A Bible History of Baptism

Part VII.
INTRODUCTORY.

Section XLVI.—State of the Question.

Before entering upon an examination of the New Testament, it will be well to notice distinctly what, at this stage of our inquiry, is the precise state of the question to which our attention is directed. In a word, two rites present themselves, each claiming to be the true and legitimate ordinance which Christ commanded to be dispensed to all nations.

On the one hand is the ritual sprinkling of water. In this rite, we have an ordinance instituted at Sinai by divine command, with specific directions as to the mode of observance, and abundant exemplification in the history of Israel and the writings of the Old Testament,—an ordinance by which the tribes of Israel and the Gentile children of Midian were both alike received and sealed unto the covenant of God,—its rites replete with the richest gospel meaning, as expounded by poets and prophets, and constituting in connection with the Lord’s supper, a clear and symmetrical representation of the whole plan of grace. In this ordinance, the sprinkling of water for the ritual purging of sin, is a lucid symbol of the very baptizing office which is now fulfilled from the throne of heaven by Him whom John fore-announced as the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. That the doctrine which the New Testament identifies with Christian baptism was symbolized by the ordinance, in its Old Testament form, can not be successfully questioned; nor that there was a beautiful symmetry, congruity and significance in each several part and feature of the observance. It thus stands forth, luminous with most precious gospel truth. Appointed of God at Sinai, as the most fitting form under which to figure the first act of His grace, in the bestowal of salvation on sinners,—honored as the rite by which the church was at the beginning consecrated to her exalted office, as God’s witness and herald to the nations,—it comes to the New Testament church, hoary and venerable with a history of fifteen centuries,—embalmed and hallowed by commemoration in the poetic strains of the psalmist and the brightest visions of the prophets, and fragrant from association with the profoundest and most precious experiences of God’s people, in all those centuries, and with every beam of hope for a better life beyond, which shone into their stricken hearts, in the times of bereavement and mourning. It comes, its image indelibly stamped on the face of God’s word, and its conceptions therein transmitted to blend with the clearer visions of hope revealed to the gospel church, by Him, in whom life and immortality are brought to light.

On the other hand is that form of observance in which the person of the subject is immersed in water, as a symbol of the burial of the Lord Jesus. For this rite, no higher antiquity is claimed, by its advocates, than that involved in its supposed institution by the Lord Jesus, after his resurrection. It has no precedent in the Levitical ritual, nor place among the figures employed by the Old Testament writers. The prophets did not foreshadow it in their imagery, nor the psalmist in his strains. All other rites of divine authority, are distinctly described, both as to office and form. But, of the rite of immersion, there is neither description nor explanation anywhere in the Scriptures. Its evidence stands wholly in definitions, contrary to the unanimous testimony of lexicographers, unsustained by any broad inductions from the facts and analogy of Scripture, and at variance with the conclusions which such induction demands.

And when we examine the relations and details of the rite, we find incongruity and contradiction conspicuously displayed. If the rite be regarded as a typical seal of the covenant of grace, as are all sacraments, it follows that the administrator represents the Lord Jesus, administering the true baptism, the real seal of that covenant. But, if baptism is by immersion, to represent the burial of the body of the Lord Jesus, we are reduced to the alternative that the office of the administrator means nothing, in which case we have a burial with no one to perform it;—or, that he represents Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus; by whom the body of Jesus was laid in the sepulcher.

Again, in the Scriptures everywhere, and especially, and in the most express terms, by the Lord Jesus himself (John iv, 14; vii, 37-39), living water is recognized as the divinely appointed symbol of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of quickening and life. How beautifully and richly appropriate to this purpose it is, we have seen. But, according to the immersion theory, the dipping of the person in this element,—that is, mersion in water of life, represents the consigning of the body of Jesus to the grave, the den of corruption and death!

Besides, the supposed resemblance of this rite to the burial of Christ’s body is a transparent misconception. It results from the transfer to Palestine of ideas derived from the wholly different western method of interment. In the sense required by immersion, Jesus never was “buried.” The sepulcher of Joseph, in which his body was laid was not a grave, but a spacious above-ground chamber. Such were its dimensions that, at one time, on the morning of the resurrection, there were present in it “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and other women,” at least five or six persons, and with them the two angels before whom they fell prostrate. (Luke xxiv, 1-10.) To this day, the hillsides around Jerusalem and throughout Palestine are pierced with innumerable such chambers, excavated horizontally in the rock, and frequently used as dwellings by the present inhabitants. Such was the sepulcher of Jesus,—an artificial chamber with a perpendicular door, so that Peter and John and the women could by stooping walk into it.—John xx, 5-8. The entombing of Jesus was no more a burial, in the sense required by the immersion theory, than was the laying of the body of Dorcas in an upper chamber. (Acts ix, 37.) The supposed similitude of immersion in water is a figment of the imagination, in entire disregard of the real facts.

But, even should we allow the ordinance to be a true and fitting symbol of the burial of Christ, it remains void of all spiritual significance. Study it as we may, it teaches nothing,—it means nothing. In all other sacraments the plan of salvation, in one or other of its grand features, is lucidly represented. The Lord’s supper is the acknowledged symbol of Christ’s atonement and death, and of the manner in which he imparts to his people the benefits of that death,—while they by faith feed upon his broken body. According to the immersion theory, baptism represents and shows forth the burial of the dead body of Jesus, contradistinguished from his death, as symbolized in the Lord’s supper. But that burial is a thing wholly unimportant and insignificant, in itself, whether viewed as to the fact or the mode. No emphasis is ever in the Scriptures put upon either, nor spiritual meaning attributed to them. Thus, if we admit immersion to a place among the ordinances, it must remain a mere form, shedding no ray of divine light,—an opaque spot among the luminaries in the instructive constellation of Scripture rites. The result moreover of accepting this ordinance is, to strip the New Testament church of all sacramental knowledge of the power and glory of Christ’s triumphant sceptre. In Levitical baptism, the Old Testament church had a most beautiful pledge of his triumph over death and a symbol of his grace shed down from the throne of his glory. But, upon the immersion theory, all this is utterly ignored in the New Testament ritual, and all attention directed to the humiliation, sufferings and death,—one sacrament setting forth his death, and the other his burial; whilst both are left void of meaning; since the intent of the abasement can only be found in his exaltation, and the baptizing office exercised from his throne. We are to believe that at the very moment when his exaltation became a glorious reality, and his baptizing office an active function, and when these facts had become the very crown and sum of the gospel thereupon sent forth to the world, all trace of them was obliterated from the sacramental system, to the marring of its symmetry and the utter destruction of its completeness and adequacy as a symbolical gospel.

