rity which makes the institution. Though we do not understand the reasons of the institution, if we see the command we must obey; and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an institution, if no such institution appears, we are free, and ought not to believe there is such an institution, because we think there are reasons to be assigned why it should be." "I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture, but yet I will never admit of a mere consequence to prove an institution, which must be delivered in plain terms, as all laws ought to be.”—Preser. against Po., p. 419; and Appendix, vol. ii., p. 23. Bp. BURNET. "Sacraments are positive precepts, which are to be measured ONLY by the institution, in which there is not room left for us to carry them any farther."-Erpo. of Thir. Nine Art., Art. xxvii. ARCHI. HALL."The appointments of the Deity concerning His worship, are not to be gathered from the uncertain tradition of the elders, the authority of men, or the dictates of our own reason: no, they stand engrossed in the volume of His book, which is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."Gos. Wor., vol. i., p. 30. Dr. WATERLAND.- “Positive laws, as soon as enacted, become part of moral law; because, as I said, universal obedience to God's commands is the first moral law, into which all laws resolve."-Scrip. Vindicated, part iii. PAYNE. "Surely so wise a Lawgiver as our blessed Saviour, would not give a law to all Christians that was not easy to be understood by them; it cannot be said without great reflection upon His infinite wisdom, that His laws are so obscure and dark, as they are delivered by himself, and as they are necessary to be observed by us, that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication."-Pres. against Popery. P. MARTYR."It is necessary that we should have a clear testimony from the holy Scriptures, concerning sacraments." Bp. HOADLEY.-"It cannot be doubted that He himself sufficiently declared to His first and immediate followers the whole of what He designed should be understood by it, or implied in it. For this being a positive institution depending entirely upon His will, and not designed to contain any thing in it, but what He himself should please to affix to it, it must follow, that He declared His mind about it fully and plainly; because otherwise He must be supposed to institute a duty, of which no one could have any notion without His institution; and at the same time not to instruct His followers sufficiently what that duty was to be.”—Works, vol. iii., p. 846. A. BOOTH.-"As an appointment of Christ it [baptism] originated in His will, and from a revelation of that will the whole of its obligation results. In proportion, therefore, as we annex the idea of obscurity to what He says about the mode and subject of it, we either sink the idea of obligation to regard it, or impeach the wisdom, the goodness, and the equity of our Divine Legislator; for we neither have, nor can have, any acquaintance with a positive institution farther than it is revealed; and a natural incapacity will always excuse the non-performance of what would otherwise be indispensable duty. We are therefore obliged to conclude that our Lord has clearly revealed His pleasure with reference to both His positive appointments, in that code of law and rule of religious worship, which are contained in the New Testament.”—Pœdo. Ex., vol. i., p. 22. We should not have been so lengthened on the clearness with which God has revealed His will relative to the ordinance of baptism, but for the idea which we believe to be extensively prevalent, that baptism, on account of differences among Christians in regard to it, must necessarily be obscurely revealed, and of insignificant moment. The latter idea may be subsequently noticed. That the former, in accordance with reason and revelation, is strongly reprobated by many intelligent Pædobaptists as well as Baptists, we hope the reader has now perceived. Let us guard against the applicability to ourselves of a charge that has been brought against some, of admitting sound principles, and yet of refusing their application to our favourite sentiments and practices. Assured that God has clearly revealed His will, let us "search the Scriptures;" and, cleaving to "the commandments and ordinances of the Lord," imitate Him who vanquished the most subtle and potent adversary, saying, "It is written;" "It is written." Then may we consistently say, ""He that judgeth us is the Lord;' and 'What saith the Lord?' ought to be our sole inquiry." "Our standard, therefore, is not early ecclesiastical tradition, however venerable or hoary-headed."+ "The errors of mankind have been the consequence of departure from the Scriptures; there is no remedy but in returning to the Scriptures." Also we may extol the Scriptures, having convictions which we can express in the language of Prof. J. H. Godwin: "The prevalent opinions respecting the rite of baptism, and some other subjects, would experience a considerable change if the motto-so much extolled, but so often forgotten-were consistently maintained: 'The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.'"