Scripting in Java Integrating with Groovy and

Javascript 1st Edition Kishori Sharan pdf

download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/scripting-in-java-integrating-with-
groovy-and-javascript-1st-edition-kishori-sharan/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Beginning Java 17 Fundamentals Object Oriented

Programming in Java 17 3rd Edition Kishori Sharan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/beginning-java-17-fundamentals-
object-oriented-programming-in-java-17-3rd-edition-kishori-
sharan/

Beginning Java 17 Fundamentals: Object-Oriented

Programming in Java 17 3rd Edition Kishori Sharan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/beginning-java-17-fundamentals-
object-oriented-programming-in-java-17-3rd-edition-kishori-
sharan-2/

Java Language Features: With Modules, Streams, Threads,

I/O, and Lambda Expressions 2nd Edition Kishori Sharan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/java-language-features-with-
modules-streams-threads-i-o-and-lambda-expressions-2nd-edition-
kishori-sharan/

Death, Burial, and the Afterlife: Dublin Death Studies

(Carysfort Press Ltd.) Philip Cottrell (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/death-burial-and-the-afterlife-
dublin-death-studies-carysfort-press-ltd-philip-cottrell-editor/
The Taxation of Small Businesses Thirteenth Edition
Malcolm James

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-taxation-of-small-businesses-
thirteenth-edition-malcolm-james/

Law. A Very Short Introduction , 3rd Edition Raymond

Wacks

https://ebookmeta.com/product/law-a-very-short-introduction-3rd-
edition-raymond-wacks/

Parakeets For Dummies Nikki Moustaki

https://ebookmeta.com/product/parakeets-for-dummies-nikki-
moustaki/

How to Design Programs An Introduction to Programming

and Computing 2nd Edition Matthias Felleisen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/how-to-design-programs-an-
introduction-to-programming-and-computing-2nd-edition-matthias-
felleisen/

SAFE Love me hard series 1st Edition Fern Fraser

https://ebookmeta.com/product/safe-love-me-hard-series-1st-
edition-fern-fraser/
A Dark Chance 1st Edition Kelani Knox

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-dark-chance-1st-edition-kelani-
knox/
 Scripting in Java
Integrating with Groovy and
JavaScript

Kishori Sharan
Scripting in Java: Integrating with Groovy and JavaScript
Copyright © 2014 by Kishori Sharan
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with
reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose
of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by
the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is
permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be
obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through
RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
ISBN-13 (pbk): 978-1-4842-0714-7
ISBN-13 (electronic): 978-1-4842-0713-0
Trademarked names, logos, and images may appear in this book. Rather
than use a trademark symbol with every occurrence of a trademarked name,
logo, or image we use the names, logos, and images only in an editorial
fashion and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of
infringement of the trademark.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and
similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an
expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary
rights.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and
accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the
publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that
may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Managing Director: Welmoed Spahr
Lead Editor: Steve Anglin
Technical Reviewers: Vinay Kumar and Massimo Nardone
 Editorial Board: Steve Anglin, Mark Beckner, Gary Cornell, Louise
Corrigan, Jim DeWolf, Jonathan Gennick, Robert Hutchinson,
Michelle Lowman, James Markham, Matthew Moodie, Jeff
Olson, Jeffrey Pepper, Douglas Pundick, Ben Renow-Clarke,
Gwenan Spearing, Matt Wade, Steve Weiss
Coordinating Editor: Kevin Walter
Copy Editor: Laura Lawrie
Compositor: SPi Global
Indexer: SPi Global
Artist: SPi Global
Cover Designer: Anna Ishchenko
Distributed to the book trade worldwide by Springer Science+Business Media
New York, 233 Spring Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013. Phone 1-800-
SPRINGER, fax (201) 348-4505, e-mail orders-ny@springer-sbm.com,
or visit www.springeronline.com. Apress Media, LLC is a California LLC
and the sole member (owner) is Springer Science + Business Media Finance
Inc (SSBM Finance Inc). SSBM Finance Inc is a Delaware corporation.
For information on translations, please e-mail rights@apress.com, or visit
www.apress.com.
Apress and friends of ED books may be purchased in bulk for academic,
corporate, or promotional use. eBook versions and licenses are also
available for most titles. For more information, reference our Special Bulk
Sales–eBook Licensing web page at www.apress.com/bulk-sales.
Any source code or other supplementary material referenced by the author in
this text is available to readers at www.apress.com. For detailed
information about how to locate your book’s source code, go to
www.apress.com/source-code/.
To my wife, Ellen
Contents at a Glance

