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 power 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

lost. Accordingly we read, that "He was delivered for our of fences, and raised again for our justification." JOB.

(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 reflections. 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
VOL. II. New Series.

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 apprehension of our English translators. The Syriac and Latin interpreters of the New Testament have adopted the same idea. They have rendered εις το όνομα, by ow, 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 investi. gate, whether the Greek preposition, E (which is rendered in, when joined with the word in the verse under consideration, BATTIZOVTES) is, or can be so rendered in other passages of the New Testament, where it is con nected with other derivatives from the verb ßaTTIZW.

The question is not, whether Els may never signify in, in the New Testament. This is un doubtedly the case in many instances. 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 ɛç is into, unto, to. Now if the writers of the New Testament use it in this

sense, when connected with BETTI, 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 bap. tize you, with water, unto (ec) repentance." Mark i. 3. "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance (es) for, margin unto, the remis.

sion of sins."

To translate is 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, (c) unto John's baptism." Rom. vi. 3. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized (E) into Jesus Christ, were baptized (es) into his death?" Gal. iii. 27. "For as many of of you as have been baptized (815) into Christ have put on Christ." 1 Cor. x. 2. "And were all baptized (5) 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?"

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

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 substi tuting in for into ?

From a view of these instances, I am persuaded that the transla tion 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 usage of the New Testament,

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 (E) 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 (8) 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.

the

In like manner, when apostle says, that saints are "baptized (E) 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 (tc) into or unto Moses." This difficult passage has been the cause of great perplexity among many able commentators, and called forth many elaborate philological disquisitions. The learned Vorstius has endeavored to solve the difficulty, by laboring to shew, that is is here used as a Hebraism, and may signify the same thing as dia, since the He. brew prefix is translated by both these particles. He would render it "baptized by Moses." But the acute and able Vitringa has given an exposition, which is more satisfactory to my mind. He refers to Exod. xiv. 31, where

it is said, that the Israelites, seeing the great work which the Lord had done upon the Egyptians, "believed the Lord and his servant Moses ;" or, as the original Hebrew is, "believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses." "That is" 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. Be sides they placed their confidence in God, and in Moses his servant, lieve) would not be deserted in who (they now had reason to beany exigencies however great. Now, because God had led the that they might place confidence Israelites through the Red Sea, in Moses, the apostle says, they were baptized into Moses. That cloud and in the sea, that they is, they were baptized, in the 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, raised 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 hap. py 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 ap ply this analogy to the principal

subject, under consideration, but one difficulty must be first removed. Our phrase is not exactly 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 66 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 (E) 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 Trinity-to profess that we belong to them as their property; to acknowledge 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, ers and ev

66

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