used in a strict technical sense to denote ceremonial ablution, either as a Jewish lustration, (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38,) or in Christian initiation, (including the preparatory baptism of John, and the figurative affusion of the Spirit, as well as the metaphorical overwhelming with suffering.)* It is this technical sense that constantly distinguishes βαπτίζω from βάπτω, and from every other word of similar import in the New Testament; and if the preceding views are correct, the word itself furnishes no authority for insisting that the idea of motion, as in plunging, immersion, and the like, is in any way essential to the ceremony.t I have not of course gone over the whole ground of the usage of this word, but have confined myself to its consideration in that relation under which it presents itself in the text at the head of this essay. 2. The sense in which ovoua is here to be taken. This word is used with a latitude of meaning in the New Testament which often renders it difficult to fix its precise shade of signification. It occurs, (1.) In the proper sense, denoting the appellation by which any one is known. Under this head may be included (by metonymy) its use for person simply; e. g., a few names of us. (2.) By implication, authority; e. g., in the phrase ev tập ỏvóμati Tɩvóç, i. e., as using that person's name to sanction an act, by virtue of the efficacy implied therein. This cannot be the meaning here, for eiç is used, and not ev, nor ènì, nor the dative at all. (3) Emphatically, designation, i. e., a title grounded upon some character or relation; e. g., elç övоμа поорýτоν, for the sake of his prophetical rank, (not in [the] name, &c.;) öç kàv déšŋtai raidíov tion. The compound kμßáñтw occurs three times, all in the same connexion as the passage last referred to, (that is, with reference to the sop given to Judas at the last supper,) where Mark's ó μßanтóμevos eis тò трvßλíov, (i. e., smearing his fingers [by sopping a morsel] into the dish,) is explained by Matthew as ỏ kμßápas év tậ τρυβ. τὴν χεῖρα. No writer uses εἰσβάπτω, a singular circumstance if βάπτω properly involves motion. See Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament, s. v. † Some have committed an error on the other extreme, by denying any reference to the mere process of ablution in ẞartíš, and interpreting it as meaning simply to purify; (so Pres. E. Beecher, in a series of articles first published in the Biblical Repository, 1840-42.) This is confounding an act with its result or design. Any word might be thus distorted, if we overlook its plain inherent signification and direct application. Note, that in Acts i, 5, the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of as a distinct act, to take place "not many days hence;” ch. ii, 3, shows the mode. See Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament, s. v., where, however, the distinctive force of the preposition preceding ovoua is not sufficiently observed, and the divisions interfere with each other in the citations classed under each; this seeming confusion must always take place, where no more subdivisions are used to reduce the senses to a strict classification. EV Eπì T ỏνóμarí μov, i. e., because of such a one's denomination as a Christian. To this class may be referred its sinister acceptation of mere name or empty profession, (Rev. iii, 1.) Under this third division some set down ovopa in the text under consideration,* explaining it of the adoption of the distinctive title of Christian on baptism. But to limit its meaning to the notion of being called by the name of Christ, leaves a very jejune and narrow sense, and makes the insertion of τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος entirely irrelevant; for although converts are called Christians, they are not designated by any term derived from these two other names, and the very name "Christian" was not used at first, but accidentally imposed by enemies. (4.) Comprehensively, character, i. e., the nature, qualities, and relations implied in one's name, especially τὸ ὄν. τοῦ Θεοῦ, Κυρίου, Xpiorov, &c. These phrases are usually said to be a mere periphrase for God himself, &c., the övoua being redundant; but the question constantly returns after such an evasion, If the writer meant no more than that, why did he not say so at once? No respectable author uses words superfluously, or without at least some meaning; and every one feels that ovoua in such passages does cast a peculiar shade of meaning upon the main idea, although it generally requires a steady and penetrating gaze to enable him to distinguish that shade with sufficient exactness to depict it in words. The phrase seems to have originated in the Hebrew practice of giving persons names expressive of their disposition or circumstances; and hence, as applied to