tionar els Xotorov) Jew, Greek-slave, free-male and female (were baptized into Christ). Acts 16: 15, Avdia εßañτίσθη και ὁ οικος αυτης Lydia was baptized and her (family) household. 8: 12, εβαπτίζοντο ανδρες τε και γυναικες both men and women were baptized. As long as there is a church on earth, as long as the Holy Supper is to be solemnized,1 even until the end of the world (1 Cor. 11: 26), this command of Christ, that his disciples are by all means to be baptized, must, together with the other precepts of his which are to be taught in his church, be attended to with the utmost care.

Hence, whosoever knowingly and wilfully rejects baptism, treats with indifference a precept of the most exalted Messenger of God (John 3: 31), yea, of the Lord himself (Matth. 28: 18); and is guilty of a much greater crime 2 than those were, who rejected3 the baptism of John, which had also been commanded by God. John 1: 33. Luke 3:2. And how can the despisers of baptism expect to meet the approbation of the Lord, when he himself, although he did not need baptism, so highly honoured the invitation of John as to be baptized by him, amid the most evident tokens of the divine favour? Matth. 3: 14--17. But those, on the contrary, who are unacquainted with the precept of Christ relative to baptism, and who are not themselves the cause of their ignorance of it, cannot be deemed despisers of baptism; nor are they guilty of unbelief or disobedience, in not attending to this ordinance of God. Compare §

71.

The objection to the perpetuity of baptism, on the ground that it was a solemnization of the transition of Jews and Heathen to the Christian religion, and that this transition cannot take

1 Matth. 28: 20, and 28 : 18-20, Comp. Eckermann's Comp. Theol. Christ. p. 215. ed. 1.

2 John 3: 32-36. Heb. 2: 2, 3. 12: 25.

3 Matth. 21: 25-32. Luke 7: 30, they rejected the counsel of God &c.

place among those who were born Christians, is advanced, in the work on baptism, entitled, "Eine freymüthige Untersuchung veranlasst durch vorgänge des Zeitalters." A reply to this, is published in the "Tübing. gel. Anzeigen," 1803, Pt. 7. p. 55; where it is remarked, that the essential idea of this rite is not that of transition or the abandonment of a former religion, but the reception of the christian religion and the dedication of ourselves to it.

III. Baptism is administered only once to each christian.— Hence, the sacred writers, when speaking of those who had already been received into the church, say, "they have been baptized," and not "they partake of baptism." Thus Rom. 6: 3: &c, eßantio&nuɛv we were baptized. Col. 2: 11. Heb. 10: 22, delovμevor being washed. But the Holy Supper they represent as a rite which is to be often repeated, and is to be habitually performed; and never do they speak of it as an ordinance which has already been observed by any one, and which is not to be repeated. 1 Cor. 11: 25 &c. Acts 2: 42. 1 Cor. 10: 16, ὁ ευλογουμεν—όν κλωμεν, which we bless—which we break. 17:21. In reference to Acts 19: 3-5, where it is stated that the disciples of John, who had received John's baptism, were again baptized in "the name of the Lord Jesus," Weismann remarks,1 that between the baptism of John and that instituted by Jesus, there existed such a difference as would justify them in being baptized again. And Ernesti says, the difference consisted in this, that John baptized in the name of the future Messiah, to εoxoμɛvov; whereas the baptism commanded by Christ, was connected with the profession, that Jesus of Nazareth, who died for us, and after his resurrection ascended to heaven, is the Messiah.

1 Institut. Theol. exegetico-dogm. p. 684.

2 Vindiciae arbitrii divini in religione constituenda, § 50—53.

IV. The primitive mode was probably by immersion.—The disciples of our Lord could understand his command in no other manner, than as enjoining immersion; for the baptism of John, to which Jesus himself submitted,1 and also the earlier baptism (John 4: 1.) of the disciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subject into cold water; as is evident from the following passages. Matth. 3: 6, εβαπτίζοντο εν τω Ιορδανη were baptized in Jordan. v. 16, Ιησους ανεβη απο του ύδατος Jesus ascended out of the water. John 3: 23, óve vduta nolla V Exε because there was much water there.

