ページの画像
PDF
ePub

service; that all the operations subsequent to dipping, which may be better suggested than described, could safely and properly be performed in booths or tents by the water side-all this is very hard to be believed. When the Jews washed their persons, according to the injunction of their law, they did it, as decency required, in private. The dipping of persons undressed, though practised by some of the later Jews, and by some of the Christians of the second century, cannot be admitted in the circumstances of John's baptism. But the dipping of persons with their clothes on them, has nothing of the appearance, and nothing of the nature of a purification, and has no resemblance to any one of the purifications enjoined in the law. To suppose that John immersed the people in water, is to suppose that he did what had no likeness to any of the commandments of God, and what would be an outrage not only on the scrupulous modesty of eastern women, but upon the common feelings of all mankind. The manners of the Jews have been supposed to lessen the force of this objection, and it has been thought, that what might hold good in reference to the feelings and customs of the present day, will not hold good in reference to the feelings and customs which then existed, and still exist in eastern countries. Now, that sprinkling with water, and washing the hands and feet in public, and that bathing in private, were more common in Judea then they are in northern countries, is very true; but this does not at all affect the subject of our inquiry. The question is, was there aught in the sacred rites, or in the domestic usages of the Jews, that would prepare them for the practice of dipping under water, in public, men and women, with their garments on? We believe there was not. As already stated, the only public purifications enjoined by the law, were the sprinkling of the person, and the washing of the hands and feet. The immersions practised by the Jews and other nations, were performed with the view of washing the whole body, and there was no clothing to interfere with the cleansing operation. The practice of publicly dipping into a river men and women, has nothing like unto it in any thing enjoined by Jewish law, or recorded in Jewish history. These objections to the supposition that John immersed in the Jordan, will apply with equal force to the cases of Christian baptism. As the subject is one peculiarly painful to many, it would not have been referred to, had not truth required its mention. The conviction, however disagreeable, ought to be expressed, that it is very unlikely that oriental ladies, so reserved in their manners, as to avoid as much as possible the touch or the look of a stranger of the other sex, should be willing to commit their persons to the hands of the man who was to dip them; and that then, in the sad state of consequent disorder, they should expose themselves to public gaze; and that this should give no offence to their husbands and brothers, demand no pressing exhortation, require no cautions, and no explanation or defence. Surely all this, as

a matter of fact in common history, is most unlikely—as a matter of duty under the Gospel dispensation, it is, in the highest degree, improbable.

7. We should not only consider what is stated, but also what is not stated, in connexion with the ordinance of baptism. Inferences may fairly be deduced from the latter, as well as from the former. As a purification by sprinkling with water was a simple, easy, and familiar rite, we should not expect any reference to its mode, or to attendant circumstances. But it is otherwise with regard to dipping. If this were the mode in which baptism was administered, either by John or the disciples of Christ, there then must have been delay for preparation; there must have been the bringing from their homes, or the borrowing from others, of suitable raiment; there must have been tents or houses for dressing and undressing; there must have been reluctance felt on the part of many; objections and difficulties to be removed; doubtful questions to be solved in the case of those for whom immersion would be either impracticable or extremely perilous; and there must have been ridicule, and reproach, and censure. The nature of the case renders all this certain, and it is also proved by present experience. But in all the many references in the New Testament to the baptism of John, and to Christian baptism, there is not one statement, nor even one allusion, respecting any of these things. Nothing is said or intimated with regard to delay, or preparations, change of clothes, dressing houses, the objections and difficulties of the subject, or the scorn and condemnation of the spectators. The silence of Scripture is assuredly some evidence that there were none of these things, and, consequently, that the ordinance was administered in a way that would not give occasion for them. The supposition, that baptism was administered in the manner in which the priests ordinarily purified the people, by sprinkling with water, is free from all this accumulation of difficulties. Many thousands might, singly or in companies, be sprinkled in a few hours: in such a rite there would be nothing indelicate, nothing inconvenient, nothing requiring preparation or appurtenances of any kind, nothing to call for comment, explanation, or excuse.