Moreover, it is the office of the rite of baptism, to seal admission to the benefits of the covenant, in the bosom of the visible church. Appropriate to this office, the Old Testament rite was a symbol of that renewing and cleansing which the Lord Jesus by his Spirit gives, in the bestowal upon his people of the benefits of the better covenant, and the fellowship of the invisible church. The same import is attributed to baptism throughout the New Testament. But in the rite of immersion, as symbolizing the burial of the Lord Jesus, not only is this meaning excluded, but the ordinance has no conceivable congruity to the office which it fills. Dr. Carson attempts to evade this difficulty by the assumption that there are two distinct emblems in baptism,—one, of purification by washing; another of death, burial and resurrection, by immersion.^[66] Then, we are to understand that in baptism, the administrator represents at once, the men by whom the body of Jesus was laid in the sepulchre, and the Lord Jesus himself, dispensing the baptism of his Spirit! The water symbolizes both the grave which is the abode of death and corruption, and the Holy Spirit of life! And the immersion of the person of the baptized represents at one and the same time, the placing of the body in the grave, and the bestowal of his Spirit by Jesus, for quickening and sanctifying his people! Manifestly, the two sets of ideas thus brought together, as involved and represented in the one form, are wholly irreconcilable. They are not merely incongruous, but mutually destructive. To assert water, in one and the same act, to signify the Spirit of life, and the corruption of the grave; or an immersion to symbolize, at once, the burial of the dead body, and the quickening of dead souls, is to deny it to have any meaning at all. The rite may be labelled with these incongruous ideas. But they can not be made to cohere in it. The theory ignores and contradicts the true nature of the rites of God’s appointment; which are not mere mnemonical tokens, but representative figures, ordained as testimonies, which convey intelligible expression of their meaning by their forms; and are therefore constructed upon fixed and invariable principles, and characterized by definiteness and unity of meaning.

Are these difficulties evaded by falling back to the position of the first Baptist confession,—that baptism “being a sign, must answer the thing signified, which is, the interest the saints have in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and that as certainly as the body is buried under the water and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection?” This is, to abandon the very citadel of the cause, which consists in the position that the form and meaning of the ordinance are to be determined by a strict interpretation of the classic meaning of the word baptizo. That word never means “burial and resurrection,”—the immersion and raising up of the subject. It sometimes means a submersion; that, and nothing more. This is now distinctly admitted by the ablest representatives of the immersion theory, as we shall see abundantly evinced before we close.

Such are some of the considerations that present themselves, as, at this point in our inquiry, we view the two diverse rites which assume the name of Christian baptism. Their claims are now to be judged, by a comparison of the New Testament evidence, with what has been already concentrated from the law, the prophets, and the Psalms;—writings all of them equally authoritative and divine.

Section XLVII.—Accounts of them in the Gospels.

The fact has been referred to already that at the great passover, in the days of Hezekiah, to which the remnant of the ten tribes were invited by the king, “a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written,” not being “cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary;” that, thereupon, a plague was sent among them; but at the intercession of the king, the Lord healed the people. (2 Chron. xxx, 17-20.) In the law, it appears that, at the entreaty of certain persons, who, at the regular time of the passover, were defiled by a dead body, provision was made for a second passover, to be kept a month later, by such as, by reason of defilement, or absence at a great distance, could not keep it at the appointed time. (Num. ix, 6-11.) These facts illustrate the statement of John respecting a certain occasion when the “passover was nigh at hand; and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.”—John xi, 55. The self-washings could all be performed by the people at home. But, in the later period of Jewish history, the ashes were kept at Jerusalem, and the sprinkling of the unclean usually performed there by the priests alone. Hence, the coming of these Jews to Jerusalem for purifying before the feast. It is thus evident that at all the annual feasts, the preparatory purifying of the people must have been a very conspicuous feature of the occasion, a fact of no little significance, as bearing upon the observances in the Eleusinian mysteries, already referred to.

We have shown the name of baptism to have been used to designate both the Levitical rite of sprinkling with the water of separation and the ritual purifyings invented by the scribes. With the growth of ritualistic zeal, the occasions for the latter observances were multiplied. The earliest allusion to them, in the life of our Savior, appears in connection with his first miracle, wrought in Cana of Galilee at the marriage feast. “There were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.”—John ii, 6. That this provision for the purposes of ritual purifying upon such an occasion was absolutely necessary, in obedience to the traditions of the scribes, will presently appear.

The next occasion on which these rites come into notice, is recorded by Luke. In the course of our Lord’s second tour through Galilee, after having preached the gospel to a vast concourse, “a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first baptized (ebaptisthē), before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and behold all things are clean unto you.”—Luke xi, 37-41.

The next incident is mentioned very briefly by Matthew (xv, 1-9), and more fully in Mark. The apprehensions of the rulers at Jerusalem seem to have been aroused by reports of Christ’s ministry, and the excitement caused by it among the people of Galilee. And as they had formerly sent messengers to challenge John, so, now, scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem were on the watch to find occasion against Jesus. And “when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they baptize (ean mē baptisōntai), they eat not, and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the baptisms (baptismous), of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables” (or “beds.” So the margin and the Greek.)—Mark vii, 1-4.

These are the only places in which the ritual purifyings of the Pharisees are so mentioned as to shed light upon the subject of our inquiry. In them, we trace three distinct observances. These are enumerated by Mark, who represents them as common to “the Pharisees and all the Jews.” They are, (1) Washing the hands, before meals; (2) Baptism, after coming from the markets; (3) The baptisms of utensils and furniture.

Section XLVIII.—Washing the Hands before Meals.

