DODDRIDGE. -- "He shall baptize you with a most plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit."-Par., on Matt. iii. 11. Archb. TILLOTSON." It filled all the house. This is that which (ver. 5 of this chapter) our Saviour calls baptizing the apostles with the Holy Ghost, as they who sat in the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost; as they who were baptized with water were overwhelmed and covered all over with water, which is the proper notion of baptism."-On Acts ii. 1-4. Ser. 197. It is a pleasure to us that there are some Pædobaptists who do NOT teach that, because the Spirit in His gracious and abundant influences is said to be poured out, or because there has been according to promise a baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, therefore the command to immerse means to sprinkle, to pour, to immerse, or to use water in any way! A few quotations will next be given in which is special reference to the distribution of the emblematic fire. BAUMGARTEN. "The filling of the whole house with this mighty sign is an intimation that the persons for whose sake the token had taken the direction of this particular house, were themselves to be filled with the Holy Ghost" (On Acts ii. 1-13). He also, as follows, quotes Rossteuscher: "The one power, which at first was merely audible to the disciples (ver. 1), and then sensibly blew around them (ver. 2), divides itself; since its invisible substance, which had been diffused around, is suddenly concentrated into visible tongues of fire, which settled, licking, on the head of each one of the hundred and twenty."-Do. Clark's Edition. TROLLOPE."The word diamerizomenai, in ver. 3, does not signify cloven, as the E. T. renders it, but distributed among them."-Gr. Tes., on Acts ii. 3. Dr. J. A. ALEXANDER.-"The form of the original is passive, and means strictly, were seen by them. Cloven should rather be distributed. "Like as of fire, or more exactly, as if of fire." "It sat upon each of them. The singular number has been variously explained, as referring to Spirit in the next verse, or to fire in this, or to the whole appearance viewed as one, or to the distribution previously mentioned, which implied that one of the tongues sat on each" (Com., on Acts ii. 3). So the translation of G. Wakefield and others teaches plainly that the distribution of what had the appearance of fire into flames like tongues, was subsequent to the filling of the room. Dr. BLOOMFIELD, having on Acts i. 5, said, "The sense of the passage may therefore be thus expressed, John only dipped men in water, in order;. but ye shall be imbued with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and thereby fitted for your apostolic office" (Crit. Dig.), says, on Acts ii. 3: "Not 'cloven,' which would require dieschismenoi, nor distributed,' which is not agreeable to the context, but 'distributing,' 'dividing themselves' as lambent flames of fire, of a tongue-like shape. Thus the full sense will be, And there were seen, as it were, tongues of fire, distributing themselves, and settling upon them, one on each.""-Gr. Tes. A. CAMERON."The Spirit was specially poured out, not only in His more visible effects (speaking with tongues, &c.), but, as we cannot but believe, in His invisible or inward operations too. This was implied in the baptism of the Holy Ghost which had been promised, and was now vouchsafed. The hearts of the company would be bathed in repentance, faith, love, and holiness." "The outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles was precisely similar to His outpouring on the Jews."-Fam. Trea., pp. 380, 381. Dr. STIER."Concerning the baptizing with the Holy Ghost, Theophylact rightly said, 'It signifies the outpouring and abundance of the bestowment."" They should now be immersed into the full flood of the Spirit of God."- Words, &c., vol. viii., pp. 419, 420. KNAPP.-"Baptisma, from baptizein, which properly signifies to immerse, is often used tropically. 1. For what flows, or is communicated to any one in full measure, as in Latin, perfundere, imbuere, to pour all over, to imbue, e.g., Acts i. 5.” -Chr. Theol., p. 425. NEANDER."He it was that should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire; that is to say, that as John's followers were entirely immersed in the water, so the Messiah would immerse the souls of believers in the Holy Ghost, imparted by himself; so that it should thoroughly penetrate their being, and form within them a new principle of life" (Life of Christ, p. 25). Again: "The baptism of the Holy Spirit which He administers, is no other than the immersion of human nature in the Divine life communicated by Him, so that it becomes completely imbued with it."