words of the lawgiver. And just so in respect to the Bible. The Bible professes to be a code of laws, coming down to us from the great Lawgiver of the universe, and binding directly on our consciences and hearts. But in order that it may be duly authenticated; may be a rule of life to us here, and of judgment hereafter, we must have the very words of God. A merely human record of his truth and will cannot bind us. We must have a Bible, the whole of which is given by the inspiration of God, or we have no standard to which we may implicitly appeal, or on which to rely. ARTICLE III. BAPTISM, A CONSECRATORY RITE. BY REV. I. E. DWINELL, SALEM, MASS. There is much confusion in the public mind on the subject of Baptism. Some, as Neander, regard it as a "sign of the participation in a sanctifying, divine spirit of life;" others, like Kurtz, as a sacrament coexisting with the renewing activity of the Holy Spirit, and hence essential to salvation.2 Others, like Olshausen and the Lutherans generally, consider that it "removes ... the guilt of original sin, but not its dominion, which is first overthrown in regeneration." By others, as the Catholics and High Church-Men, the scholastic doctrine of baptismal regeneration is perpetuated. A more common statement, among moderate Evangelical Christians, is, that baptism is a symbol of purification; or a seal either of a devotement to God, or of a covenant with him. 1 Church History, I. 304. 2 See Manual of Sacred History, §§ 188, 189. 8 Commentary on Acts 16: 14, 15, n. Moreover, the same individuals are not always consistent with themselves in their statements of its use, or object. Persons who have, in their own minds, fully settled the questions connected with the mode and subjects, are sometimes at a loss to know what Baptism itself means, and for what it is designed. Their thoughts float vaguely between a rite of initiation, a seal of consecration, a sign of spiritual cleansing, and a token of the covenant. One is surprised to find in Neander statements looking in directions so different as the following. In his Life of Christ,' speaking of the practice of this rite by the Apostles, he calls it "the Messianic symbol of inauguration.. in order to separate from the rest such as admitted the Divine calling of Jesus, and attached themselves to him ;" and, in his Planting and Training," he says: "In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point." Still more divergent are these statements of Olshausen: "BaTTiew eis Tivá signifies," he remarks, "baptism as devolving a thorough obligation; a rite whereby one is pledged;" and again, speaking of infant baptism, "We view it as the communication of the higher life of Christ, and consequently as involving the abolition of the dominion of original sin."4 Indeed it would seem, that, in discussions on this subject, attention has been more turned to the import of Barri and its derivations, and to historical investigations of the early usage of the church, than to the study of the Nature and Import of the Rite itself. Investigators have left the thing, and lost themselves in its adjuncts. Now, if the precise act covered by the word Barrio, and its symbolic import, at the time of the adoption of the term by Christ, could be made out to the satisfaction of all, it is possible that this might not give a clue to the meaning of the rite; for Christian baptism is not a simple service, or transaction, but a compound one, having more than the single element covered by that word. There are also the modifying elements, 1 § 83. For the same idea see "Planting and Training,” p. 27. 2 Page 101. 3 Com. Matt. 28. 19. 4 Com. Acts 16: 14, 15, n. according to our Saviour,' denoted by the words, eis Tò ovoμa τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. It is possible that these may, in great measure, cover up and obscure that; and the rite have, as a whole, quite a different character from what one would expect who should make that word alone the key to unlock it. The historical method can hardly be more conclusive. During the Apostolic and authoritative age of the Church, the narrative of baptisms is too brief and too closely confined to the bare mention of baptismal acts and scenes, to afford any final settlement of the subject; and the voice that comes up from the church, during later and unauthoritative periods, is too various or dubious to furnish any certain evidence of Apostolic usage and belief. The true method, we believe, is first to determine the Import of the Rite. If this can be clearly ascertained, it will afford a guiding light as we pass to the subordinate questions connected with its details and applications. I. What, then, does Baptism denote? Passing by all minor distinctions and varieties, it will be sufficiently definite for our purpose to remark, that there are two leading theories on this subject: the one makes Purification its central idea; and the other Consecration. We adopt the latter, believing the rite to be, primarily, and predominantly, a Consecratory one; the symbol of the devotement of a human being to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The evidence of this exists, in the first place, in the very language with which the rite of baptism is spoken of in the New Testament. Where anything more than the baptismal act is mentioned — anything revealing the meaning and contents of the ordinance, it is usually done by the preposition eis, followed by a noun in the accusative. In the formula as given by Christ, it is εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. In other places we have εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. We also find a still more pregnant construction, where Barrio is followed immediately by the per 1 Matt. 28: 19. 