necessary, which could be always procured. The argument for immersion fails, upon a careful examination. It is founded upon the assumption that Barrie has only one meaning, while it has more, upon a mistake of the import of two propositions, & and ex; and upon a fanciful analogy; it is contrary to the usual language of Scripture respecting the thing signified by baptism, and to the general strain of the history, which relates instances of baptism when immersion could not be practised. With whatever confidence this has been pronounced to be the only scriptural mode, the evidence preponderates on the opposite side. We may therefore persevere in our own practice, and assure ourselves that they are lawfully baptized upon whom water has been only sprinkled or poured. There is a point of still greater importance than the mode of baptism, about which Christians are divided in sentiment. A controversy has arisen with respect to the persons to whom it should be administered; those who are called Pædobaptists maintaining that, in certain circumstances, children have a right to the ordinance, while Antipædobaptists confine it to adults. There is but one opinion with regard to grown up persons not baptized in infancy, who profess faith in Christ and a desire to be received into the communion of the Church. In this case the command is explicit; and it is because they are so distinctly mentioned, while nothing is said concerning infants, that baptism has been supposed to belong exclusively to the former. "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."* The qualification in the sight of God, who searches the heart, is faith unfeigned; and in the sight of men, who can judge only by moral evidence, is a credible profession of it, or such a profession as appears to them to be sincere. Accordingly, the Apostles acted upon this principle, as we learn from the history of their proceedings. I select the instance of the Ethiopian eunuch. When this man had heard the gospel from the mouth of Philip, he said to him, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."t The Apostles were sent to teach or make disciples of all nations, by instructing them in the religion of Christ; and when those whom they had addressed had acquired a competent measure of knowledge, and recognized Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they were then to baptize them. Baptism is not to be administered to a Jew, a Mahometan, or a heathen, who still adheres to his original creed, nor to a man who may ignorantly express a wish for it. It is a badge of Christianity, which would be absurdly and profanely attached to a † Acts viii. 37. • Mark xvi. 15, 16. person who retained the principles of another religion, or gave a blind assent to a system which he did not understand. Upon the connexion of faith with baptism, Antipædobaptists found what they consider as an unanswerable argument against the baptism of infants. If it is required that he who is baptized should believe, it follows that children ought not to be baptized, because they are not capable of faith. The argument has a specious appearance, which imposes on superficial thinkers; but when it is thoroughly canvassed, it will be found, I trust, to be destitute of force. When our Lord says, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," he no doubt teaches that baptism should be administered to a believer; but if we infer that none but a believer should be baptized, let us observe the consequence which will follow from his words. Faith is made as necessary to salvation as to baptism; and it is as fairly deducible from his words that none can be saved, as that none should be baptized but believers. Thus, children are excluded from heaven, as well as from this initiatory rite. This, however, our adversaries will not allow. They admit, as well as we, that many children are saved; and, consequently, admit that what is required from adults in order to their eternal happiness, is not required from infants. If they will be consistent, they must further admit that this text speaks of adults alone; and, consequently, that the argument drawn from it against the baptism of infants is a sophism, more being contained in the conclusion than in the premises. It evidently speaks of adults, for it supposes them to be capable of faith. But because faith is made necessary to their baptism, it is not made necessary to the baptism of infants, any more than it is necessary to the salvation of infants, because it is necessary to the salvation of adults. And with respect to infants, since, according to our antagonists, the thing signified is granted to them, it will not be easy to assign a good reason why the sign should be denied. Infants were proper subjects of circumcision. Circumcision implied an obligation to observe the ordinances and commandments of God; and hence the circumcised person is pronounced to be "a debtor to do the whole law."* If, under the ancient economy, there had been some persons of similar views to those of Antipædobaptists, they might have brought forward as specious reasoning against the circumcision, as is now produced against the baptism, of children. They might have said, 'Children have not yet attained the use of reason, and are therefore disqualified for coming under a moral obligation. How can they be bound to obey a law which they do not understand? They know not what is going on when circumcision is administered to them; and, with respect to them, it is mere mockery, a rite without a meaning. Let it be reserved for grown up persons, to whom its design can be explained, and who can rationally and voluntarily accede to the covenant of which it is a seal.' Yet the male children of the Israelites were circumcised on the eighth day after their birth; and why then may not the children of Christians be dedicated at as early a period to the service of God? The objection might have been strengthened by the remark which an Apostle has made, that, in the case of Abraham, in whom circumcision commenced, it was "a seal of the righteousness of faith."t Here it might have been said, faith prece-led circumcision. It not only preceded, but was pre-supposed as the indispensable qualification of the person to be circumcised; and as this took place in the case of Abraham, the father of the Jews, it was certainly intended to signify that the rite should not be performed upon any of his posterity, unless they possessed the same qualification. This is exactly the argument of our antagonists against the baptism of children; but we see at once how little it avails. The children of Christian parents may as well be baptized, as the children of Jewish parents were circumcised, without faith. |