: A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE MODE OF THAT all the various objects we behold in this world, and in those parts of the universe to which our knowledge extends, are the workmanship of the same all-wise, good, and powerful Being, is most justly inferred from the agreements and dependencies which may be traced every where the unity of character and design in creation being a proof of the unity of the great Creator. We know that he who made the herbs which grow from the soil, made also the animals which run on the earth, or fly in the air, partly, because the former are fitted for the latter as means of sustenance; and partly, because there are classes of vegetables and animals, whose forms and organization are so like, that it is not always easy to say to which kingdom they belong. We know that he who made the day, made the night also, both because the one prepares for the other, and because darkness and light are so united by imperceptible gradations, that none can mark the point where either begins or ends. The same avoidance of abrupt transitions, which characterizes the works of God, in some degree distinguishes the higher arrangements of his providence and grace. The Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian dispensations, have a unity similar to that which nature exhibits. In their common features and mutual relations, in the gradual progress from the lower to the higher, we see a harmony which proves that all have come from the same source, and are directed to the same end. One remarkable feature of the Mosaic economy was the great use of visible objects and actions, to represent the truths of religion. The ceremonies and other types belonging to it, like the pictorial lessons given to children, were obviously a very imperfect means of instruction; and in consequence nearly all of them have been abolished by the introduction of a higher and better system. They are styled, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "a shadow of good things to come," and are described as "that which decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away." In the Mosaic economy, many things were designed to impress deeply the senses of men, and thereby to influence their character and conduct; but in the Christian economy, the reason, affections, and consciences of men, are addressed, almost exclusively by means of language and living examples of piety. The provision which Christianity makes for the instruction of men, by visible signs and services, is borrowed from the former dispensation. Its rites are those of Judaism, slightly changed to fit them for the new system of which they now form a part. The ordinances of baptism and of the Lord's supper correspond most closely, both in form and in design, to the purifyings and the paschal festivals of the Jews, only having a simpler form and a higher meaning; and they are thus connecting links between the earlier and later dispensation. In order to ascertain what correspondence exists between the purifyings of the Old Testament and the baptisms of the New, it will be necessary to attend to three inquiries. Were any purifications enjoined by the Jewish system, for those who came over from idolatry, or who returned, after a course of disobedience, to the dutiful observance of God's laws? In what manner was the public portion of these purifications performed? Was the term baptism, or any equivalent word, used for these purifications? In reply to these questions, the the following observations are made.-The use of some purification with water, on occasions such as those mentioned, appears to have preceded the giving of the law. An instance occurs in the book of Genesis, XXXV. 2, "Then Jacob said to his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, (xadapioOnte,) and change your garments, and let us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went." Another is found in the book of Exodus, xix. 10., "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people and purify them (ayviσov) to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day." This purification with water formed part of their preparation for the new system on which they were about to enter. Of the laws respecting purification, some have already been quoted, as more especially applicable to the case under consideration; we select that given in the book of Numbers, xix. 14, "This is the law when a man dieth in a tent : all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with the sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And 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 hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon all the persons that were there, and upon him that toucheth a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave." In all cases of ceremonial defilement, whether resulting from the contact of unclean animals, of sick persons, or of dead bodies, the impurity remained until the rite of purification was performed; and the only public rite of purification with water enjoined on the people in the Mosaic law, is the sprinkling here mentioned. None could approach the tabernacle, or join in any religious service, after contracting impurity, until they had received this rite. Thus, in the passage before quoted, Numbers xix. 20, it is said, "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of N. S. VOL. V. 2 x the Lord, the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him, he is unclean." These laws of purification were intended to separate between the Jews and the Gentiles; it would therefore be, in the highest degree, strange, and unaccountable, if the law that was binding on the native Jew, were not also binding on the Gentile proselyte. Can it be supposed that a Jew, until purified, was excluded from the society of his countrymen, and from the religious privileges which were his birthright, on account of a single act producing ceremonial defilement, and that the Gentile, who had often done the same thing, was not excluded also, until purified in the same way? Would a Jew require this purification after merely touching the unclean Gentile, before restored to his religious privileges, and would the unclean Gentile be admitted, without this purification, to participate in them? The supposition is most unreasonable. Not only is it contrary to the spirit of the Jewish people, and to the design of their ceremonies, but it is opposed to the express injunction of the law which required that the Gentile should be treated as the Jew. "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." It is therefore as certain as any thing of the kind can well be, that both the Jews, who living for a while in neglect of their law, had contracted ceremonial uncleanness, and the Gentile proselytes, who had been unclean from their birth, were purified with water, before the one was restored, and the other introduced, to the community of the people of God. That this proselyte baptism should not be mentioned more explicitly in the Old Testament, or be referred to by Onkelos, Philo, and Josephus, will excite no surprise, if we consider the simple character of the rite, its frequent recurrence among the Jews, and the almost universal use of similar rites. Had the strange operose and offensive form given to the rite by the later Jews, and unhappily adopted by many Christians, been the proper form of proselyte baptism, the silence of these writers would be some objection. It does tend to disprove the practice of immersing, for that, if it existed, would probably have been mentioned; but it does not tend to disprove the practice of sprinkling-a rite so simple and common was not likely to be noticed. The use of proselyte baptism is mentioned in the Mishna, compiled at the close of the second, or at the beginning of the third century. "In respect to the stranger, who is made a proselyte on the evening of the Sabbath, the school of Shamai says, let him be baptized and eat the passover."