2 Ibid. a Acts 8: 16 and 19: 5. son or object, without the use of ὄνομα; as, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν; εἰς Χριστὸν ; εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν; εἰς ἕν σῶμα ; and εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα. Once only do we find the phrase ev τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου, in connection with this rite; and once only, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Now it is generally conceded, among philologists, that the use of "the accusative is to designate the objects upon which any action or quality terminates; " and that es denotes "direction towards, motion to, on, or into." Kühner says els corresponds almost entirely with the Latin in with the accusative." Prof. Stuart remarks that it "plainly relates to the whither; i. e., indicates a meaning appropriate to the accusative case." The apparent exception to this use of cis- when it is found with the accusative after verbs of rest, instead of ev with the dative-is explained by the last writer; Robinson; Liddell and Scott; and Winer, on the ground that a previous coming into that place or state is either actually expressed, or implied, in the context. Thus in Luke, 11 : 7, τὰ παιδία μου μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν, the mind of the speaker contemplates his children as coming to the bed, as well as being with him in it. Winer maintains that e's always has, in the New Testament, its distinctive force, i. e., of denoting a tendency or movement towards an end or object. He says, "it is improbable that the Apostles would use eis for ev, or vice versa ; "12 and again, "the interchange of eis and év is only apparent."13 Accordingly, then, the expression eis rò ovoμa, in the baptismal formula, points to the Object or End which is implied in the act of baptism; and should be translated by to or unto. Whatever, therefore, be the act covered by Baπтio, or whatever its symbolic import, the rite of baptism, taken as a whole, is an ordinance by which one is set apart to a 8 Prof. Torrey. Unpublished Lectures on Greek Syntax. Robinson, Liddell and Scott; and lexicographers generally. 10 El. Greek Grammar, § 165, 2. 12 Idioms of New Testament, 54, 5. "New Testament Grammar, § 111. 18 Idem § 54, 4. faith, a service, an end- the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whatever else it may be, its central idea is that of the consecration of a human being to God. Be the means and the process what they may, the transaction, in its object and scope, is a religious devotement. As to the import of ovopa in the formula, we agree with Olshausen that it is equivalent to, and "signifies the very essence of God." We, however, hazard the remark that it is not absolutely periphrastic, but denotes that essence in its objective, rather than subjective, relations; as manifesting itself, rather than remaining in its eternal state. The view we have taken follows from the exegesis of the sacred narrative, wherever the rite is spoken of with any fulness. The els tò ovoμa, K. T. X. must refer to the object or end to which one is committed by the baptismal act. In relation to the two exceptional instances, which have been referred to, and which are all that exist, it may be remarked, that the latter,' in which eπ TO óvóμari is used, is not directly inconsistent in meaning with the prevailing usage, though not directing the attention so forcibly to the Object of the baptismal consecration; while the ev T ὀνόματι of the former in the passage, προσέταξέ τε αὐτοὺς βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου — is altogether so anomalous, if made to qualify BaπTiovai, as to suggest that it really qualifies πрoσéτaέe: "He commanded them to be baptized, in the name of the Lord." - But whether this be the true interpretation or not, neither of these instances can be regarded as reversing the obvious meaning of the baptismal formula, and of the general Apostolic usage; and they must be explained under that meaning. The force which we give to eis, as pointing to the scope and end of the rite, is no novel interpretation. We have already quoted Olshausen's remark-which is the more valuable, because, though inconsistent with what he says. elsewhere, it is wrung out of him by the inexorable force of 1 Acts 2: 38. 2 Idem 10: 48. |