And that they actually did understand it so, is proved, partly by those passages of the New Testament, which evidently allude to immersion. Acts 8: 36 &c, оte aveßnoav ez tov vðaTos when they had come up out of the water. v. 39. 16: 1215, παρα ποταμον at the river. Rom. 6: 4, συνετάφημεν αυτή (τῳ Χριστῳ) δια του βαπτίσματος, ἵνα ώςπερ ηγερθη Χριστος En vεxov are buried with him (Christ) by baptism, so that as Christ was raised from the dead &c. Comp. Col. 2: 12, and 1 Pet. 3: 21, where baptism is termed, the antitype (avTIEVπOV) of the flood.--And partly, from the fact, that immersion was so customary in the ancient church,2 that even in the third century, the baptism of the sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, was entirely neglected by some, and by others was thought inferior to the baptism of those who were in health, and who received baptism not merely by aspersion, but who actually bathed 3 themselves in water. This is evident from Cyprian,

1 John 1: 25 &c, 28, 31, 33.

2 Vide Suicer Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus art. avadvw. Bingham, Origines ecclesiasticae, L. XI. chap. 2. Opp. Lond. 1726. English edit. Vol. I. p. 521 &c.

3 Baptism is termed λovrqov, a washing or bathing. Eph. 5: 26. Tit. 3: 5. Comp. lelovμɛvor Heb. 10:22. 1 Pet. 3: 21, σαρxos añođεGIS Ovлov putting away the filth of the flesh.

(Epist. 69. ed. Bremae, p. 185 &c.) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. VI. cap. 43), where we find the following extract from the letter of the Roman Bishop Cornelius: "Novatus received baptism on a sick-bed, by aspersion, (πεves), if it can be said that such a person received baptism."-"No person who had, during sickness, been baptized by aspersion, was admitted into the clerical office." Moreover, the old custom of immersion was also retained a long time in the Western church, at least in the case of those who were not indisposed. And, even after aspersion had been fully introduced in a part of the Western churches, there yet remained several, who, for some time adhered to the ancient custom.1 Under these circumstances, it is certainly to be lamented, that Luther was not able to accomplish his wish with regard to the introduction of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restoration of wine in the Eucharist. But it is evident that there was a very important difference between the two cases. After the restoration of the wine, the laity could partake of both bread and wine in the celebration of the Supper of our Lord. But, on the contrary, if immersion had at that time been restored, whatever course those who had been baptized by aspersion might pursue, whether they were contented with their baptism by aspersion, or incurred the danger of disobeying Christ's precept, by being baptized twice; they would have been harassed by doubts and fears, which it would have been difficult, and perhaps, in most cases, impossible to remove. Happily, however, the change of the ancient custom of immersion, although it ought not to have been made, destroys nothing that is essential to this ceremony

2

1 Vide Forbesii Instr. Historico-Theol. de doctrina christiana, L. X. C. s. 53 &c, 56 &c, Amsterdam, 1702. Danovii Institut. Theol. Dogm. 277, p. 525. Müller's Neue Darstellung der christlichen Glaubenslehre, p. 271.

2 Lutheri Opp. Lips. 1792, Vol. XVII. p. 272, 536. Buddei Institut. Theol. Dogm. p. 1444-1446.

4

2

For the essence of the

as it was instituted by our Saviour.1 rite, is not the washing of the body, but the use of consecrated water 3 in honour of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And this is retained in baptism by aspersion. Nor is it of as great importance as Luther and some late theologians have thought, that aspersion destroys the force of some passages of the New Testament, in which immersion is figuratively applied to certain spiritual changes and blessings. For, the signification of these figures, namely, the christian's participation in the death and resuscitation of Jesus, together with the blessings and duties connected with it, is not destroyed; because the whole is. performed in honour of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (§ 43. Ill. 4). And a specific, circumstantial, figurative representation of those truths which refer to the relation which those who are baptized, bear to God and Christ, has no necessary connexion with the rite of baptism itself. Christ did not intend to prescribe immersion as a ceremony which should specifically represent a certain participation of the christian in his burial and resurrection. For, the apostles do not always retain the figures drawn from immersion (Rom. 6: 4. Col. 2: 12); but also use others. At one time, they compare baptism to the immersion of those who were destroyed by the flood (1 Pet. 3:21); at another time, to a washing off. Acts 22: 16, "be baptized and wash away your sins." Sometimes it is compared to a Leviti

1 This remark may also serve as a reply to the author of a publication "On Baptism," p. 170 &c, where aspersion is objected to. Vide Tüb. Gel. Anzeig. 1803, Pt. 7. p. 55 &c.

21 Pet. 3. 21, ov oaoxos añođeõis дvñоv not the putting off the filth of the flesh.

3 Acts 10: 47. (Comp. 11: 16.) John 3: 5. 1 John 5: 6, 8. In these passages, water is mentioned instead of baptism, or at least, as the principal thing in that ordinance.

4 Lutheri opp. sup. cit. p. 536. Heilmann Comp. Theol. Dogm. 356. Michaelis Dogm. p. 622, 632. Teller Excurs. II. ad Burnetum de fide et officiis Christianorum, p. 256.