Critical exposition of baptism : embracing the mosaic baptisms, Jewish traditionary baptisms, John's baptism, and Christian baptism : clearly establishing the scriptural authority of affusion and sprinkling and of infant baptism

Front matter

*** itatJtj tsi §onpt$&.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CRITICAL EXPOSITION

Preface

1. The present work is designed to contain a complete and thorough exposition of baptism.

Many partial expositions of this ordinance are already before the public, and some of them of considerable merit. But none have received that degree of favor which is necessary, in order to their becoming generally read ; and none are generally convincing.

Believing that the scripture doctrines respecting Christian baptism, can be so expounded as to secure for them the general adoption of mankind, and thus put an end to rational controversy in regard to them ; the author of the following work, has undertaken to contribute something towards the attainment of this result. How far he has succeeded, remains to be determined. He indulges the hope that his effort will so far receive the approbation of the great head of the church, and be so far in agreement with the designs and purposes of God, as to be made useful.

2. Infant baptism is intimately connected with family religion. Most families are so imperfectly informed in regard to its authority and design, that something is imperiously demanded for general circulation with respect to that branch of the subject.

The position which baptism occupies, as the sacramental seal of covenant relations subsisting between

6 PREFACE.

God and man, and the unhappy diversities of opinion, among Christians, in regard to it, are additional reasons for the general and thorough investigation of the subject, both by the ministry and membership of the church of Christ.

3. Baptism is one of the most interesting branches of Polemic Theology.

Polemic Theology is discarded by many. But when we consider the apostolic injunction, to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; and the obligation both to observe and maintain the institutions of Chris tin their purity, we are constrained to be polemical. If the doctrines of Christ met with no opposition, Polemical Theology would not be necessary. But to cease contending for the faith, while that faith is violently assailed, is the part of cowardice and treachery ; and is a base abandonment of the essential principles of Christianity.

It becomes us not only to defend the institutions of Christ and to prevent their being broken down by assailants, but also to support them by sound and convincing argument, to such a degree as will carry conviction to every unbiassed mind. This has been earnestly attempted in the present work.

4. The scripture doctrines, respecting the mode and subjects of Christian baptism, must be settled, if settled at all, by argument. The opinions of men, unsupported by evidence, are of no weight whatever in the legitimate establishment of them.

Neither can these doctrines be safely determined from the English bible, considered independently of the inspired original. The English bible is not the inspired word of God; and has not, and cannot have the authority which belongs to the inspired original. The English bible is not a safe guide on subjects im-

PREFACE. 7

perfectly understood by the translators. Translators cannot give a version of unquestionable authority, even when they understand, perfectly, the subject treated of. Still less can they do this, where they <Jo not perfectly understand the subject. If a scholar translates according to the best of his knowledge, his version will be conformable to that knowledge, but will in no case exceed it.

The ultimate standards of appeal, on all controverted subjects in Christian theology, are the original scriptures, the only inspired word of God, and the only unerring and perfect rule of Christian faith. The best translations, possible, are imperfect and may mislead us. The opinions of the best and most learned men may be erroneous, and are, therefore, not to be implicitly trusted. But God's inspired word is entitled to our unhesitating confidence. It cannot be wrong. It cannot mislead us, if properly interpreted.

In the present work, the original word of God is constantly referred to; and in cases where the common version is supposed to be objectionable, other translations are adopted and supported by arguments capable of being appreciated by all intelligent readers.

The leading arguments contained in the following work were first published by the author in two pamphlets, one on the Mode and the other on the Subjects of Baptism, in 1838. In the present workr those arguments are more fully expanded, and the main conclusions have been strengthened by several additional arguments.

CRITICAL EXPOSITION

OF

BAPTISM.

Chapter I. Mosaic Baptisms

Origin of Baptism.

§ 1. The earliest baptisms of which we have any particular account, are those instituted by Moses. Whether the institution of baptism had its origin in the time of Moses, or whether it came down with the system of sacrifices from the earlier patriarchs and from the commencement of time, we are not informed in the scriptures, and cannot decide from uninspired testimony. There is a tradition among the Jews, that the origin of baptism was previous to the time of Moses, and that Moses incorporated itr as he did the other religious rites of his time, in the Jewish discipline, without originating it. Though this is incapable of proof, there is no good reason for supposing the contrary. It is, therefore, not improbable, that the institution of baptism is as old as that 2 of sacrifices, and that both had their origin in the express appointments of God, and in the time of Adam.

