water in baptism. Their going into the sea resembled the ancient rite of going into the water; and their coming out of it, their rising up out of the water."-Com., on 1 Cor. x. 2. Dr. FAIRBAIRN.-"The appearance of the Divine presence was various, but it is uniformly spoken of as itself one-a lofty column rising toward heaven. By day it would seem to have expanded as it rose, and spread itself as a kind of shade or 'curtain between the Israelites and the sun, as the Lord is said by means of it to have 'spread a cloud for a covering' (Psalm cv. 19), while by night it exchanged the cloudy for the illumined form, and diffused throughout the camp a pleasant light."--Typol. of Scrip., p. 98. WEBSTER AND WILKINSON.-"Upo, with the accusative, signifies motion or extension underneath." "The prepositions used, upo, dia, en, are evidently intended to reduce the process undergone by the Israelites to a greater similarity with immersion. The introduction of nephele is, probably, with the same object. In the passage of the Red Sea the cloud had passed over them, from front to rear (Ex. xiv. 19)."-Gr. Tes., on 1 Cor. x. 1-5. Dr. HODGE says: "They were not immersed in the cloud nor sprinkled by the sea. There is no allusion to the mode of baptism." Neither," says the doctor, "is the point of analogy to be sought in the fact that the cloud was vapour and the sea water. The cloud by night was fire" (Com., on 1 Cor. x. 2). A literal immersion in water we do not maintain. The allusion of inspired writers is never to the mode of baptizing, but to the action itself-the immersion. Dean STANLEY.-"En te nephele kai... thalasse, 'under the cloud,' i.e., 'overshadowed by the cloudy pillar, as in baptism we pass under the cloudy veil of water;' through the sea,' as 'through the waters of baptism.""-On St. Paul's Epis. to the Cor., 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. OLSHAUSEN. "When it is said upo ten nephelen esan, as in ver. 2, ebaptisanto en te nephele, reference is made to the relation in Ex. xiv. 19, 20, according to which the pillar of cloud concealed the Israelites from the view of the Egyptians, surrounding them, as it were, with a veil." "It appears necessary to add that all attempts to render the type more perfect, by means of trifling suppositions, such as that drops fell from the clouds on the Israelites, or that they were sprinkled by the sea, must be utterly discarded."-Com., on 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. WEISS (a Christian Jew). "He says that Israel were baptized (buried as in baptism, and brought up again) unto Moses (their leader and typical mediator) in the cloud and in the sea. "When the floods stood upright like walls, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea, Jehovah led His redeemed children into the depth of the waters, and buried them in baptism, in the sea and thick covering cloud. He raised them up again, and guided them by His strength into His holy habitation."-On the Old Test. Scrip. Dr. BLOOMFIELD.-"They were, by passing under the cloud and through the sea, as it were baptized." He quotes Theophylact, who (from Chrysostom) explains it thus: "They had fellowship with Moses both in the shadow under the cloud, and in the through-passing of the sea; for beholding him going through first, they themselves also dared the waters; as also with us, Christ having first died and risen, we ourselves also are baptized, imitating His death through the immersion, and His resurrection through the emersion. They were baptized into Moses then thus: they had him as their leader in the type of baptism; for the type was this, the being under the cloud, and the passing through the sea."-Crit. Dig., vol. vi., p. 478. Dean ALFORD.-"The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely; for neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted by the water of the sea." "They passed under both, as the baptized passes under water." "They entered by the act of such immersion into a solemn covenant with God, and became His church under the law as given by Moses, God's servant, just as we Christians by our baptism," &c.-Gr. Tes., on 1 Cor. x. 2. Dr. A. BARNES.-"The probability is, that the cloud extended over the whole camp of Israel, and that to those at a distance it appeared as a pillar." In opposition to the hypothesis of rain falling from this cloud, he says: "1. There is not the slightest intimation of this in the Old Testament. 2. The supposition is contrary to the very design of the cloud. It was not a natural cloud, but was a symbol of the Divine presence and protection. It was not to give rain on the Israelites, or on the land, but it was to guide, and be an emblem of the care of God. 3. It is doing violence to the Scriptures to introduce suppositions in this manner without the slightest authority."