the Deity, it came to imply, by a reverential adumbration, that which expresses the Divine attributes, either within themselves, or in the aspect under which they are manifested to men, (Compare the significant use of the term in Exodus iii, 13-15; xxxiv, 5-7.) The phrase тò övoua тov Oɛov, (or either of its equivalents,) thus includes everything known pertaining to the Godhead, and in its particular application covers so much of this general idea as belongs to the scope of the context where it occurs. Its connexion, therefore, becomes very important in determining its precise import in any given instance,-especially the prepositions (those links of expressed thought) which point out the relation which the word introduced by them sustains to the general purport of the sentence, or of the word preceding in construction. The modification hence resulting has often the effect of evolving an additional idea, without which the meaning of ovopa would be too indefinite for apprehension. An instance in point occurs in our Saviour's petition to his *See a German criticism on this text, translated in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1844, p. 703, Father on his disciples' behalf, (John xvii, 11,) тnonσov avtoùç ¿v Tậ óvópatí σov, where the tenor of the context shows that the constructio prægnans is to be filled up by some such expression as Ev tñ yvwσeɩ tov óvóμaτós σov, keep them (faithful) in the acknow ledgment [i. e.,. apprehension and promulgation] of thy character, (with all its saving relations as revealed in the gospel, introduced by me to their acquaintance.) This passage, it seems to me, precisely illustrates the usage of ovoua in the text under consideration, where I would accordingly take it to denote the whole circle of truth implied in the relations of the Father, Son, and Spirit, both with each other and with mankind; in one word, the gospel creed, as a system of sacred knowledge and practice. Much of the force thus assigned to this word, however, depends upon, 3. The relation here indicated by eis. We have seen that ẞaπTíw is in several instances in the New Testament followed by eis, but we have also seen that it is not a verb of motion; this preposition cannot therefore in these cases be used in its original locative sense, but in its secondary causal acceptation,-in other words, not as pointing out that into which anything might be plunged, but the design or object in order to which a person may be baptized. A more minute examination of these passages will establish this point, as well as elucidate the meaning of the present text. These passages are all similar to the one under consideration, involving the phrase βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. In Acts viii, 16, in speaking of some disciples of John found by the Apostles, it is said, "As yet he [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them, only βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου 'Inooù," i. e., they had been baptized in anticipation of Jesus as their future Master, or as a pledge in advance of their allegiance to him. So in Matt. xix, 5, it is said of others under similar circumstances, “When they heard this, ἐβαπτίσθησαν εἰς τὸ ὄν. τοῦ κυρ. Ἰης.” where verse 4 shows that this was meant as a token of their faith in him as actually adopted disciples. Paul says, (Rom. vi, 3,) “Know Je not that ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς τὸ ὄν. Ἰησοῦ, εἰς τὸν θάνατον avтoù Èßаπт.?” i. e., as verses 2 and 4 clearly show, all who unite themselves to him by profession, thereby plight themselves to a conformity with his (literal) crucifixion by a figurative one as to internal sin. In 1 Cor. i, 13, he indignantly asks, Elç тò ovoμa TOŬ Παύλου ἐβαπτίσθητε; “ Was it the religion of Paul merely that you espoused in your baptism?" And in verse 15 he declares, “I baptized none of you, lest any should say that εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβάπ Tioa, I thereby engaged him to be my proselyte." In chapter x, 2, he says that the Israelites, who passed through the misty sea, TávTES εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσαντο, i. e, thus sealed themselves as by a baptism to the religion which Moses was about to teach. In chapter xii, 13, speaking of the abolition of all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, he says, ἐν ἑνὶ Πνεύματι ἐις ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, we have been cemented to (become) a single community in the faith by the same spiritual baptism. And in Gal. iii. 27, he says that these universal privileges are guarantied to all ὅσοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπ TíodηTE, who have been joined to Christ by (spiritual) baptism. These are all the passages in the New Testament in which this phrase occurs. In each of them it is obviously derived