Primitive title of the Mosaic Baptisms.

§2. The Mosaic baptisms' are described among the Mosaic institutions, under the title of purifications. The name baptism was not applied to denote them in the Old Testament, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and baptism is a word of Greek derivation. The Greek language did not begin to be used by the Israelites till several centuries after the time of Moses. The books of Moses were compiled 1451 years before Christ. The Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Scriptures, was not completed till about 285 B. C, after a lapse of 1166 years from the time of Moses. The translation of the Septuagint was executed by different hands, and the different parts of it with different degrees of fidelity and ability. The Pentateuch was the first part of the Septuagint translated. It was required to be translated first, in consequence of the prominent position which the reading of it occupied in the synagogue worship. The terms adopted to denote the different Mosaic rites in the translation of the Pentateuch, would naturally be adopted, unless found objectionable, by the translators of other parts of the sacred volume.

In the Pentateuch, the Mosaic rites of cleansing are denominated purifications, not baptisms. The same modes of expression are continued throughout the old Testament, and occur occasionally in the New.

PROOF THAT THE MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS WERE BAP- TISMS.

First argument from the Apocrypha.

\ 3. In Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25, Greek Siracides, 31: 30, the word baptize is applied to denote one of the principal Mosaic purifications. Literally translated, the passage reads thus : u He that is baptized from a dead body and toucheth it again, what profit will he derive from his washing?"

Ecclesiasticus is one of the apocryphal books. It is one of the finest uninspired Jewish literary productions extant in the Greek language, and has been reckoned, by the Church of Rome, as belonging to the sacred canon.

Being baptized from a dead body is the same as being purified by baptism from the defilement contracted by touching a dead body. The baptism referred to was, evidently, the Mosaic purification from defilement, contracted by touching the dead. The passage, therefore, shows, that the Mosaic purification referred to, was a baptism according to the usage of the Jews in those times.

Second argument from the Apocrypha.

§4. In Judith 12: 7, we are told, that Judith abode in the camp of the enemy three days, " and went out in the night to the valley of Bethulia and baptized herself in the camp at a fountain of water." This baptism was connected with prayer, Judith 11 : 17. "Thy servant is religious, and serveth the God of Heaven day and night. Now, therefore, my Lord,

I will remain with thee, and thy servant will go out by night to the valley, and I will pray to God."

Judith is described as an eminent Jewish saint and heroine. Her baptism was a religious rite, which does not appear to have been commanded in the Mosaic ritual, but belonged to the traditionary observances of later times. These traditionary observances were analogous to the divinely appointed ones. The divinely appointed baptisms were the purification from defilement contracted by touching a dead body, and the other analagous purifications. — § 3.

The baptism of Judith was, undoubtedly, a ceremonial purification by means of water; probably, an uncommanded ceremony. The mode of its administration is not defined, but the circumstances of the case clearly show, that it could not have been by immersion.

1. It was performed by a woman on herself.

2. It was performed statedly in the night, and every night, in connexion with other religious exercises.

3. It was performed at a fountain.

4. It was performed at a fountain within a camp, with a hostile army around her, by whose general she was at the time entertained.

The book of Judith purports to describe transactions and events which took place during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. It is a religious historical novel, of which Judith is the heroine, and was, probably, founded on facts, as such novels generally are. It constituted a part of Jewish Greek literature previous to the time of the apostles, and illustrates the manner in which Greek words were applied to denote Jewish institutions and usages.

It shows clearly, by the case of Judith, that ceremonial cleansings, by means of water, were denominated baptisms, as well as purifications. Judith's baptism could have been nothing else than a ceremonial religious cleansing or purification, and was doubtless analagous to those instituted by Moses.

First argument from the New Testament.

§ 5. The application of the term baptisms as an appropriate title of the Mosaic purifications, is also evinced by Hebrews 9: 9, 10. This passage, properly translated, reads as follows: "Which [tabernacle] has been a type to the present time, in which both oblations and sacrifices are offered, that cannot make him who performs the service perfect in respect to the conscience, being imposed with [abstinence from certain] meats and drinks and various baptisms, ordinances pertaining to the body, only till the time of reformation."