-His. of Plan. of Chris., vol. i., p. 495. Yet this Let any reader judge from those verses in which the common word baptizo occurs in relation to the baptism of the Spirit (Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 33; Acts i. 5; xi. 16), which in every instance is contrasted with the baptism of John, whether, without any intimation here or in any part of the sacred volume, this baptizo, whose explicit and well-known meaning was to immerse, is so evidently used with another and widely different import, that we have here proof that the pen of inspiration gave a new sense to the Greek word. passage, with 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, is the stronghold of our opponents for the pretence that the common word baptizo, which had the specific and wellknown meaning to immerse until dictated by the Spirit of God, then suddenly underwent the most unaccountable transmutation of import, actually meaning, adopting water as the element, to pour, to sprinkle, to immerse, to wash, or to use the water in any way you like! Whether the reader concludes that sound, and sound alone, filled the house, and, consequently, that nothing emblematical filled it, or whether he concludes that wind, or fire as the Spirit's chosen emblem, filled the house, or whether he concludes that the baptism had exclusive reference to the souls of those that were present, we will ask any reader for the least amount of evidence that baptizo here means anything less than to immerse. In our judgment, the passage requires that the acknowledged meaning be here attached to the word, and is, consequently, confirmatory of immerse as its import in the Oracles of God. The Spirit was abundantly poured out, and the disciples were immersed in the Holy Spirit. How some of our Pædobaptist brethren can believe that the baptism of the Spirit was general, and is continued; how they can pray again and again for a fresh baptism of the Spirit, and yet continue infant sprinkling as baptism, and believe in the Divine record (Acts ii. 1-4) which we have been considering, and in the Divine record which assures us that there is "one baptism" (Eph. iv. 5), we can only conceive, while remembering the blinding nature of prepossessions, and of listening only to arguments on one side of the question. § 4.--FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM THE BAPTISM OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Dr. CoGSWELL.-"Take no opinion, pursue no course of conduct, on trust; be biassed neither by passion nor prejudice in faith or practice, but believe and act on substantial evidence and sound principles; and in such a course be inflexible." J. A. HALDANE.-"It has been observed that, although the theorems of Euclid are universally admitted, if they had any reference to subjects in which the interests and passions of men were concerned, they would undoubtedly have been controverted."-Soc. Wor., p. 177. J. A. JAMES."There is no truth, however evident and certain it may be, against which the ingenious and dexterous sophist may not advance some plausible objections, and in connexion with which its most assured believers may not see some difficulties they may not be able to explain." "Do not allow yourselves to be driven from your convictions because you cannot refute all the arguments, or remove all the difficulties, or meet all the objections which may be brought against them." "It may be well sometimes, when startled and perplexed with difficulty on one side of a question, to look at the difficulties on the other side."-Young Man's Guide, pp. 129, 130. Dr. HALLEY."To baptize, although used sometimes figuratively in reference to the mind, ought to be understood, unless there be some reason to the contrary, like every other word, in its ordinary acceptation." Dr. CARSON. -"The word in its literal sense must guide all its figurative applications. The explanation of the figure must conform to the literal meaning, but the latter can never bend to the figurative. The latter, indeed, may assist us in ascertaining the former; but when the former is ascertained, the latter must be explained in accordance with it" (p. 104). Prof. WILSON.-"We enter on this part of the inquiry with the fullest admission, that, in ascertaining the meaning of a term, it would be culpably unsafe to elevate mere figure into a standard, to which the literal sense is to be bent or accommodated. Tropical applications cannot legitimately lie at the basis of interpretation, much less supersede a meaning which is grammatically and historically established. This admission, however, does not warrant the inference that the province of figurative language is entirely subordinate and servile. A figure may serve to confirm the literal acceptation, where its evidence is defective; and it is even competent to preserve and prove that acceptation" (pp. 264, 265). The THAT part of God's Word where the children of Israel are said to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, is 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. passage we claim as confirmatory of our views of the action included in baptism. It is claimed by our opponents as strongly supporting sprinkling or pouring, or