-Tract Pesachim, viii. 8. This bap tism is mentioned in connexion with the baptisms of the unclean. They were to be baptized on account of the special uncleanness they had contracted; the proselyte was to be baptized because he was a proselyte. Bartenora, in a note on this passage, says, that the schools agreed that the proselyte was to be baptized, but that they disputed whether a single purification would suffice. The existence of the rite of proselyte baptism among the later Jews is unquestionable, and it is little likely that they would add to their ritual, this simple rite, if it had only been practised as a distinguishing rite by the despised Christians. In the Jerusalem Talmud, compiled in the close of the third century, sundry statements are made concerning the baptism of proselytes. They baptize a proselyte by night.-Cod, Jevamoth, fol. 46, 2. At his baptism, a proselyte has need of three assistant witnesses.-fol. 46, 2. In the Babylonian Talmud, compiled in the sixth century, it is spoken of as an ordinance of the greatest antiquity: "Our ancestors did not enter into covenant save by circumcision, baptism, and the sprinkling of blood, therefore the proselytes enter into covenant in the same manner.” -Cod, Cherithoth, fol. 81.* The existence of proselyte baptism, and the correspondence between the Jewish and the Christian rite of purification, is still further confirmed, by the style in which the latter is mentioned in the New Testament. Baptism is never referred to as a novelty, but is spoken of as a rite well known and understood. In respect to the manner in which the purification of the proselyte was performed, it is to be observed, that no immersion was enjoined in the law, neither public nor private. In some cases, the washing of the whole body was required, but this, of course, as decency demanded, was done in private. The purification which was effected by others, the purification which was observed in public, consisted of the sprinkling of water by a person who was pure, upon the person to be purified. This is mentioned in the law quoted, and nothing else. The public purificathe proselytes with water was performed by sprinkling, and only thus. Lastly, that the purification of proselytes by the sprinkling of water was called a baptism, appears from the passages already adduced. The purification of Naaman, when he became a proselyte, that of Judith, and the purifications mentioned in the passages quoted from the book of Sirach, the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, were effected by the sprinkling of water, and they are the baptisms of the Bible. Further, the term no, the Hebrew equivalent for Barrioμòs, is used in the Talmud not only for the purification which was performed by dipping the hands, but also for that which was performed by the affusion of water on the hands.† The corresponding Chaldee term is used in the Targum of Jonathan, for a purification performed by sprinkling. "He shall sprinkle with blood the front of the tabernacle, in one purification, seven sprinklings, 2, Numbers xix. 4. There could not be seven sprinklings in one dipping; there might be, and in many instances there were, seven sprinklings in one purification. These considerations would lead us to conclude that the baptism of John, and that of the apostles of Jesus, were performed by the sprinkling of water on the persons to be purified. * Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. Matt. iii. Wall's Hist. of Bap. † Pocock, Miscell. not. cap. 9. That their purifications with water were like those administered by the priests, and their baptisms like the baptism of proselytes, must be regarded as highly probable; our decision, however, should be formed upon the evidence belonging to each. We shall now consider some of the more important passages relating to the baptism of John, keeping in view the objects we have hitherto pursued, the manner of the rite, and the meaning of the word. There are three terms employed, βαπτιστὴς, βαπτίζω, βάπτισμα. The first is the title given to John from the office he held; the second expresses what he did to the people; the third denotes either what he did, or what he taught. I. The term BanσTηs is found in fourteen places, but it is so similarly used in all, that an examination of any one of these passages will be sufficient. The first which occurs is Matt. iii. 1, " In those days John the Baptist appeared preaching at the downs of Judea, and saying, 'Repent, for the reign of heaven approaches.'" In all the passages in which this title is used it stands alone, as an epithet descriptive of his office. No explanation is ever given of its meaning. We may, therefore, infer, that the word, as a title of office, required no explanation; it was so expressive and appropriate as to need no comment. The phrase, John the dipper, is offensive, not merely because it is strange, but chiefly because it has no apparent fitness to his work, as the great predicted reformer of the day. Even if he had dipped persons, it would be most unnatural on this account to style him the dipper, since the important characteristics of his work would not be expressed by such a title. If the term, the baptist, had been used as a reproachful designation, if it had been given him by enemies who wished to mark him out by an epithet expressing what was low and common, or even if it had been imposed by ignorant observers who apprehended nothing but what was outward and visible, then a word denoting dipper might have been employed, if that were the mode of his baptism. But John at first had few, if any, enemies; the title was either assumed by himself, or given him by his admiring disciples. It every where appears as a title of honourable distinction, and was so used by our Lord, when he said that there had not been a greater than John the Baptist. We may, therefore, infer, not only that the title was expressive and appropriate, but that it was one which accorded with the sentiments of reverence, with which the whole Jewish nation regarded him. The dipper is inconsistent, the purifier is in harmony with all these conditions. It is surely more likely that John and his disciples would select a name that would express what was spiritual, than one that would express only what was sensible. It is most probable, that, as his great work was to preach repentance, "to turn the children of Israel to the Lord their God," that the title by which he was distinguished had some reference to this work. He is in this passage introduced as the predicted herald of the Messiah, who was to go before him to prepare the way of the Lord; |