-On Faith, p. 344. A recent and eloquent writer has the following on faith : "There is but little said in the Scriptures concerning the nature of faith. There is much said concerning the grounds of faith, and much concerning the object of faith, and much concerning the fruits of faith; but very little concerning its nature. And what are we to infer from this circumstance? We may naturally conclude that the inspired writers used the word in its common acceptation; and that all they wanted was to bring men to receive the testimony of God, and to rest upon it for life and salvation."-The Faith. Wit., p. 139. So we doubt not the sacred writers used the word baptizo "in its common acceptation," the least explanation being unnecessary. * Dr. Wardlaw's Inf. Bap., p. 4. Dr. S. Davidson's Cong. Lec., p. 1. IMPORT OF BAPTISM. SECTION I. PREPARATORY AND PHILOLOGICAL REMARKS. Dr. WARDLAW.-"It is truth, Divine truth, you should be in search of. Criticism is legitimate, and, like every other means of bringing out truth, only in reality valuable as it contributes to that end."-Sys. Theol., vol. iii., p. 13. WERENFELSIUS-"Some interpreters do not search the Scriptures so much for the meaning of the Holy Spirit, as for praise and honour: others, not so much for the sense of Scripture, as for their own opinion; and others, not so much for the true meaning of Scripture, as for one that is useful and agreeable."-In Tes. of Emi. Pa., p. 6. Dr. E. HENDERSON.-"It is written in the language of men, and must therefore be studied and interpreted agreeably to the general principles of language."-Cong. Lec, p. 383. Bp. LOWTH-"The first and primary business of a translator is to give the plain literal and grammatical sense of an author; the obvious meaning of his words, phrases, and sentences, and to express in the language into which he translates, as far as may be, in equivalent words, phrases, and sentences. Whatever indulgence may be allowed him in other respects; however excusable he may be, if he fail in attaining the elegance, the spirit, the sublimity of his author: which will generally be in some degree the case, if an author excels at all in these qualities: want of fidelity admits of no excuse, and is entitled to no indulgence."-"It being, then, a translator's indispensable duty faithfully and religiously to express the sense of his author, he ought to take great care that he proceed upon just principles of criticism, in a rational method of interpretation."-Prelim. Diss, pp. lxviii. -lxx. Dr. OWEN." Every undue presumption has one lameness or other accompanying it; it is truth alone which is square and steady." Prof. J. H. GODWIN.-"The question with regard to the primitive mode of baptism depends chiefly on the meaning of the words baptizo, baptistes, baptisma, baptismos. "The signification of these words will, in a great measure, determine what was the nature of the fact described, and of the duty commanded by them."-Chr. Bap., p. 4. Ir cannot be improper to consider, first, the import of the inspired words rendered "baptize" and "baptism" in the authorized English translation of the New Testament. We adopt this course by no means from a supposition that the action itself is of more importance than the subjects of baptism: but it seems natural to treat of the meaning of the word, before we treat of the persons to whom the thing meant is applicable. The word "baptize" denotes an action required by the Divine law; and the simple question is, What is this action? Is it immersion? Is it pouring? Is it sprinkling? Is it any of the three according to our pleasure? Is it all the three? Is it something else than any of the three ? Or is it something in addition to all the three? We maintain that the Greek verb baptizo, the only verb used by the sacred writers when speaking of the baptism which John practised, of the baptism practised by our Lord himself through His disciples during His public ministry, and of the baptism enjoined by our Lord, and practised by the apostles and their coadjutors after our Lord's resurrection, that the Dr. OWEN.-"What is baptism? A. An holy action, appointed of Christ, whereby," ke. Works, vol. i., p. 491. To speak of the mode of baptism when definitely and simply the action is meant, is a burlesque on all propriety. Greek verb baptizo signifies to immerse, and ought to be so rendered in our translation, and that the Greek nouns baptisma and baptismos ought to be rendered immersion; of the correctness of which sentiment we shall now endeavour to adduce satisfactory evidence.* By immersion, we mean an entire covering or a complete surrounding with some element. Hence we accept this as the import of baptizo, to cause one thing to be in another so as to be covered and completely surrounded by it. Dr. Halley speaks of this sense of immersion as "the loose sense in which Dr. Cox uses the word immersion, without reference to mode" (p. 286). This we maintain to be the sense in which the English word is used; and to accord with the use and import of the Greek baptizo. We differ not from Dr. G. Campbell, except in the last clause of the following:-“I should think the word 'immersion' (which though of Latin origin is an English noun) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice." The element, it will be seen, is not expressed in the word baptize. But it has, we trust, been already shown that the Scriptural element is water. That going down into the water is in the word baptize, we do not maintain; but if one person is commanded to immerse another, and if water is the appointed element, we believe it to be most natural, as well as to accord with the primitive practice, for both the baptizer and the baptized to go down into the water. We maintain that the action alone-immersion-is enjoined, not the mode of immersion. Further particularizing was not needed by those who were familiar with John's baptizing in the Jordan and other places, and with the baptizing that had been performed by Christ himself through the medium of His disciples; nor is further particularizing needed by ourselves. Also the religious significance of the Greek word is derived solely from the circumstances with which it is connected. Thus, when in obedience to the command of Christ, in Matt. xxviii. 