It appears to have been a custom, enjoined by tradition and observed by all the Jews, always to wash the hands ritually before eating. The origin and meaning of the tradition may probably be inferred from a few Scriptural facts. (1.) Flesh was used for sacrifice, before it was given to man for food. Compare Gen. i, 29; iv, 4; viii, 20; ix, 3. It was thus transferred from the altar to the table. (2.) One essential idea in the Levitical system as to sacrifice, was communion of Israel with God at his table. Of this, the passover was but one among many illustrations which the books of Moses contain. (Deut. xii, 17, 18, 27, etc.) (3.) Hence, all eating of flesh was treated as sacrificial in its nature, and, therefore, the prohibition of blood—a prohibition perpetuated in the church by the apostles. (Gen. ix, 4; Lev. xvii, 3-14; Deut. xii, 20-27; Acts xv, 20, 29.^[67]) If, to these facts be added the rule which required the priests to wash themselves before entering upon their official duties, one of which was the eating of the sacrificial flesh in the holy place, and the words of the Psalmist,—“I will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass thine altar, O Lord” (Psa. xxvi, 6), we will have the probable foundation of the ritualistic structure.

As to the mode of these washings, the rules given in the ritual law are very significant. But two cases in which the washing of the hands was required are there found. One of these is the washing of the hands of the elders in expiation of a concealed murder. (Deut. xxi, 3-9.) Here the circumstances render it certain that the water was poured on the hands. The other is mentioned in Lev. xv, 11, where the English, “rinsed,” represents the Hebrew, shātaph, to dash, or pour on with violence. If the Jews imitated the Levical rites they did not immerse their hands. Mark throws but little light upon the mode of the Pharisaic washing. In the expression, “except they wash their hands oft,” the last word of the original (pugmē,—“oft”), probably had a technical meaning, by which the mode was designated. But if such was the case, that meaning has been lost. By some writers, it is interpreted, “to the elbows,”“to the elbows,” “to the wrist,” “with closed fist,” etc. But all this is mere conjecture, as is the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, that it denoted a certain form of the affusion of water upon the hands.

The account of the marriage feast affords ground for surer deductions. There were set six water pots of stone, holding two or three firkins apiece. Whatever were the rites referred to by Mark, under the two designations of “washing the hands,” and “baptism,” it was necessary that sufficient water should be provided for all occasions of both kinds which were likely to occur, in the large concourse of wedding guests, of whom Christ and the apostles were but a small proportion. For, whilst the guests, generally, were expected, of course, to make use of the ordinary rite, by washing their hands, there might be numbers who had incurred such exposure as to require the appointed baptism. What, then, are the indications as to the nature of the rites thus provided for?

The capacity of the water-pots, according to the most probable estimate, was not more than ten gallons each. The highest supposition sets them at about eighteen. They were, therefore, altogether too small to have been used as bath-tubs, for the immersion of the guests. The possibility, therefore, of such a necessity, did not enter into the calculations of those who provided for the occasion. Were the waterpots, then, used for immersing the hands? The customs of the east, then and to this day,—the fact that Jesus and his disciples evidently appear as but a small proportion of the guests,—and the quantity of wine miraculously made by Jesus for their supply, unite to certify that the great body of the community of Cana was present at the feast. The first suggestion, therefore, that presents itself is, that the supposed process must soon have rendered the water disgusting, from its use in the manner supposed, by a succession of persons. Another and conclusive fact is the use made by our Savior of these waterpots. The feast had been some time in progress, so that the guests had “well drunk,” before the exhausting of the wine. All had been purified, and the pots, appropriated to that use, stood with the remaining water, as thus left. When, Jesus said to the servants,—“Fill the waterpots with water,” “they filled them to the brim,” and immediately carried the wine to the governor of the feast. The servants were ignorant of the purpose of Jesus, and, as the narrative shows, simply did as they were directed. There was no emptying of foul water. There was no cleansing of the waterpots. There is no consciousness, manifested in the narrative, of occasion for it. Nor was there time. It was in the midst of the feast; and the wine was already exhausted, although the ruler of the feast and the guests were unaware of it. (V. 9.) The account of the transaction was written by John, an eye-witness, for the information of cotemporaries who were familiar with the rites of purifying, whatever they were. And had they been performed in the water, in any way, an explanation was necessary, or the inference became inevitable that the vessels were used just as they stood. In these circumstances, is it to be imagined that the waterpots already contained the washings of the guests; or even that they were emptied of these and then appropriated as recepticles of the wine, which was immediately served to the very persons who had just washed in them? Clearly, the facts compel the conclusion that “the purifyings of the Jews,” here provided for were not done in the waterpots, but with water taken from them, and poured or sprinkled on the guests.

This conclusion is confirmed by the explicit testimony of the rabbins. Rabbi Akiva was a doctor of the law of the most eminent reputation, his disciples being numbered by thousands. He was president of the sanhedrim, less than one hundred years after the death of Christ. Being made prisoner by the Romans, upon the suppression of the insurrection of Bar Kokeba, of which he was an active promoter, he was thrown into prison awaiting execution. When food was brought to him, the jailer thinking the supply of water too liberal, poured the greater part on the ground. The rabbi although famishing of thirst, directed what remained to be poured upon his hands, saying, “It is better to die with thirst than to transgress the traditions of the elders.”

Another point in Mark’s statement is, that, “When they come from the market, except they baptize, they eat not.” Here, it would seem that Mark means something different and more important than the ordinary washing of the hands, to which he has just before referred. It is an additional statement, of other rites employed on special occasions. The word, agora, which is translated “the market,” has a much more extensive signification than the English word. Its primary meaning is, a concourse, an assembly, of any kind. And while it was used among others, to designate the assemblies for traffic, and hence the places of such assemblies, it is not, in the text, to be understood in that limited sense; but as comprehensive of all promiscuous assemblages of the people, in which a person was liable unwittingly to come in contact with the unclean. It was upon occasion of our Savior’s coming from such an assembly, that the Pharisee of whom Luke informs us was surprised that he had not first baptized before dinner. He had been preaching in the midst of a multitude “gathered thick together” (Luke xi, 29), when he received and accepted the invitation to dine. He had thus been exposed to a contact which the Pharisees would have carefully avoided, as liable to involve them, unaware, in the extremest defilement, and to render necessary special rites of purifying. This was undoubtedly the cause of the surprise of the Pharisee at the conduct of Jesus.