rather sprinkling and pouring; for, not to speak scornfully, but gravely, according to their logic, that which supports one supports the other; and if there is any difficulty in conceiving whether an hypothesis encourages sprinkling or pouring, it equally encourages both. Whether our friends, as the first step towards immersion, will unite sprinkling and pouring, and make them together "one baptism," we will not venture to predict. We are quite certain that, however generally one is abandoned in practice, they will very reluctantly abandon either in argument. As we feel strongly on what our Pædobaptist friends have written on St. Paul's words, and are likely to express ourselves strongly, we shall, after a brief quotation from Dr. Watts, Dr. A. Clarke, and Dr. Woods, with a word or two from ourselves, give the whole of what our Wesleyan and Independent brethren, Mr. Stacey and Dr. Halley, have written on this baptism, excepting only the animadversions of Dr. H. on Dr. Carson, which are given in his Appendix, to which we shall simply refer. Some of our remarks on Mr. S.'s assertions we shall defer till we have quoted from Dr. H. what we regard as a similar caricature and perversion of Divine truth. What we, then, may say in reply to one will be in reply to the other. Dr. Watts says: "The children of Israel were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;' not they were dipped in the water, but they were sprinkled by the clouds over their heads, and perhaps by the water which stood up in heaps as they passed by" (Berry St. Lec., vol. iì., p. 184). To such a conjecture is the amiable and learned Watts obliged to resort in opposing immersion! Dr. A. Clarke says of the cloud which symbolized God's presence: It is manifest from Scripture that the miraculous cloud in the wilderness performed a threefold office to the Israelites. 1. It was a cloud in the form of a pillar to direct their journey by day. 2. It was a pillar of fire to give light to the camp by night. 3. It was a covering for them during the day, and preserved them from the scorching rays of the sun; and supplied them with a sufficiency of aqueous particles, not only to cool that burning atmosphere, but to give refreshment to themselves and their cattle; and its humidity was so abundant that the apostle here represents the people as thoroughly sprinkled and enveloped in its aqueous vapour" (Com., on 1 Cor. x. 1). Did any one ever write suppositions more unfounded and monstrous than those contained in Dr. C.'s third declaration, and yet speak of the same as "manifest from Scripture"! Dr. L. Woods says: "Were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' This does not mean that they were plunged or immersed in the cloud or the sea; for they went through on dry ground. The most that can be intended by the expression is, that they were sprinkled or wet from the cloud, or from the spray of the sea as they passed through."-Works, vol. iii., p. 445. Mr. Stacey says: "The term baptize is used in several instances,—as ૨ 6 in the relation of historic facts, and the promise of spiritual operations,in respect to which the idea of immersion is inconceivable. One of these is the following: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea.' Let the common version be displaced by the Baptist rendering, and we have then the curious announcement that all the fathers were dipped into Moses. To propose this is all but to refute it" (p. 202. The italics are ours). We have before given both the Baptist and the Pædobaptist rendering, using, however, immerse instead of dip. (See pp. 116-122.) But we will allow any reader to give his verdict whether sprinkled into Moses, or poured, or washed, or cleansed into Moses, be an expression equally allowable. Dip or immerse is a word which is well known to receive after it the preposition in or into. We dip or immerse a person in water, or into water. And Mr. S. has said, "There is a positive command to baptize, eis, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and obedience to this command seems possible only as the three distinctions of the unsearchable Essence are severally pronounced. To be baptized into the name of any one, is to be devoted to him, by some appropriate ceremony, as a religious teacher and guide. This may not exhaust the whole contents of the expression, but it suggests the general idea. The Israelites were thus baptized unto Moses'" (p. 172). The reason for his saying unto, after he has so clearly taught that it was into, we may most charitably suppose arose from his quoting the authorized translation. Again, at page 199, he says: "To express the idea of immersion strictly and fully, the preposition eis, into, should precede the substantive hudor, water. The preposition eis here precedes Moses, and is preceded by a word which means to immerse, according to the most abundant testimony. The phrase, immersed into Moses, is not only an admissible phrase, it is a ceremony appropriately significant of devotedness to him "as a religious teacher and guide:" but sprinkled into Moses is an inadmissible phrase, and a nonsensical expression; whilst to propose, poured into Moses, or cleansed into Moses, "is all but to refute it," or even something more than this. He proceeds: "That the baptism of the Israelites was not by immersion, the history of the transaction sufficiently evinces. The Egyptians were immersed, or overwhelmed, but the people of God were not. The essence of the miracle consisted in this: One sank as lead in the mighty waters; the other passed over on dry ground. 