-Com., on 1 Cor. x. 1. These learned Pædobaptists, whose candid admissions we have quoted, see no more in favour of pouring or sprinkling as the import of baptism in this passage than even Theophylact, the Greek, quoted by Dr. Bloomfield. They must on this passage have been extremely ignorant, extremely inadvertent, extremely generous to their opponents, and extremely unkind to their own Pædobaptist brethren, unhesitatingly to designate this baptism an "immersion," and to speak of the grounds by which this passage is maintained to be a main pillar, or any support, of sprinkling or pouring, as "trifling suppositions;" or candour and justice demanded these and similar expressions. We would hope that, notwithstanding the desperate straits of our opponents on this passage, some of them will not again presume that the pillar of fire scattered drops of water; or apply a passage in the Psalms to this event with as much proof that it refers to the same as that Ezekiel's waters (xlvii.) describe their baptism. If we will extract from any part of God's Word, without the least evidence that such portions apply to the subject in hand, in order to meet imagined difficulties and remove baseless objections, and apply these extraneous and inapplicable quotations to maintain that they may support our views, that they afford some foundation, and that from thence the views of our opponents are incredible and impossible, and we consequently have won the day, and gained the philological battle, we may metamorphose all the miracles of Holy Writ into the stale and common-place occurrences of every day, and abandon everything that is not in the exact latitude and longitude of the infidel lecturer. § 5. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM ROM. VI. 2-4, AND COL. II. 12. Dr. J. H. GODWIN.-"To use the eloquent language of one of the most distinguished writers of the age, It would seem to be the will of the great Author of all things, that there should be a system of emblems, reflecting or shadowing forth the system of truths, whereby we apprehend Him and our relation to Him; so that religion, standing forth in grand parallel to an infinite variety of things, receives their testimony and homage, and speaks with a voice that is echoed continually.'" -Lec. on Bap. and Reg. Dr. REID. All figurative ways of using words, or phrases, suppose a natural and literal meaning."-In Tes. of Em. Pa., p. 5. Dr. CARSON." A scientific philologist will first settle the literal meaning of a word, and then understand the figure in conformity to this."-Do., p. 5. Dr. ANGUS.-"It is obvious that while the figurative meaning of a word has generally some reference to its literal meaning, it must not be supposed to include in the figurative use all that is included in the literal; similarity in some one respect, or more, being sufficient to justify the metaphor." "More errors, probably, have arisen from pushing analogical expressions to an extreme than from any other single course."-Bi. Hand-Book, pp. 175, 176. T. H. HORNE.—“An obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, or figurative text, must never be interpreted in such a sense as to make it contradict a plain one."-Intro., vol. ii., p. 414. Dr. R. JAMIESON.-"Every metaphor used in the language of ordinary life is formed either on the natural scenery, or on the customs and prevailing notions of society."- Eas. Man., N.T., pp. 363, 364. THE apostle says, in Rom. vi. 3-5: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." In Col. ii. 12, he says: "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." To our considering that this record of inspiration is corroboratory of immersion as the import of baptism, the objections are fourfold. 1. Prof. Godwin, a more recent advocate of purification than Dr. Beecher, objects here not only to the authorized rendering of baptism, but to the rendering of eis by into. He teaches that it is a "supposition, strange, low, and superstitious, that a Christian is buried with his Lord by being put under water;" and he gives as the rendering of Paul's words, "Such of us as are purified for Christ Jesus, are purified for His death. We are, then, buried with Him through the purification for His death" (Chr. Bap., pp. 196, 166). The rendering of eis by for, instead of into, is worthy of the renderings purified and purification, as well as of his remarks on burial, to some of which our reply to his Methodist admirer and imitator will be sufficient. We equally deny that baptizo should be rendered purify, and that eis should be rendered for, here or in Gal. iii. 27, Col. ii. 12, and Matt. xxviii. 