As to the mode of the baptism here referred to, the gospels are silent. In favor of the supposition that it was immersion, there is nothing whatever in the Scriptures. It rests wholly upon the assumption that that is the meaning of baptizo. The circumstances all very strongly favor the conclusion, that as the major defilements of the Mosaic law were all purged by sprinkling, so this, the major defilement of Pharisaic tradition was cleansed in a kindred way. Among the indications in favor of this conclusion are, the fact that the provision made for purifying at the marriage feast excludes the idea of immersion;—the entire silence of the Scriptures as to any facilities for that purpose;—the incongruity of the supposition to the circumstances of Jesus, in the act of sitting down at the Pharisee’s table;—the absence from the narrative of any allusion to means provided by the Pharisee for the performance, in that mode, of a rite by him so highly esteemed, and for which special provision was necessary;—and the improbability of such a form gaining prevalence among “the Pharisees and all the Jews,” involving, of necessity, both expense and labor, to an intolerable extent. If, on the contrary, as we may reasonably suppose, the house of the Pharisee was provided with appliances, “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,” they would consist of water pots set at the door, as at the marriage feast, out of which the guests, as they entered, could take water for pouring on their hands, or baptizing their persons by sprinkling, without inconvenience or delay.

We have formerly seen that the self-washings of the Mosaic law,—in which alone its advocates have ever pretended that immersion may be found in the Old Testament,—were of continual recurrence in every family. We find in the time of Christ the rites supplemented by those now in question, which were of even more frequent occasion. If they were performed by self-washing, by affusion, or by sprinkling, such provision of vessels as thus indicated was all-sufficient. But if they were immersions of the person, the almost daily necessities of every family would have required not only an extraordinary supply of water, but a capacious bath tub in every house. Without such a vessel and supply, at home, immersion of the person, with the frequency required, was not merely improbable; it was impossible. But such arrangements would have involved an amount of expense and of labor which no people could endure.

If we open the Scriptures to inquire what is their testimony on this point, on which, if the system of immersion was in operation, some hints could not fail to appear, we find that the one only statement or allusion is contained in the account of the six water pots at the marriage feast. They were set “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.” This expression, alike in itself, and in the attendant circumstances, as already considered, is exclusive of the supposition that any purifying rite was observed among the Jews, for which the water pots were not a sufficient provision. In short, all the evidence concurs to determine that “the purifying of the Jews,” however performed, was not by immersion of the person.

Section L.—A Various Reading.

There is a various reading, in the Greek manuscripts, which is full of meaning with reference to our present inquiry. Whilst many manuscripts, including the Alexandrian, which is referred to the fifth century, read baptisōntai,—“except they baptize they eat not,” (Mark vii, 4); the two oldest and of the highest authority, the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both dating from the fourth century, and with them numbers of a later date, read, rantisōntai, “except they sprinkle they eat not.” The presumption is very strong in favor of rantisōntai being the true reading. Its bearing on the logical connection of Mark’s statement is worthy of note. According to it, he describes three classes of rites. He specifies, first, self-washings of the hands, as always used before dinner; second, certain sprinklings, resorted to upon supposition of more serious defilements; and third, baptisms of pots and cups, etc., the modes of purifying, for which, prescribed in the law, were various. The relation of these purifyings to those appointed by Moses is apparent. They coincide with the self-washings, the sprinklings, and the purifying of things prescribed by him. The various readings here involve considerations of great importance. As before stated, rantisōntai is the reading of the two oldest and most highly esteemed manuscripts, dating back to within about two hundred and fifty years of the death of the apostle John. These manuscripts are recognized by critical scholars as being so far independent of each other that their various readings indicate the gradual divergence which would progress from copy to copy through several generations of manuscripts; so that the reading on which they unite must have originated, if not with the evangelist, at least very soon after the first publication of his gospel. On the other hand, the reading, baptisōntai, first found in the Alexandrian codex, of the fifth century, appears in the great majority of extant manuscripts. We may confidently conclude that there must have been earlier copies of high authority in which this reading was found. It thus appears that at a time but little if any removed from the age of the apostles, these two readings existed side by side in the received copies of the gospel.

This fact is the more significant in view of the jealous care with which the purity of the New Testament text was guarded. So long as the last of the apostles survived, his inspired authority was an available resort on all questions of controversy, arising in the churches. (2 Cor. xi, 28; 3 John 9, 10.) During this period, the importance of an absolutely pure text of the writings of the apostles and evangelists was not fully appreciated. The work of transcription was left to the zeal of private individuals, who were often wanting in the necessary qualifications; whilst there was no system of responsible revision. It was probably during this period, closing about fifty years after the death of the apostle John, that the most important variations and errors crept in. About that time, the importance of a pure text, as an authoritative standard of appeal on questions of controversy, began to be felt; and, thereafter, great vigilance was exercised by the officers of the church in securing correct copies. The transcriptions were made from the best and most accurate manuscripts. And when a copy was made, it appears to have been subjected to a critical revision, after having been first collated usually by the scribe himself, with the copy from which it was taken, for the purpose of correcting any clerical errors, that might have occurred in the transcription. The manuscript was then handed over to “the corrector,” whose business it was to revise the text by a comparison with other available manuscripts. In this office the services of the most learned and able men in the church were employed; and it was not until sanctioned by such revision that a manuscript was accepted as an authentic copy. Beside the process here described, the ancient manuscripts abound in changes made by subsequent critics. The codex Sinaiticus exhibits alterations “by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being cotemporaneous with the first writer; far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.”^[68]

In view of the diligence of the criticism thus systematically exercised, the fact is very remarkable that the two readings, baptisōntai, and rantisōntai should have been transmitted side by side, and traceable back nearly to the apostolic age. And it is further remarkable, that no one of the ten successive critics whose revisions are traceable on the codex Sinaiticus has corrected the place in question so as to read baptisōntai, although it is certain that reading did extensively prevail. Nor is the variation alluded to in the writings of the fathers. It is immaterial to the present argument which is the true reading. If it was rantisōntai, the language of Mark explains the meaning of Luke. What the Pharisee expected was that Jesus should have baptized himself by sprinkling. And, whichever is the true reading, this fact is patent that at an age so early as to be undistinguishable from that of the apostles and evangelists, so intimate was the relation between sprinkling and baptism that the one word was inadvertently substituted for the other, in transcription; and the alteration received by the ablest men in the church, without question or protest, then or afterward, or the betrayal even of a consciousness of change; despite the watchfulness of a criticism systematic in its exercise and jealous for the purity of the text. If the primitive church understood baptism to mean immersion, if the rite was administered in that, as the only Scriptural mode, the occurrence of the case here presented would have been plainly impossible. It could only happen where the two words were identified as designating the same rite. How easily the words might be confounded will appear by a comparison of them as written in the primitive Greek, known as uncials, or capital letters:—

Were the first and third letters dimly written, or blurred, the one word might readily be taken for the other.