'With the blast of Thy nostrils,' says Moses, 'the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as a heap, the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground.' As there was no immersion in the sea, so there was none in the cloud. Had, in fact, the one gone over the Israelites, or the other covered them, there would not strictly have been a dipping. But the narrative directly informs us, that the cloud went before to guide, and stood behind to protect them. Nothing can be plainer than the following: 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.' True the apostle says they were under the cloud;' but while this, literally understood, would not have been a nebulous immersion, the obvious meaning is, that they were under the protection of the cloud, as the symbol of the Divine presence. It is thus Isaiah refers to and explains the phenomenon: 'Then shall Jehovah create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion and upon her assemblies, a cloud of day and a smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night: for over all that is glorious shall be a protection;' Isaiah iv. 5." (pp. 202, 203). In reply to the above, we admit that the Egyptians were immersed, and more than immersed; they were drowned; but the Israelites were simply baptized. We have before seen, as in the case of Aristobulus, that a person may be baptized, and baptized by those who are enjoined thus to terminate his life, that he may be baptized until he is drowned. This is one amongst many evidences that to baptize is to immerse. We have not yet heard of a person being drowned by sprinkling. But that immersion does not mean drowning, and does not necessarily lead to drowning, Mr. S. well knows. Nor was the immersion of the children of Israel an ordinary immersion, a literal immersion in water, an immersion exactly the same as the Christian ordinance. They were immersed (baptized), says the Spirit of inspiration, "in the cloud and in the sea." Who that did not wish to ridicule the inspired record would demand exact correspondence with the Christian ordinance in connexion with a baptism which the Divine Word says was in the cloud and in the sea? The propriety of the appellation given by the Spirit of inspiration is indubitable. The position of the children of Israel when passing through the Red Sea on dry ground must have been such, that it could properly be said that they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Is it justice to the Spirit of inspiration to say, "As there was no immersion in the sea, so there was none in the cloud." Whether this baptism was immersion or not, it was not in the cloud, or in the sea, separately, but "in the cloud and in the sea." Again, if we understand what he means, it is injustice to the Baptists to say, "Had, in fact, the one gone over the Israelites, or the other covered them, there would not strictly have been a dipping." From other remarks on the strict sense of dipping, we doubt not he means that there would not have been a putting into. But not to mention the determination to confine the Baptists to a single and partial signification of the English dip, and the determination to depart from the proper, the acknowledged, and, as we think, the only, meaning of baptizo,-not now to reproduce what has been advanced by Drs. Gale and Cox,-who can find a more appropriate word than immersion by which to designate the condition of the children of Israel in the circumstances referred to by the apostle of the Gentiles? But before we proceed further, we will thank Mr. S.,-although we believe that he had another design in what he penned, for bearing testimony to the correctness of what we have previously and repeatedly intimated, that the English word immerse, as it is commonly used (like the Greek baptizo), does not invariably have the exclusive sense of putting into. Mr. S. has said: "The Egyptians were immersed, or overwhelmed." Also, Dr. J. H. Godwin, in the Congregational Magazine, says that "the Egyptians were immersed." Did they go into the water? Were they put into the water? Did not they, like the children of Israel whom they followed, go into the sea on dry ground? And did not the waters remain as a heap, as a wall on their right hand and on their left, until the children of Israel had all passed through, until "the Lord said unto Moses, |