19. (See proof of the meaning of baptizo and of eis previously given.) The reader may inquire, Did John purify for repentance in the river Jordan? And, when, as we maintain, he immersed into the Jordan,-did he purify for the Jordan? When persons, under the blinding influence of prejudice, reject or pervert the truth expressed in the most perspicuous language possible, we never know into what absurdities they will plunge, as one after another is needed in order to hide the first from view. The mere English reader needs only to re-peruse the section in which we have inserted the occurrences of baptize and baptism in the New Testament, and to put purify and purification for these terms, especially in the places where eis is connected with the verb baptizo, or with the noun baptisma or baptismos. 2. It is objected to there being anything in St. Paul's words confirmatory of immersion as the meaning of baptism, because it is maintained that in the expression "buried," the reference is not to the act of interment, but to the "preparatory rites." These were washing, embalming, and wrapping in linen. That the manner of the Jews was thus to bury, is not denied; but that these constituted burial, we emphatically deny. Assuredly, burying and preparation for burying are two distinct things. Preparation for any solemnity or any performance is not the solemnity or the performance itself. Are the taking down of Christ's body from the cross, and the wrapping of it in a clean linen cloth, the laying of it in Joseph's own new tomb? (Matt. xxvii. 59, 60.) In proof of this distinction, we might quote from Herodotus, yea, from any Christian or heathen author who has referred to burying, and to embalming, or other preparatory rites; yea, from Dr. Ewing himself, when thoughts of baptism have not blinded his eyes. He gives the meaning of entaphiazo, "I prepare a corpse for burial, as by washing, anointing, swathing, &c.; I embalm," and yet he says that "what is said in Scripture of Christ's burial, can have no reference to interment, but must refer exclusively to preparatory rites" (p. 101). As we believe, in reference to this and some other chimeras of Dr. E., that "to propose this is all but to refute it," enlargement we deem unnecessary. That the apostle was referring to preparatory rites we have not the least evidence, nor is there the least probability. Equally valuable is another remark of Dr. E.: "It is our happiness to know that our blessed Saviour never was finally interred." Do the Baptists believe that He did not rise from the dead on the third day? Do the Baptists finally immerse their candidates? do they actually drown them? Do the Pædobaptists finally sprinkle or pour their candidates? Is their baptism an unending sprinkling or pouring? Thus our friends go from one extreme and from one absurdity to another, in order to escape immersion. First being buried does not refer to interment at all, but to preceding things, to preparatory rites not named or hinted at; then, if it refers to interment, it is of no advantage to the Baptist, because Christ very temporarily occupied His tomb, and believers even more temporarily are under the water! There is, therefore, no resemblance C. Taylor says: "In our English language, burial implies In this sense . . I deny that Jesus was buried: I say He was NOT definitively interred." Again: "Whoever was ritually united to Christ, was baptized into the profession of His death by that washing at His baptism. . . . Such a person was conformed to what had passed on Christ's body: he was NOT definitively interred, for Christ was NOT definitively interred, but He underwent the ritual preparation for definitive interment" (Facts, &c., pp. 44, 48). Thus does he, blinded by prepossessions, darken counsel by words. The italics and capitals are his own. DEFINITIVE INTERMENT. But, 3, Dr. E. is honoured by the company of Dr. Halley and Mr. Stacey in maintaining that the Baptists can gain no advantage from the apostolic simile, because the act of interment, according to Jewish, Roman, or English practice, bears no resemblance to the act of putting a person into water and under the water. "He (Christ) was not let down into the earth, but placed in a chamber hewn out of the rock, the opening of which is secured by a great stone rolled against it, and sealed." Thus speaks Mr. S. (p. 229). Similarly speak Dr. H. (p. 261), and Dr. E. (p. 100). Then Mr. S. adds: "By what conceivable association of ideas could an interment of this kind call up in the mind of the apostle the process of dipping a person in