Section LI.—Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture.

Another point in Mark’s statement is the baptisms of cups and pots, brasen vessels and tables. It is unnecessary to insist upon the argument which is deducible from the practical impossibility of the immersion of these things; nor to notice the theories which have been devised to overcome the difficulties which it interposes to the Baptist mode. The reader who has followed the course of this history will recognize, in the Levitical ordinances respecting the purifyings of things, the source whence was derived the hint of these supererogatory rites. And a comparison of the various Mosaic regulations on the subject will satisfy the candid reader that the list here given is not designed to be exhaustive, but an exemplification merely of the observances in question. This is further evident from the fact that the enumeration, as made by the Lord Jesus (v. 8), was of pots and cups, only; which Mark in his subsequent account amplifies by the other additional examples. Respecting them, the ritual of Moses provided modes of purifying varied both with respect to the nature of the things to be cleansed, and the character of the defilements; as we have formerly seen. We may well suppose that the scribes did not fail to imitate every form of the legal purifyings, in their additions to the law of God. It is not only possible, but very probable that some of these inventions were in the form of immersion. For, as we have formerly seen, that was one of the forms appointed in the law, for the purifying of things. But the evangelist speaks, not of one, but of various rites; which he designates by the plural and generic name of (baptismous),—baptisms. The word thus selected is the very same which is used by Paul as the comprehensive designation of the purifying rites of the Mosaic law,—the “divers baptisms,” imposed at Sinai. The conclusion is therefore irresistible, that whilst Paul used thethe word in a generic sense, as comprehending the various forms of legal purification, among which the immersion of person is not to be found, Mark uses it in a like generic sense as comprehensive of the various forms for the purifying of things, among which immersion may have been one, although, if such was the fact, the proof is yet to be produced.

The result of our examination is, that among the Pharisaic rites, no trace of the immersion of the person is to be found.

Section LII.—The History of John’s Mission.

The account of John’s ministry in the evangelists, is invariably introduced by an appeal to the prophecies which foretold his coming and office. A remarkable passage from Malachi is alluded to by the angel Gabriel, in announcing to Zacharias the birth of the forerunner (Luke i, 17), and by Mark in his introduction to the gospel. (Mark i, 2). A prophecy of Isaiah is cited in all the gospels; as is also John’s own account of his commission and office. It will be convenient for the purposes of the present discussion to bring these passages together. Says the Lord by Malachi, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in; behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers.... Remember ye the law of Moses my servant which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth” (the land of Israel) “with a curse.”—Mal. iii, 1-5; iv, 4-6.

The citation from Isaiah (xl, 3-5), together with John’s exposition of it, is thus given by Luke. “John came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees; every tree, therefore, which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.... I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.”—Luke iii, 3-17. In John’s gospel, some additional points are given. “John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God.”—John i, 29-34.

The title by which, in the prophecy of Malachi, the Lord Jesus is designated,—“the Messenger of the covenant,” carries us back to the scene at Sinai, when the covenant was made and sealed. In the close of the prophecy, our attention is expressly directed to that occasion. “Remember the law of Moses, which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.” The intimations thus given lead us up to the originating occasion of John’s testimony.

Immediately after the coming of Israel to Sinai, among the communications which expounded the covenant, preparatory to its sealing, the Lord said to them, “Behold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him.”—Ex. xxiii, 20, 21. This Angel is by the Lord elsewhere called “My Presence” (Compare Ex. xiv, 19; xxxii, 34; xxxiii, 2, 14, 15), and by Isaiah, “the Angel of His presence.”—Isa. lxiii, 9. He is thus announced to Israel as sent to be God’s servant in the fulfilling of the Sinai covenant, and is hence by the prophet called “the Messenger of the covenant.”

Another line of facts leads in the same direction. When, at the mount, Israel was overwhelmed with the terror of the great fire and of God’s audible voice, and entreated Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die” (Ex. xx, 19; Deut. v, 22-27), their proposal thus to accept Moses as Mediator between them and God was graciously approved. “They have well said, all that they have spoken.”—Deut. v, 28. Moses was accepted in that office, and Israel dismissed from the assembly at the mount. (Ib. 28-31.) But, afterward, Moses revealed to them how much more richly their abasement and prayer had been answered than they had asked or imagined. “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.”—Deut. xviii, 15-18. Compare John xiv, 31; xvii, 8, 14.

We are thus brought to the relation which Moses and the Sinai covenant, sustained to the Lord Jesus, and that better covenant of which he is the Mediator. (Heb. viiiHeb. viii, 6.) The covenant of Sinai as formally accepted by Israel and ratified through the mediation of Moses, was of unspeakable moment, as being the installation of the visible church. But it was, at the same time, an outward type, a manifestation and announcement of the covenant of grace made with the invisible church. Of the one, Moses was the Mediator;—of the other, the Lord Jesus. The one is founded upon the public professions and promises of Moses and the assembly of Israel (Ex. xxxiv, 27);—the other on the engagement of the Lord Jesus to fulfill all righteousness. The former was graven on tables of stone; the latter is written in the fleshly tables of the hearts of Christ’s people. (Jer. xxxi, 33; 2 Cor. iii, 3; Heb. viii, 10.) The former was sealed with the blood which was partly sprinkled on the Sinai altar, and partly mingled with water and sprinkled on Israel; the latter, with the blood of sprinkling of Jesus Christ offered in the holy place in heaven, and the baptism of the Spirit which, through the merits of that blood, he gives his people.