There are no particulars in these, or in any other passages relating to the baptism of John, that give the least support to the notion, that to dip is the meaning of the word baptize. Now, if this were the signification of the word, it is scarcely possible that there should be nothing to indicate it in so many passages. Only three particulars are noticed as at all favouring the notion, that dipping was the manner of the rite. These particulars are the use of év, when it is said that John baptized at the Jordan, or at the river Jordan; and the use of anò, in the statement that our Lord ascended from the water;-the selection of Enon as the place of John's preaching and baptizing, because there was an abundance of water there;-and the occasional practice of going to a river to baptize and to be baptized.

It is argued that ev must mean in the water, and arò out of; and that, if the persons baptized went into and came out of the water, they must have been immersed in it. To this we reply, First, That, according to the testimony of most critics, év has the signification of at, and ảrò of from. 'Anò rarely has the sense of out of, but ev very frequently has the sense of in. A few instances of the significations at and from are given below. That they are true significations of these words no scholar will deny; whether they are the proper signification in any given passage, must depend upon the context, &c. Now, in reference to the baptism of John, év, where it is not construed with the instrument, having the sense of with, is construed with names of places, and this is precisely the construction in which év most commonly has the signification of at, denoting merely proximity. Besides, the probability of one of several known significations of a word being true for any passages, depends very little on the frequency of its occurrence in other passages, but principally on its appropriateness to these. Secondly, If it were asserted, that persons went into the water and came out of it, it could not be justly inferred that they went in to be dipped. Where shoes were not worn, the necessity of frequently washing the feet might naturally make that a part of a ceremonial or symbolical washing. It was so used by our Lord, when he washed his disciples' feet. In eastern countries, it is common to walk into the stream to wash the feet, and nothing more than such a washing could be inferred from the prepositions év, eis, àñò, and ex, if they had only the significations of in, into, and out of. But this is not the case.

Again, it is argued, that, if John was baptizing at Enon, because there was much water there, then much water was required for the rite itself, and, consequently, that the rite was a dipping into the water. In reference to this argument, it is to be considered-First, That the name Enon, which means "the wells," and also the nature of the country, favour the opinion, that moλλà udara denotes many streams, rather than one large connexion of water. Secondly, There are other known reasons, sufficient to account for the selection of a spot where there was an abundance of water; and, therefore, it cannot be inferred that much water was needed for baptism. If, in a hot country, what would be there styled much water would not be required for the multitudes who came to John's baptism, save for the rite itself, then we might conclude that the rite required much water. But if much water would be necessary for such assemblies, even though there were no baptism of any kind, it cannot be inferred that much water was needed for the baptism. Surely, only for drinking and ordinary washings, much water would be necessary, for the thousands who, with their asses and camels, came from distant places, and continued some time in attendance on the preaching of John. The statement, that John was preaching at Enon because there was an abundance of water there, would be perfectly proper; and then the same mode of reasoning, which shows that much

water was requisite for baptizing, would show that much water was requisite for preaching. Scarcely any inference more illogical could be deduced from such a premise. All that can be justly inferred from the statement of the evangelist is, that an abundance of water was needed, either of the baptism itself, or for some things connected with it; whether the water was needed for the rite, or for its adjuncts, the text does not say. The presumption arising from the mention of baptism, and the absence of any reference to what most certainly did accompany baptism, is of little avail against opposite probabilities.