water?" We might ask the reader if sprinkling or pouring, as the substitute of immersion, would make so real and vast an improvement as to render the supposed association of ideas "conceivable"? As Mr. S., however, can conceive of the Baptists as exceedingly ignorant or regardless of the Jewish and Roman customs of interment, not to mention also the English customs, we shall, first, assert that the word burial needs not be confined to the idea of letting down the body into a grave, or of thrusting the same into a sepulchre hewn out of a rock on the side of a hill, or of burning the mortal remains and depositing the ashes in an urn. Cicero, a person not unknown to fame, on this subject says: "The most ancient kind of burial appears to have been that which, according to Xenophon, was used by Cyrus. For the body is restored to the earth, and so placed as to be COVERED with its mother's veil" (De Leg., ii. 22). Herodotus, speaking of some of the Thracians, says: "When any one dies, the body is committed to the ground" (or, rather, they HIDE it in the earth, ge kruptousi) "with clamorous joy: for the deceased, they say, delivered from his miseries, is then supremely happy." He also speaks of nations where the practice was for a wife to be "sacrificed by her nearest relation on the tomb of her husband, and afterwards buried with him" (Terp., iv. v.). Jahn, whose knowledge of Oriental customs is well known, says: "The sepulchres or burying-places of the common class of people were, without doubt, mere excavations in the earth, such as are commonly made at the present day in the East. Persons who held a higher rank, who were more rich, or more powerful, possessed subterranean recesses, crypts, or caverns (Arch. Bib., c. xii., § 206). Dr. Cox says: "The custom of raising tumuli or barrows over the dead was universal in times of the remotest antiquity; of which Homer, Xenophon, Virgil, in fact all the principal Greek and Roman authors, furnish ample evidence. It prevailed also among the German and other uncivilized nations. But such a practice is sufficiently indicative of the original and most prominent idea of burial that prevailed in remote antiquity; namely, that of committing to the earth, and covering with earth. Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus, after detailing the whole process of embalming, describe the deposition of the dead in coffins, and placing them in the ground, as the subsequent and final operations, to the latter of which the distinctive term is exclusively applied. (Comp. Diod. Sic. Biblioth., lib. i., c. 91–93.) Herod. Euterpe. "All the ancient nations cherished extreme horror at the thought of being uninterred, with reference to which the original idea is most clearly marked. When Ulysses visited the infernal regions, he thus expresses himself: "There wandering through the gloom I first survey'd, His cold remains, all naked to the sky, On distant shores, unwept, unburied lie.' "The ghost urgently implores the rites of sepulture: "The tribute of a tear is all I crave, And the possession of a peaceful grave.' "The Greeks and Romans entertained the firmest conviction that their souls would not be admitted into the Elysian fields till their bodies were buried, or committed to the earth; and if this were not the case, they were supposed to wander about for a hundred years, in a state of exclusion from the mansions of the blest. Travellers, therefore, who happened to find a dead body, cast dirt upon it three times; and whoever neglected to do so drew a curse upon himself, which no sacrifice could remove. Horace makes the shade of Archytas solicit this service of a passing seaman; and urges that it would not occasion any great delay, whatever might be his haste: "At tu, nauta, vaga ne parce malignus arena. Ossibus et capiti inhumato Particulam dare. Quanquam festinas, non est mora longa; licebit Injecto ter pulvere curras.'-Carm., i. 28. "Similar considerations are deducible from the scriptural account of the burialplaces of the ancients. On the death of Sarah, Abraham entreated the sons of Heth to give him possession of a burying-place, and he purchased of Ephron, the son of Zohar, the field of Machpelah, and the cave therein, which was in the end of the field (Gen. xxiii. 3-20). David expresses great satisfaction when informed 'that the men of Jabesh-Gilead were they that buried Saul,' having rescued their sovereign's remains from the enemies' walls, and committed them to the family sepulchre; 2 Sam. ii. 4.”—On Bap., pp. 71–73. Dr. POTTER says: "It would be needless to prove that both interring and burning were practised by the Greeks; yet which of these customs had the best |