would have been of no benefit to us. A dead Savior could not help us. As death was the penalty of disobedience, and the last enemy to be destroyed, so it was necessary that he should conquer death, and destroy him that had the power of it, and thus obtain our discharge from the curse, and lay a foundation for the redemption of our bodies from death and the grave. This was a point to which, no created being could attain; but Jesus Christ, as God-Man, had pow. er to take his life again, and in so doing he overcome the curse, and gave us a demonstrative proof that he had finished the work God had given him to do; that he had saved them who were Jost. Accordingly we read, that "He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.” Јов. (To be continued.) ON THE WORDS USED AT THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. So far as my information extends, it is a common thing, throughout the christian world, for ministers when they perform the rite of baptism, to repeat the words of our Savior to his disciples, recorded in Matthew xxviii. 19. Having been frequently called to perform the duty of baptizing, I have been led to exercise my thoughts upon the words, to which I have just referred, and shall now communicate to you the result of my re. flections. If you think they are agreeable to truth and sound criticism, and may be useful to others, you are at liberty to publish them in your useful Miscellany. The usual language of ministers is according to the tenor of our present translation; "I baptize thee, in the name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." According to the received usage of our language, this implies only that baptism is administered, by the command, by the permission, or by the authority, of the Trinity. This was most probably the apprehen. sion of our English translators. The Syriac and Latin interpreters of the New Testament have adopted the same idea. They have rendered εις το ονομα, by כשם, and in nomine. Though the idea conveyed by this translation is true; that is, though it is true, that baptism is administered by the order and authority of the Trinity, yet, I apprehend, the common version falls far short of expressing all that was intended by the inspired. writer of the original Greek. The rules of sound criticism require, that we should investigate, whether the Greek preposition, εις (which is rendered in, in the verse under consideration, when joined with the word βαπτιζοντες) is, or can be so rendered in other passages of the New Testament, where it is con. nected with other derivatives from the verb βαπτιζω. The question is not, whether εις may never signify in, in the New Testament. This is un. doubtedly the case in many in. stances. But a preposition, it is well known, may when its connexion is peculiar, bear a different signification from its general and appropriate meaning. The general signification of εις is into, unto, to. Now if the writers of the New Testament use it in this sense, when connected with βαπτίζω, or its derivatives, in every case, except Matt. xxviii. 19, and others exactly similar, then we shall have good reason to suppose that it ought there to be translated, agreeably to this sense. The following passages may assist, in satisfying the mind as to this point. Matt. iii. 3. "I indeed baptize you, with water, unto (εις) repentance." Mark i. 3. "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance the sense, why should a variation be made, in the verse under consideration, from the general con. struction in the New Testament? And especially, as no advantage is gained, to clear up the sense of the sacred writer, by substituting in for into ? From a view of these instances, I am persuaded that the translation of Beza, and many others since his time, of the passage under consideration ("baptize them into the name, &c.) is more agreeable to the original, to the (εις) for, margın unto, the remis. usage of the New Testament, sion of sins." Το translate εις by in here, as is done Matt. xxviii. 19, would divest the passages of any tolerable meaning. Acts xix. 3. "And be.said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, (εις) unto John's baptism." Rom. vi. 3. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized (εις) into Jesus Christ, were baptized (εις) into his death?" Gal. iii. 27. "For as many of of you as have been baptized (εις) into Christ have put on Christ." 1 Cor. x. 2. "And were all baptized (εις) unto Moses." If in these cases we follow the translation of Matt. xxviii. 19, we shall find serious difficulty, in making the passages bear the appearance of propriety. For how can we say "Baptized in John's baptism? In Christ? In his death? In Moses?יי If then, as is clear from these places, the word baptize is used in many cases, with εις where this preposition cannot be translated by in, without destroying and to the sense of the sacred writers, than our English translation. If I have reasoned on principles of criticism, which are just, the conclusion is, that it would be more correct for ministers to baptize into the name of the Trinity, than in their name. This conclusion may perhaps be strengthened, by considering the meaning and propriety of baptizing into the name of the Trinity. In order to come at these, let us take the instances, which have been already adduced. "To be baptized (εις) into, or for the remission of sins," must mean, as it appears to my mind, to be baptized, with this hope and design, that the remission of sins may be obtained: and that the subject of such baptism may be counted as a convert to the Christian faith. It implies a hope in the breast of such an individual, that he has obtained true remission of his sins. So " baptism (εις) into repentance" implies that the subject of it has truly repented; it is a sign or seal of repentance to him; it signi. fies that he is in a state of repent. ance. "Baptism (εις) into, or unto John, implies, that such as were baptized professed their belief in what was spoken by John; and looked for the prom. ised Messiah. In other words, they became the disciples of John, believing what he taught and obeying what he commanded. So when Paul says, the saints "are baptized (εις) into Christ," what can be his meaning, but that they profess Christ, as the true Messiah, declare themselves to be his disciples, and express their desires and hopes to be made partakers of the blessings, which he bestows? are In like manner, when the apostle says, that saints "baptized (εις) into the death of Christ," does not this signify that they profess their belief in his death and resurrection, and a hope or desire that they may have communion with these, or share in the blessings which they have purchased? One more instance yet remains. "And were all baptized (εις) into or unto Moses." This difficult passage has been the cause of great perplexity among many able commentators, and called forth many elaborate philologi. cal disquisitions. The learned Vorstius has endeavored to solve the difficulty, by laboring to shew, that εις is here used as a Hebraism, and may signify the same thing as δια, since the He. brew prefix 5 is translated by both these particles. He would render it baptized by Moses." But the acute and able Vitrin ga has given an exposition, which is more satisfactory to my mind. He refers to Exod. xiv. 31, where "That is" it is said, that the Israelites, see. ing