The original word which I have translated baptisms hi the above passage, is baptismois, and ought, undoubtedly, to be rendered baptisms, not washings, as in our common bible. In the above passage, various baptisms are associated with oblations, sacrifices and distinctions of clean and unclean meats, as rites of the Mosaic dispensation. What these baptisms were, is not stated in this connexion any further than this is indicated by the name baptisms. This word is used as a title of certain Mosaic rites, in a manner which clearly shows that it was a common and well understood name of those rites.

The Mosaic rites, as enumerated and described in the books of Moses, consist of circumcision, sacrifices, abstinence from certain meats and drinks, as ceremonially unclean, and purifications.

In Hebrews 9: 9, 10, these are referred to under the titles of sacrifices, abstinence from meats and drinks, and baptisms. Which class of the Mosaic rites were baptisms? Which would this word most naturally denote? Evidently purifications. Can it possibly be applied to any other? By no means. Sacrifices were not baptisms.. Circumcision was not a baptism. The Mosaic baptisms then, must have been the Mosaic purifications.

We are shut up to the necessity, therefore, of interpreting baptisms in Heb. 9: 10, as a title of the Mosaic purifications; and divers or various baptisms must be considered as descriptive of the various and diversified purifications enjoined by Moses.

Second argument from the New Testament.

§6. That the word baptism was applied by the Jews to denote purifications, is also evident from John 3 : 25, 26. " Then there arose a disputation of the disciples Tof John, with a Jew, concerning purification ; and they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all come to him."

The word translated purification in the above, is the same that is used in 2 Pet. 1 : 9, which properly translated, reads as follows : " But he who is destitute of these [virtues] is blind, having a forgetfulness of his purification from his former sins."

The disputation of John's disciples with a Jew, related to purification. They refer this matter to

John, by stating that Jesus Christ had instituted and was administering, what appeared to them, a rival baptism to his. The matter in dispute, therefore, was the baptism of Christ, or christian baptism. The dispute concerning purification, was a dispute concerning christian baptism, or, perhaps, concerning the relation of Christ's baptism to that of John, and the comparative dignity and authority of the two institutions.

If Christ's baptism was a purification, then the divinely appointed purifications of the Jews were doubtless baptisms.

Conclusion

§7. The argument contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, does not lead to a mere probability, or conjectural conclusion. It places the matter in question, beyond reasonable doubt. It proves that the Mosaic purifications were baptisms, and that they were so understood and so denominated by the Jews, both before the time of Christ, and during the period of his public ministry. The conclusion is not forced, nor far fetched. It is easy and natural. It is inevitable. We cannot, legitimately, get away from it if we would. We cannot infer the contrary. We cannot conclude that the evidence is indecisive, and that it leaves the matter only probable, and in a greater or less degree uncertain. This is not the fact. It does not leave the matter, in any degree, uncertain. The only way to avoid coming to the conclusion is, not duly to consider and estimate the evidence adduced in the case.

Men may conclude against any degree of evidence

MOSAIC BAPTISMS.

when they have refused to admit and consider it. But evidence admitted and considered, produces its effect with certainty and uniformity. Hence, truth has this peculiarity, that it bears consideration, and becomes clearer the more accurately and thoroughly it is investigated and considered. Much that does not appear to superficial inquirers, or that shines out obscurely and imperfectly to their view, developes itself to the patient, studious and considerate, with a force of evidence that is irresistible.

First and superficial impressions are often false. They ought never to be trusted. Those views which bear the ordeal of impartial and extended investigations, and those alone, are entitled to our confidence. They are entitled to it equally, whether they occur readily or tardily; whether they are our first views, and those most naturally suggested by a superficial consideration of the subjects to which they relate, or whether they are the opposite of what merely superficial consideration would suggest.

SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL MOSAIC BAPTISMS.

§8. 1. Baptism of sacred objects.

2. Baptism of the Levites.

3. Baptism of the Priests.

4. Baptism of persons and things, on account of ceremonial defilement from touching the dead.

5. Baptism of recovered lepers.

6. Baptism of the entire nation of the Israelites, previous to the giving of the law.

1. Baptism of sacred objects.

$9. Lev. 16: 14, 19. "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward, and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his ringer seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins. And so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make an atonement for it, and shall take of the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat and put it on the horns of the altar round about, he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel."