We can now see the bearing of certain memorable words uttered by the Lord Jesus. When Moses sealed the covenant, he sprinkled the book and the people with the sacrificial blood and water, saying, “Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” At the table, the night of the betrayal, the Lord Jesus took the cup, and having given thanks, gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.”—Matt. xxvi, 28. He thus signified the typical nature of the transaction in the wilderness, as relating to him, and announced himself about to fulfill all that it foreshadowed. Particularly did his language, by appropriating that of the Sinai baptism, recognize both it and the supper as symbols and seals of the remission of sins, of which his own blood bestows the reality.

To the same relation between the Sinai transactions and Christ’s office and work, Peter bears witness. A few days after Pentecost, upon occasion of the healing of the impotent man, he reminded the wondering assembly of the promise made by Moses to the fathers.—“A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.... Yea and all the prophets, from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.”—Acts iii, 22-24.

Section LIII.—Israel at the Time of John’s Coming.

When John came, the Jews had been for four hundred years without a prophet, or any sensible token of God’s presence among them. The captivity and return from Babylon and subsequent circumstances in their history had effectually and finally cured the inveterate tendency to idolatry, which had characterized them from the days of the Egyptian bondage. But this change did not bring with it an awakening of true spiritual devotion to the service of God. Instead thereof an intense zeal of self-righteousness was cherished, under the two forms of a fanatical pride in the blood of Abraham, and an ardent devotion to the external forms and rites of religion, to tithes and offerings, to fastings and purifyings,—to “righteousnesses of the flesh,”—whilst the spirituality and power of the divine law were obscured and set aside by the glosses and interpretations of the elders. Such was the religion of the scribes, who “sat in Moses’ seat,” as the instructors of the people. The great mass of the nation, led by these blind guides, were with them hastening to destruction; while the few who still sought after the God of their fathers were as sheep without a shepherd. In the meantime, Jerusalem and Judea had been the prey alternately of the Ptolemies of Egypt, the Seleucidæ of Syria, and factions among themselves. After the successful revolt of the Maccabees, a brief time of peace and prosperity was enjoyed under the sceptre of that family. But the rivalry and seditions of its members brought in the Romans, under whose patronage the Herodian family, of Edomite origin, had come into power.

During the progress of these events, the whole land had been polluted with crimes and atrocities of every kind, and of the deepest dye. The high priesthood was habitually subject to barter and sale, one possessor of the office giving place to another in rapid succession, as the respective aspirants were able to purchase the office from the kings of Syria, or of Judea, or to seize it by violence or the favor of the rabble.rabble. The temple itself had been desecrated by being formally set apart to the worship of Jupiter Olympius. And as though that was not enough, it had been yet more horribly defiled by fratricidal blood; an aspirant for the high priesthood having secured and held the office by the murder of his own brother, in the very precincts of the temple. The entire social system was rotten, and the nation was fast ripening for the developments about to be witnessed, in the denial and crucifixion of the Son of God, the rejection of the gospel, and the crimes which precipitated society into a chaos of anarchy and a reign of terror, ending in the destruction of the temple, the desolation of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation to this day.

Thus, when John began his ministry, the land of Israel, the city, the temple, and the nation were lying under the burden of the unexpiated and unrepented crimes of many centuries. (Matt. xxiii, 29-36.) The covenant was forfeited and trampled under foot, and the land and the people were, in every sense, moral and ritual, utterly unclean. At the beginning of the declension, the prophet Haggai had been sent to the priests with a lesson out of the law.—“Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord: and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean.”—Hag. ii, 11-14. After the cotemporaneous ministries of Haggai and Zechariah, the Spirit of prophecy was withdrawn for about one hundred years. Then suddenly, a trumpet note from Malachi broke the silence, with a brief and startling call.—“If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yea I have cursed them already.... From the days of your fathers, ye are gone away from mine ordinances and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.—Mal. ii, 2; iii, 7. But they did not return. Thereupon, God their King withdrew from all communication with them as a people, for four centuries following.

Such was the situation of that people at the coming of John. They had the oracles of God, his ordinances, and his temple; of which Haggai had said,—“I will shake all nations; and the Desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.”—Hag. ii, 7. But all this was as a piece of holy flesh in the skirt of a garment. It did not purify the nation, while their uncleanness defiled these and all their hallowed things.

Section LIV.—The Nature and End of John’s Baptism.

Whilst Israel was thus apostate and excommunicate from God, the Messenger of his covenant was about to appear, in that character the aspect of which, as toward the rebellious and unbelieving, had been especially emphasized in the prophecies above cited; and the exercise of which resulted in the desolation of the land, and the dispersion of the nation a byword and a hissing in all lands. “Beware of him and obey his voice. Provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my Name is in him.”—Ex. xxiii, 21. “Who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth?”—Mal. iii, 2. So, John announced him.—“Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”—Matt. iii, 12. His coming was, to Israel, the great crisis in their history. Therefore the mission of John. Said the angel to Zacharias, “He shall go before Him in the Spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”—Luke i, 17.

When the ten tribes had forsaken the worship of God on mount Zion, abandoned his covenant, and devoted themselves to the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, Elijah was sent to them as the vindicator of the forsaken covenant, and messenger of grace, of warning and of judgment. His first work was to demonstrate the sovereignty and Godhead of Jehovah, and the imbecility of their false gods, by the famine of three years and six months, and by the fire from heaven consuming both sacrifice and altar on Carmel. He then executed judgment upon the prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth, the seducers of Israel, eight hundred and fifty in number. On this occasion, Israel professed to recognize and do homage to the God of their fathers. But Elijah saw too clearly, that it was a conviction without root in their hearts and affections. When therefore he received Jezebel’s message of vengeance, his faith failed, and he fled to the wilderness, where he was fed by an angel and led forty days and forty nights “to Horeb the mount of God,” the spot where the covenant was made and sealed with the twelve tribes. (1 Kings xix, 8, 9.) “And he came thither unto a cave and lodged there; and behold the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, What dost thou here, Elijah?” The interview held at that place exhibits the prophet as the ordained champion and avenger of the covenant. To the foregoing question twice proposed, he twice responds,—“I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars; and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I, only, am left; and they seek my life to take it away.”—vs. 10, 14. Thereupon, he was commissioned to anoint Hazael, king over Syria; and Jehu king of Israel, and Elisha to be prophet in his stead;—“And it shall come to pass that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I have left seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”—vs. 15-18.