the great work which the Lord had done upon the Egyp. tians, "believed the Lord and his servant Moses;" or, as the original Hebrew is, "believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses." says this learned commentator, "they were fully persuaded that God was present in their camp, and that Moses was the faithful servant of God, whom he had sent to deliver their nation. Besides they placed their confidence in God, and in Moses his servant, who (they now had reason to be. lieve) would not be deserted in any exigencies however great. Now, because God had led the Israelites through the Red Sea, that they might place confidence in Moses, the apostle says, they were baptized into Moses. That is, they were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea, that they might trust in Moses, as a faithful servant of God; might afterwards adhere to him in all their subsequent calamities; and might acknowledge him as a lawful conductor and commander, rais. ed up for this purpose by divine power. To conclude, in simple terms, they were baptized that that they might believe in Moses; for baptism follows belief, and we are rightly said to be baptized into him, in whom we believe." It will be seen that the exposition of this illustrious commentator, is in unison with the analogy of faith, as already considered in other cases. If a happy and consistent sense can be put upon any phrase, by follow. ing this analogy, it is safe and proper to follow it. We might now proceed to apply this analogy to the principat subject, under consideration, but one difficulty must be first removed. Our phrase is not ex. actly like the others. The Scriptures speak of "baptizing into Christ-into John-and into Moses" simply, without any redundant words. But in the case before us it is, "baptize into the name of the Father, &c." Is "name" a redundant word, after the Hebrew manner, here; or is it a significant word, which could not be omitted without materially changing the sense of the passage? I am inclined to believe that name is a mere pleonasm, for the following reasons. In Rom. vi. 8, and Gal. iii. 16, the apostle speaks of being "baptized into Christ." In Acts viii. 16, the sacred historian, speaking of certain disciples, says "they had been baptized (εις) into the name of the Lord Jesus." The two expressions appear to be the same. In the same manner "to call on the name of the Lord," is the same as to call on the Lord; to "believe on the name of Christ," is the same as to "believe in Christ." Many other instances might be easily produced. But such Hebraisms may be found by every observing reader. The learned Vitringa has shewn, from Maimonides, that the Jewish writers, when they speak of baptizing a gentile, in order that he might be a proselyte, or a slave, or a freed man, express it by "baptizing unto the name of a proselyte, or a slave, or a freed man," as the case may be. This affords additional proof, that "name," in the case before us, is a Hebraism, and a redundancy. The way is now open to explain the meaning of "baptizing into the name of the Father, &c." It is manifesting and professing our communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is to glorify the Trinityto profess that we belong to them as their property; to acknowl. edge them as our God, and the proper object of divine worship. It is to acknowledge the Father as our Father; the Son as our Redeemer; and the Holy Spirit as the distributor of his gifts. It is putting the name of the true God upon us, and making us as his, and denoting our willingness to receive him as our God, and our desires to be acknowledged as his people. Thus it appears, that to baptize " in the name of the Father, &c." falls far short of expressing all, which is designated by baptizing "into the name, &c." The former denotes, according to common custom, and the usage of the sacred writers, baptizing by the order or authority of the Trinity: but the latter, according to analogy in other cases, implies what has just been expressed. The only objection to the foregoing criticisms, which now occurs to my mind, arises from Acts x. 48, and ii. 38, where baptism is spoken of, επι and εν "in the name of the Lord." But these I understand to mean simply, by the order and authority of the Lord, and not as parallel with the cases which I have been considering. It gives me satisfaction to find that the learned Vitringa has defended, in a very able manner, the opinions, which I have now advanced. I acknowledge my indebtedness to him for much of the illustrations of the leading ideas in this communication. They may not be less important, or less interesting to the religious public, because they are not wholly original. It is an obvious reflection, upon the passage under consideration, that whether you translate it by in, or into, it affords a powerful argument, in favor of the existence of the Trinity. In the former case, the authority of the Son and Holy Ghost is placed on the same foundation with that of the Father, and acknowledged by implication to be equally necessary to constitute the validity or acceptableness of the rite of baptism. In the latter, we are marked as the property of a Trinity; we pro. fess to belong to them; to be their disciples; to regard them as the object of our worship. Whatever baptism means with respect to the Father, it means with respect to the Son, and Holy Ghost; they are placed on an equality. No difference is noted by the sacred writer, either in the form of expression, or in the context. If Christ be a mere man, or only a super-an gelic being, could he thus be ad. mitted in God's last and most per fect dispensation of his grace, in this world, to share equal honors, and to claim equal importance, with the everlasting God? And if the Holy Ghost be only an attribute of God, like his mercy, or omnipotence, can there be any possible propriety in bap. tizing into his name, and placing it in the same rank as that of God the Father." Or of bap. tizing by the authority of an attribute, and not of a person ? When these things are considered, I cannot wonder, that some modern Socinians choose to omit the form of baptizing prescribed by the Savior, and to substitute one, which will keep the doctrine of the Trinity out of view. It is so plainly taught in our Savior's rule, that the body of plain and honest people will ever be led to believe it, so long as this rule is followed in the administration of baptism. This is not the only special care, which is visible in the Scriptures to keep the doctrine of the Trin. ity in public view. Would to God the eyes of all might be opened to perceive it! M. MISCELLANY. [With a view to unite our testimony to that of others, against the increasing and most wicked and abominable practice of DUELLING, we following Memorial of the venerable Convention of readily give place to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To this memorial there was not a dissentient Congregational ministers of the voice, in a body of about one hundred of the clergy. The vote in favor of presenting it was unanimous. We wish other bodies of the clergy, and of the other denominations, would in like manner, or in some other way manifest their disapprobation of this most heinous sin. The Legislature, we presume, in due season, and in the manner which their wisdom shall dictate; will pay a suitable attention to this important subject, EDITORS.] |