This passage records the purification of the mercy seat and the altar. It was performed, not with water, but with the blood of victims offered in sacrifice, and was repeated annually on one of the great annual festivals of the Israelites.

The object of these rites was the removal of ceremonial uncleanness. The effect of them was, to cleanse and hallow the objects to which they were applied. They therefore agreed with the other purifications in design and signification, and were purifications.

They were administered by sprinkling blood seven times successively with the finger on the object to be purified.

The Mosaic purifications having been proved to have been baptisms, these were baptisms. The significancy of these baptisms depended on the typical character of the victims whose blood was used. These victims were types of Christ, and their blood types of his blood. They were offered to God in sacrifice as types of Christ, suffering a violent death to make atonement for the sins of the world. Hence the application of their blood represented the application of the blood of Christ for the removal of human guilt. The application of that blood to things, as well as to persons, represented the participation of things in the effects and consequences of human guilt, and their exemption from the same through the atonement. It was, therefore, a symbol of legal justification.

2. Baptism of the Levites.

§10. Num. 8: 6, 7. "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean."

This purification was a ceremonial cleansing of persons in order to qualify them for religious services. It was performed by sprinkling with prepared or lustral water, and was accompanied with other symbolical ceremonies. Its significancy depended upon the mixture of the ashes of a victim offered in sacrifice to God in the water made use of. This victim was a type of Christ suffering for the sins of men. The application of water prepared with its ashes represented the application of the atonement made by Christ to the subject of this rite. It was, therefore, a symbol of legal justification.

3. Baptism of the Priests.

} 11. Ex. 29: 3, 21. "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and thou shalt wash them with water. And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle [them] upon Aaron and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him ; and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons and his sons' garments with him."

The effect of the washing and sprinkling was, that Aaron and his sons and their garments, were cleansed. This cleansing was of course ceremonial, and the demand for it did not depend on any want of physical cleanliness on the part of the subjects on whom it was performed.

The washing was such as could be performed at the tabernacle door. Whether it embraced any thing more than the customary washing of the hands, face and feet, we are not informed. It is not said that the under garments of the persons receiving this baptism were changed. The sacred vestments, consisting of the coat, the robe of the ephocl, the ephod, and the breast plate, were put on for the first time after the baptismal or ceremonial washing, and before the sprinkling with blood from the altar.

The purification, however, depended essentially upon the sprinkling ; and this had respect to the sacred vestments of the priests, as well as to their persons.

It does not appear that this purification involved any immersion; and in the absence of any thing indicating an immersion, an ordinary washing is all that can be legitimately inferred.

4. Baptism of persons and things, on account of ceremonial defilement from touching the dead.

\\2. Num. 19: 17,20. "For an unclean person, they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel. And a clean person shall take hysop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave. And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the third day and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself with water, and shall be clean at evening."

This purification depended upon a law declaring that both persons and things became ceremonially unclean by coming in contact with a dead body ; and in some cases by proximity without contact. The defilement continued seven days; when, by Divinely appointed rites, it was removed. If not removed by such rites, it continued indefinitely.

The purification was effected by sprinkling with lustral water on the third day, and again on the seventh day. After this, in the case of persons, the subject was required to wash himself and his clothes in water, whereupon he became clean at evening.

This purification is referred to directly as a baptism in the Apocrypha, in Ecclesiasticus 34: 25. That reference has been considered in $3. It is, however, but one of the various Mosaic baptisms mentioned in Heb. 9: 10; and the other purifications, established on similar principles, and administered in similar modes, must be concluded to constitute the others. If this purification was one baptism, the other analogous purifications were the other baptisms.

The defilement from which this baptism was a cleansing, was of a legal and symbolical nature. It was created by law, and was designed to represent sin. Every dead body was a symbol of sin; and touching it, or coming into proximity to it, represented becoming defiled with sin as with a contagion. The rite by which this symbolical contagion was removed, was a baptism or purification, and was performed mainly by sprinkling the person or thing with lustral water duly prepared for the purpose. In the case of persons, washing by the individual was added as the conclusion of the whole ceremony. The mode of this washing is not explicitly defined. Perhaps it was not important.

The washing is, in this case, as in that of the other Mosaic baptisms, enjoined by a Hebrew word which corresponds well, in signification, to the English word wash. It is applied to washing the face, as in the case of Joseph, Gen. 43: 31; to washing the hands, as in Ps. 26 : 6 ; and to that of other parts of the body.