19, this act is performed on the assenting believer, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is the Christian rite; it has a sacred relation and significance, and is distinguished from all other acts of life. In Mark vii. 4 ("except they immerse themselves"), and in Lu. xi. 38 ("that he had not immersed himself"), the act expressed by the same word is a superstitious Pharisaic ceremony condemned by our Lord; and in Heb. ix. 10, the mere ceremonial immersions of the Jews are meant. act designated by the word in all these cases is the same; the relation and circumstances in which it is performed constitute the great distinction. In the Christian rite it is performed with a conscious reference to the burial and resurrection of Christ, to the pollution of sin, and to sanctification by the Spirit, and through the blood of Christ; whilst the import of baptize is only to immerse. The The word dip, however unadvisedly, may have been used by some Baptist writers in the same sense as we are now using the word immerse, although without any explanatory remark affirming this; and, certainly, * When Greek writers, as is sometimes the case with those who wrote after apostolic times, use the word technically in application to the Christian rite, the word baptism may be the most appropriate rendering. the assertion of Dr. Carson, that the Greek verb means invariably to dip, has been animadverted upon with sufficient severity by those who have excluded from the import of the English word every idea but that of putting the object into the element. In several instances Dr. C. uses the word immerse when stating what he regarded as the invariable import of the Greek word. But his reasoning in favour of putting into as being implied in certain occurrences of the Greek word among some of the Greek writers, we do not endorse; our conscious lack of poetic imagination forbids that we affirm or deny his statements; nor do we deem it in the least needed to prove and demand that immersion alone is baptism. The English words immerse and dip, unless we mistake, like the Greek word baptizo, are used generally to desiguate the putting of an object into a certain element; but sometimes, and especially the word immerse, when the encompassing of the object by the element is brought about by other means than its being put into the same. meaning of baptizo Dr. Halley refers when he says, To such a "In the general sense, bapto seems more nearly to resemble our word to dip, or put into a liquid; baptizo, to make to be in the liquid in any way" (p. 273). Again, "We believe that baptizo is to make one thing to be in another by dipping, by immersing, by burying, by covering, by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected, provided it be in immediate contact. A body placed in a tomb, or a man shut in à house, is not strictly baptized; but a body put in the surrounding earth of a grave, or a man covered with the ruins of a house, is baptized. As the action of the verb refers in almost all instances to liquids, although not of necessity, for it may apply to solids of a soft and permeable nature, it may simplify the matter to say that Baptists explain the word as uniformly meaning to put the thing baptized into the liquid: we contend that it means to make the thing baptized be in the liquid, however it be done" (p. 275). We admit not that the Baptists do thus explain the import of the Greek word. Obedience to a command that one should immerse another, would naturally be rendered by one putting the other into the immersing element; but we maintain not that the Greek or the English verb is used "as uniformly meaning to put the thing baptized into the liquid." Still more incorrect is Dr. Halley's representation of the Pædobaptists, unless practice and sentiment be allowed flatly to contradict each other. He says of them and us: "With them nothing is baptized unless it be dipped into the liquid; with us every thing is baptized which is covered with the liquid;. with us it is not to dip, nor yet to overwhelm, nor yet to pour; but it has a more general signification, which has no reference to mode; and it may be effected by dipping, or by overwhelming, or by pouring, or by any other mode in which the baptized thing becomes in the baptizing substance" (p. 275). When Dr. Halley has thus asserted that baptizo means to make a thing be in water or to cover with water (introducing the term water for the sake of convenience), as well as to put into water, he supposes an inquiry from the Baptists, "What do you gain if you prove your assertion, for your sprinkling is not covering with water?" (P. 277.) But the doctor appears satisfied, until we will concede this-which the present writer objects not to accept as the import of baptizo-with simply |