The office thus fulfilled by Elijah, as a messenger of grace, calling Israel back to the allegiance of the abandoned covenant; and of wrath, announcing and inflicting its penalty upon the transgressors, is the key to the closing words of the book of Malachi.—“Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord;” the day, to wit, of the coming of “the Messenger of the covenant;” “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”—Mal. iv, 4-6. The same characteristics of John’s ministry were the occasion of the statement of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, before cited, “He shall go before Him, in the Spirit and power of Elias.” In the points here noticed, we have the explanation of the scene of the transfiguration, in which Moses, the mediator of the Sinai covenant, Elijah its vindicator against apostate Israel,—and Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, talked together “of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem,” on behalf of the true Israel, and in fulfillment of the terms of the new covenant, typified in that of Sinai. (Luke ix, 31.)

The same office, of warning and testimony on behalf of the forsaken covenant, which Elijah exercised toward the ten tribes, John fulfilled to the Jews. To understand the full force and significance of his mission, the fact must be distinctly appreciated that Christ’s humiliation and sufferings, however momentous in themselves, and however transcendently important to us, were a mere transient incident in the work undertaken by him. His coming into the world was a coming to the throne, to which the cross was a mere stepping stone,—a means to his exaltation, and to the achievements of his sceptre, in purging the Father’s floor. In those achievements, justice and judgment are as conspicuous as grace; and if the latter witnessed a first signal and glorious display in the scenes of Pentecost, the former was as signally illustrated in the destruction and desolation of the city and land that rejected their King. It was with a view to the crisis thus created in the history of Israel by the coming of Christ, that John was sent as his forerunner and herald. John did not ignore that abasement of Christ which was the antecedent condition and means of his exaltation and glory. But his distinctive theme, the subject which filled his heart and inspired his tongue, was the throne, the kingdom, the power and justice. Of it he was the official herald, and from it his preaching and baptism took their form and significance. His commission was threefold; (1) To announce the kingdom of heaven at hand, and herald the coming of the King, the Messenger of the covenant, the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and with fire; (2) To identify and point him out in the person of Jesus; (3) To prepare the way before him. In fulfillment of the first and second of these functions, John preached the coming of “One Mightier than I,” who should baptize Israel with the Holy Ghost and with fire. He pointed out and announced the Lord Jesus as that coming One,—“the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,”—“the Son of God.” And by connecting this testimony with his proclamation and baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, he anticipated the preaching of the apostles, and summed and published the gospel of atonement and remission through the blood of Christ. By this preaching and by the seal of baptism to those who received his testimony he fulfilled the third function above mentioned, and “made ready a people prepared for the Lord.”—Luke i, 17.

There were two termini to which John’s baptism sustained peculiar and intimate relations, and from which his ministry derived all its significance. The first was that “day of the assembly” at Sinai, when Israel entered into the covenant by which she took God as her King and received the baptismal seal sprinkled by the hand of Moses. It was the office of John to announce the personal coming of the King of Israel; to warn them of the penalty of the violated covenant; announce the remission of sins and restoration of the covenant, to those who should repent and return to their allegiance; and to certify this by the renewal of the broken seal.

The second terminus to which John’s baptism looked was that day when the covenant King of Israel should appear in person, assume his throne, and enter on the functions announced by John, under the figures of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of fire. Of the former, so conspicuous in the prophecies, the baptism of Israel by Moses, and that now administered by John, were alike typical. The grace of the Holy Spirit, administered by the enthroned Baptizer, was the end and fulfillment of both.

Section LV.—The Extent of John’s Baptism.

The public ministry of John commenced about six months before the baptism of Jesus, and was terminated by his imprisonment soon after that event. (Mark i, 14; Luke iii, 20, 21.) At first, his preaching was peripatetic. “He came into all the country about Jordan, preaching.”—Luke iii, 3. But as his fame extended and the throng of his hearers increased, he took his station at Bethabara (or, Bethany, as the critical editions read), on the eastern side of the Jordan, and afterward at “Enon, near to Salim,” where he seems to have been, when arrested by Herod. During the brief period of his ministry, there “went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”—Matt. iii, 5, 6. The facts as to the extent of John’s ministry and baptism, are stated in terms equally strong by Mark and Luke. (Mark i, 5; Luke iii, 21.) Of these statements, we are asked to believe that they are extravagant hyperbole,—that they only mean that there were some present from every place in the regions specified. As “if I should say that in the political convention of 1840, all Tennessee was gathered at Nashville to hear Henry Clay, I would not mean that every man, woman, and child in the State was there; but only that there were some from every part. Just so, Matthew says Jerusalem came,—that a great many people from Jerusalem and Judea and the country round about Jordan came. That is to say, the country as well as the city was fully represented in the crowd. Besides, John did not baptize all who came. He positively refused the Pharisees and Sadducees, who composed a great part of the Jewish nation.”^[69] This explanation forgets that the language in question is not the exaggerated statement of excited and partisan newsmongers; but sober history dictated by the Spirit of God, and reported to us by “two or three witnesses,” in concurrent language. As to the assertion concerning the Pharisees, every thoughtful reader of the gospels knows that in comparison with the whole body of the people, they were very few. In all their conspiracies against Jesus they were constantly embarrassed by fear of “the people.”

Of the vastness of the multitude who were baptized by John we have not only the express testimony of the evangelists, but certain incidents related by them remarkably confirm it. The first is, that Herod was restrained, for some time, from the murder of John, by fear of the people, “because they counted him as a prophet.”—Matt. xiv, 5. Another is, the use made of the same popular sentiment, by the Lord Jesus. A few days before his betrayal and death, upon occasion of his second purging of the temple, the rulers came to him demanding by what authority he did these things. Jesus answered, “I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: The baptism of John, Was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.”—Luke xx, 3-7; Matt. xxi, 24; Mark xi, 29. Such and so strong and universal was the conviction of the people, that John’s commission was from God, that neither Herod nor the whole united body of the priests, scribes and elders,—the great council of the nation,—dared to antagonize it. This, too, was three years after the close of John’s ministry.