This word, therefore, does not require immersion; neither does it prescribe the mode or extent of the washing. All that it requires is a washing of the individual himself, to be performed by himself. The word bathe, made use of to express this washing, in our common English version, is to be understood in the same sense as when we speak of bathing the head with vinegar, not in the sense of going into deep water. In this sense, bathing is synonymous with affusion ; in the other and more common sense, it does not answer to the original, of which it is designed to be a translation. The water made use of in this baptism was running water.

It appears from the above that the purification from defilement, contracted by touching the dead, was a highly significant and impressive ordinance, and well adapted to make a strong and solemn impression on a reflective mind. It was not a merely arbitrary appointment, adopted to accomplish no perceptible good, but a symbolical rite, representing, in the most impressive manner, the defiling and contagious nature of sin, and the removal of that defilement and contagion. It made a strong appeal to the faith of the ancient saints, and tended to confirm and increase the same.

Lustra! Water.

Lustral water was a mixture prepared to be used in ceremonial cleansing or purification. It consisted of water taken from a stream, impregnated with the ashes of a heifer killed and burnt under the direction of the priest, with appropriate attending ceremonies. The slaughter and burning of the red heifer was a kind of sacrifice of that animal for the purpose of obtaining her ashes for the uses here referred to.

The ashes were considered as possessing the essential virtues of a sacrificial death. They had the power of expiating and removing defilements considered as symbols of sin. In the purifications, therefore, in which this water was used, there was an allusion, not only to the nature of water as an instrument of purification, but to Christ, as denoted symbolically by a sacrificial victim, whose ashes were made use of in the preparation of the lustral water.

The scriptural account of the preparation of lustral water is contained in Num. 19: 1-10.

5. Baptism of recovered Lepers.

} 13. Lev. 14 : 7, 9. " And he (the priest) shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water that he may be clean. After that shall he come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days. But it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave off all his hair from his head, and his beard, and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes; also, he shall wash his flesh in water and he shall be clean."

The word flesh seems to be here used in the sense of body. It was not, said in the law respecting being baptized from the dead, that the subject should wash his body, but simply that he should wash ; and the word " himself" is supplied in the translation to distinguish this washing more clearly from that of his clothes, mentioned in the context. But in the case of the recovered leper, the subject's body is to be washed at the conclusion of the ceremony.

In this case as in the former, however, sprinkling seven times with lustral water on two different occasions, is an essential part of the ceremony. This wTas done once on the first day, and the second time on the seventh day. On the seventh day the cleansing of the subject was completed.

The cleansing of the recovered leper was not of a remedial nature. It was not designed to effect his recovery, and had no adaptation to such a purpose. It was designed only to remove the ceremonial defilement contracted by his having been a leper.

The leprosy was an extremely filthy and malignant disease ; and persons seldom recovered from it. In this religious purification, it was made a symbol of sin. It was one of the most expressive symbols of sin that has ever yet been presented to the human mind. The defilement contracted by having the leprosy, was a symbol of the defilement or guilt contracted by being sinners; and the purification from this defilement a symbol of the expiation and removal of guilt. The mode as well as the design of this purification, bear a striking analogy to those of the purification from defilement contracted by touching the dead. If one was a baptism, the other must also have been a baptism , for they are both substantially the same thing. It is a remarkable peculiarity of the baptism of recovered lepers as well as of that from the dead, that the water made use of was running water, and that the ceremony was necessarily performed by streams where such water could be obtained. Lev. 14: 5, 6.

6. The baptism of the entire nation of the Israelites previous to the giving of the Law,

§14. Ex.9: 10, 14. "And the Lord said to Moses, go to the people and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes." — " And Moses went down from the mount to the people, and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes."

The purification is here expressed by the word sanctify. The sanctification of the people was a ceremonial one. It could not have been any other. A ceremonial sanctification is but another name for a ceremonial purification. But if it was a purification, it was a baptism. Because the Mosaic purifications have been proved to have been baptisms. Besides it agreed with the other Mosaic baptisms in representing the removal of guilt under the title of defilement.

The mode of its performance is not described ; and as it was not designed to be repeated, a knowledge of it was not particularly important for the successors of those who were the subjects of it, neither is it necessary for us.