The third argument in defence of the supposition that the baptized were immersed, is drawn from the performance of the rite at rivers. It is said, that there could have been no object in going to a river except that of immersion. In reply to this, we observe-First, That the use of running water was expressly enjoined in the law, for the purifications performed by sprinkling.-Lev. xiv. 5, 52; Numb. xix. 17. The quotations already given will show, that it was the practice, both among the Jews and other nations, to go to large collections of water, such as rivers, or the sea, to observe purifications which needed but very little water. The increased solemnity of the rite, under such circumstances, naturally leading to the practice. Secondly, Although in some passages John is said to have baptized at a river, in others, he is said to have baptized at towns, and in the open country. And if in one or two passages Christian baptism is mentioned in connexion with rivers, or what may be supposed to be large quantities of water, in most instances there is no such connexion. Christian baptism was some thing that could be performed, not only at the river, but in Jerusalem and Samaria, at a well in the desert, in a sick chamber, at a house for prayer, or in a prison. It was very natural that persons should go to the rivers' side for purifying, though they did not need immersion, but, had this been requisite, all other situations would have been unsuitable.

[ocr errors]

III. A few remarks on the word Bánтioμa, will finish our observations on the baptism of John. It is used in this connexion twelve times. The mention of a few passages will suffice. Seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism,” ἐπὶ τὸ Βάπτισμα αὑτοῦ. Matt. iii. 7. "Preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," Bántiopa peravoías. Luke iii. 3. “John having preached, before his Βάπτισμα appearing, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." Acts xiii. 24. "Being acquainted only with the baptism of John." xviii. 25. The noun invariably employed in relation to the baptism of John, is not βάπτισις, which denotes the act of baptizing, nor βαπτισμός, the word used for the purifyings of the Jews, but Bánтiopa. The form of this word indicates that its signification is some effect. The two words, Banтioμòs, and Bánтioμa, differ in their meaning; as do the English words, an immersing, an immersion, a purifying, a purification—the former denoting an act that is transient, the latter, an effect for a time

permanent. The term dipping denotes a transient action, and therefore cannot be the meaning of ẞáтiσμа. The term immersion is not appropriate to the ordinance when performed by dipping; for there is only the transient action which should be designated dipping. If the subject were left for a while in the water, then the effect would be rightly called an immersion. The sense of purifying agrees with the peculiarity of sense belonging to Barrioμòs; and that of purification, with the peculiarity of sense belonging to βάπτισμα. *

When it is said that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, reference obviously is made to what he did. But in other places it appears, that this word is used, not for what he did, but for what he taught. He certainly did teach the baptism, which consisted of a corporeal purification; but this was not the great subject of his preaching. It is not, even in any one passage, expressed as the subject of his preaching. The grand doctrine taught by him was, the necessity of a spiritual purification. This was the great subject of his preaching: "Repent, for the reign of heaven approaches." If baptism was the chief theme of John's preaching, and it is so described, then, because repentance also was the chief theme, baptism and repentance coincide. Repentance is not a dipping, nor an immersion, but it is a purification.†

The phrase βάπτισμα μετανοίας, might mean either the corporeal baptism, connected with repentance, or the spiritual baptism, consisting of repentance. As the phrase, the cleansing of regeneration, denotes the cleansing of the mind, which is regeneration, or which accompanies it; so, in like manner, the phrase, the baptism of repentance, may denote the baptism of the mind, which is repentance, or which accompanies it. That the latter is the true sense, is further confirmed by all the passages quoted above. John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is here connected, not with repentance, but with baptism. If, therefore, the term here referred to baptism with water, then it would have been very natural for the Jews to imagine, that there was a virtue in the water of baptism by which their sins could be washed away; an error to which, without the sanction of prophet or apostle, men have been ever sufficiently prone. We may therefore conclude, that, because this baptism was connected with the remission of sins, as its end, that it was not the dipping of the body, but the purification of the soul. It is said that Apollos taught diligently the things of the Lord, being acquainted only with the baptism of John. If only acquainted with the dipping of John, he could have been little fitted for the office of a religious

* "Nouns in uds properly denote the action in the abstract, as waλuds, the act of brandishing. The termination ua, on the contrary, rather denotes the effect of the verb as a concrete, and even the object itself, as πpâyμa, a deed, what has been done; σépua, seed, what has been sown."-Buttmann's Gr. Gram. 296.

+ Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Jas. iv. 8.

« 前へ次へ »