from the peculiar phraseology of the baptismal formula, and, if I mistake not, they clearly concur in establishing three points,-the technical usage of Barrio, irrespective of any idea of motion; that ovoua denotes here the Christian faith; and that eiç indicates the adoption and profession of Christianity as the end signified by the rite. The import of the whole clause may therefore be summed up thus: "Initiating them into the religion of the Trinity by the ceremony of baptism." It is this tenet that peculiarly distinguishes our religion from Judaism; and the truths involved in the relations and offices of the several persons in the Godhead are what elevate and characterize Christianity above every other system of faith. The context eminently harmonizes with this interpretation: Christ commissions his chief pupils to canvass the globe as missionary propagators of his doctrines; the outward badge of discipleship, with those whom they proselyte, is to be an induction into his school by the rite of baptism; and they are then to go on, more fully indoctrinating the neophytes into all the sublime maxims and details of the sacred science. *The last three have been added for the sake of completeness, as being entirely similar in import, although not containing the word ovoμa. The collocation ɛis rò ovopa, without ẞanTiw, occurs after revel in John i, 12; ii, 23; iii, 18; 1 John v, 13, to denote in like manner Gospel truth as the object of faith, which connects believers by a saving covenant with Christ. In Matthew xviii, 20, dúo ǹ тpric συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, the import of ὄνομα is extended so as to include the cause of Christ, and eiç shows that this is the object whose interests the company are met to promote. A peculiar turn of the above sense, No. (3.) of ovoμua occurs in Heb. vi, 10, " for God is not thankless, [in failing to reward such pious acts by the bestowal of additional grace,] to forget your work and the love which ¿vedeišaode εiç rò ovoμa avtov, in having ministered to the saints," i. e., which you have manifested towards those who represent him,-spoken apparently in allusion to Christ's pointed identification of himself with his followers in the reception of beneficence, Matt. xxv, 40. ART. V.-HILDRETH'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. The History of the United States of America, from the Discovery of the Continent to the Organization of the Government under the Federal Constitution. By RICHARD HILDRETH. Three vols. 8vo., pp. 569, 579, 592. New-York: Harper & Brothers. 1849. A NATION'S annals should be written contemporaneously with the events they commemorate; but proper history can be composed only when those events have matured their fruits, and developed their true character and relations. That point was reached, as to American colonial affairs, at the end of the Revolutionary war; and the experience of more than half a century has sufficiently determined the character of the times that gave form to our Federal Republican institutions. The time is, therefore, fully come when we should have a well-digested American history, coming down to the time of the inauguration of the first president. Every true patriot has a lively interest in his country's history, and is concerned that it should be written only by such as have the heart to appreciate, and the hand to execute, the required work. It is highly desirable that such a work should be composed by an American, as it would be alike discreditable and unsafe to commit it to other hands. But though many of our best prose-writers have laboured chiefly in this department of literature, and have here gathered their greenest bays, yet till recently we had no national history that could aspire to the literary rank that the subject evidently demands. The only work of the kind extant, before the publication of the one whose title stands at the head of this paper, was that of Mr. Bancroft. The author of that work enjoys a high literary reputation, and is unquestionably a fine writer, a ripe scholar, and a diligent student of American history; and yet we think his History of the United States has failed to answer the public expectation, or to meet the requirements of the case. In writing history, especially where the materials are abundant, it is quite as important to know what to omit as what to insert; and the value of such writings depends very much on the judgment with which the materials are selected. Mr. Bancroft's history comprises a great amount of matter relating to our early affairs, but not always judiciously selected nor happily arranged. There is also in it much that is quite as nearly related to Kant's philosophy and the vagaries of Swedenborg as to American colonial history. His method of conducting the historical discourse we esteem decidedly objectiona |