It may be said that no intimation is here given that the people spoken of had been baptized of John. But, in the first place, the evangelists had already expressly stated the universal fact, in their distinct account of his ministry, and did not, therefore, need to repeat it; and, in the second, the issue involved in his ministry was too vital and sharply defined to allow any to profess, even, to recognize his divine authority, and yet neglect his baptism. But there is yet further testimony on the point.

Jesus had been preaching about two years, when John from his prison sent two of his disciples to ask,—“Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? On this occasion Jesus uttered a testimony concerning John, of which it is said that, “all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves; being not baptized of him.”—Luke vii, 29, 30. This occurred in Galilee, which district was not included in any of the statements of the evangelists, respecting the attendance on John’s ministry. He does not seem ever to have preached in Galilee. And yet, from that comparatively distant region, the people had so flocked to his baptism, that two years afterwardafterward the evangelist could state that all the people had been baptized of him, the lawyers and Pharisees excepted, and find in this the explanation of the universal acceptance of Christ’s testimony. The exception here greatly strengthens the former clause of the statement, and establishes the fact of the universal reception of John’s baptism by the common people.

In fact, this conclusion is involved in the very nature of the circumstances of Israel. However viewed, the ministry of John created a most momentous crisis in the history of God’s dealings with that people. John came to them, the fore-announced,—the last,—the greatest, of all the prophets. He came on the loftiest mission that had ever been entrusted to man,—to act as the immediate personal messenger and herald of the coming King. He came to Israel, excommunicate from God, to call them individually, and as a people, to repent and return to the fold of God’s longsuffering mercy; and to seal the offered grace, by baptizing those who professed to obey his call. The alternative which his ministry set before them was plain and imperative. To absent themselves, or to attend on his preaching without receiving his baptism, would have been an open act of treason to the coming King, an express and aggravated rejection of his authority and of this extraordinary and final overture of grace to the nation. John’s ministry thus compelled a decision by which a broad and public line was drawn among the people. On the one side, were those who professed to repent and return to the forsaken covenant and God of their fathers, and to own the authority of the promised King of Israel; and whose profession was sealed by the reception of John’s baptism;—on the other, those who, in rejecting John’s testimony and turning their backs upon his baptism, repudiated the coming King and spurned his overture of mercy. Of the significance and importance of all this, the evangelists were fully aware. To suppose them in such circumstances to have indulged in a loose and exaggerated style of statement, asserting that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan were baptized, when, in fact, not one in a hundred of the people received the rite, would be a contradiction of the divine testimony, which nothing but ignorance and lack of consideration can excuse or palliate. It is further to be considered that every class of the people, and both men and women resorted to John’s baptism, the lawyers or scribes, that is, the Pharisees and Sadducees, only excepted. (Matt. xxi, 31, 32; Luke vii, 29; xx, 6.)

5. His rejection of the Pharisees is adduced as proof that “though great multitudes came to John and followed Christ, yet comparatively few brought forth fruit to justify their baptism.”^[70] But how is it supposed that John could know any thing, ordinarily, as to the fruits manifested by those who sought his baptism? It is perfectly evident that,—as at Sinai, on the day of Pentecost, and on every other occasion that is on record in the ministry of the apostles,—so, in the case of John’s hearers,—a good profession was the sole ordinary condition of baptism. Is it asked,—How, then, came John to refuse the Pharisees? That he did, in fact, refuse them, is an assumption, without proof or probability. He warned them; and that is all we are told of the matter. As to the occasion of such warning,—the ruling sin of that sect was self-righteousness. The pride of it found expression in unmistakable tokens. Says Jesus, “All their works they do for to be seen of men. They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.”—Matt, xxiii, 5. The phylacteries were parchments on which portions of the law were written. They were folded in the form of a cube, and bound to the forehead or the arm, with ribbands. The borders were fringes and ribbands of blue, which God directed Israel to wear on the skirts of their garments, as a memorial of their covenant relations to him. (Num. xv, 38, 39.) These the scribes and Pharisees made broad, so as to be seen of men. The first step therefore toward a true repentance, on their part, would have been a putting off of these badges of self-righteousness. And their being worn by any of John’s hearers was to him an instant and evident token of vain glory and self-righteousness unabased; whilst putting them off would have been a manifest fruit and evidence of repentance.

The facts, therefore, as set forth in the gospels, clearly indicate that the ministry of John was attended by an apparent revival of religion, but little short of that which occurred at Sinai, when the covenant was first made. And although, like the tribes in the wilderness, many of those who received John’s baptism failed to profit, for lack of true repentance and faith,—many brought forth fruit out of good and honest hearts. Of such, the college of the apostles was formed; and of such, no doubt, largely consisted the firstfruits of the gospel, in Judea and Galilee,—as we see repeated traces of it in the ministry of Paul, among the far off Gentiles. (Acts xiii, 24, 25; xviii, 25; xix, 3.)

Section LVI.—John did not Immerse.

As to the mode of John’s baptism, there are several circumstances which interpose insuperable objections to the supposition that it was by immersion.

1. That form would have been utterly incongruous to John’s office as the herald of the covenant. No rational account can be given of the origin and meaning of such a rite, in that connection. The Levitical law was, in all its ordinances, a testimony to the covenant; and of it John was a minister. But in that law there was but one administered baptism, and that by sprinkling, whilst there were no immersions of persons, whatever. It therefore furnishes no trace of the origin of the supposed form. On the other hand, it certainly did not originate with John. Baptism,—the rite which he administered, was in his day, no novelty among the Jews. The only remaining supposition, if we assume John to have immersed his disciples, is, that it may have been borrowed from the inventions of the scribes. But, in the first place, there is not a trace of evidence nor of probability that such a rite was then included in the ritual of the scribes;—and in the second, it is preposterous to suppose that, in such circumstances and on such a mission, John would have turned his back on the ordinances of God’s law, by which for fifteen centuries the covenant had been sealed, and chosen for the characteristic and seal of his ministry one of those inventions by means of which that law was made void and God’s people led astray. (Mark vii, 6, 8, 13.) This too, when he in the most open and decisive manner set himself in opposition to the inventors of those rites, whom he denounced as a generation of vipers!