About the Author

About the Technical Reviewers
Acknowledgments
Introduction

Chapter 1: Getting Started

Chapter 2: Executing Scripts
Chapter 3: Passing Parameters to Scripts
Chapter 4: Writing Scripts in Nashorn
Chapter 5: Procedures and Compiled Scripts
Chapter 6: Using Java in Scripting Languages
Chapter 7: Collections
Chapter 8: Implementing a Script Engine
Chapter 9: The jrunscript Command-Line Shell
Chapter 10: The jjs Command-Line Tool
Chapter 11: Using JavaFX in Nashorn
Chapter 12: Java APIs for Nashorn
Chapter 13: Debugging, Tracing, and Profiling
Scripts
Index
Contents

About the Author

About the Technical Reviewers
Acknowledgments
Introduction

Chapter 1: Getting Started

What Is Scripting in Java?
Executing Your First Script
Using the jjs Command-line Tool
Printing Text in Nashorn
Using Other Scripting Languages
Exploring the javax.script Package
The ScriptEngine and ScriptEngineFactory Interfaces
The AbstractScriptEngine Class
The ScriptEngineManager Class
The Compilable Interface and the CompiledScript Class
The Invocable Interface
The Bindings Interface and the SimpleBindings Class
The ScriptContext Interface and the SimpleScriptContext Class
The ScriptException Class

Discovering and Instantiating ScriptEngines

Summary
Chapter 2: Executing Scripts
Using the eval() Method
Passing Parameters
Passing Parameters from Java Code to Scripts
Passing Parameters from Scripts to Java Code

Summary
Chapter 3: Passing Parameters to Scripts
Bindings, Scope, and Context
Bindings
Scope
Defining the Script Context
Putting Them Together

Using a Custom ScriptContext

Return Value of the eval() Method
Reserved Keys for Engine Scope Bindings
Changing the Default ScriptContext
Sending Scripts Output to a File
Summary
Chapter 4: Writing Scripts in Nashorn
Strict and Nonstrict Modes
Identifiers
Comments
Declaring Variables
Data Types
The Undefined Type
The Null Type
The Number Type
The Boolean Type
The String Type

Operators
Type Conversion
To Boolean Conversion
To Number Conversion
To String Conversion

Statements
Block Statement
Variable Statement
Empty Statement
Expression Statement
The if Statement
Iteration Statements
The continue, break, and return Statements
The with Statement
The switch Statement
Labelled Statements
The throw Statement
The try Statement
The debugger Statement

Defining Functions
Function Declaration
Function Expression
 The Function() Constructor

The Object Type

Using an Object Literal
Using a Constructor Function
Object Inheritance
Using Object.create() Method

Binding Object Properties

Locking Objects
Accessing Missing Properties
Serializing Objects
Dynamically Evaluating Scripts
Variable Scoping and Hoisting
Using Strict Mode
Built-in Global Objects
The Object Object
The Function Object
The String Object
The Number Object
The Boolean Object
The Date Object
The Math Object
The RegExp Object
Knowing Script Location

Built-in Global Functions

The parseInt() Function
The parseFloat() Function
The isNaN() Function
 The isFinite() Function
The decodeURI() Function
The decodeURIComponent() Function
The encodeURI() Function
The encodeURIComponent() Function
The load() and loadWithNewGlobal Functions

Summary
Chapter 5: Procedures and Compiled Scripts
Invoking Procedures in Scripts
Implementing Java Interfaces in Scripts
Using Compiled Scripts
Summary
Chapter 6: Using Java in Scripting Languages
Importing Java Types
Using the Packages Global Object
Using the Java Global Object
Using the importPackage() and importClass() Functions
Using the JavaImporter Object

Creating and Using Java Objects

Using Overloaded Java Methods
Using Java Arrays
Extending Java Classes Implementing Interfaces
Using a Script Object
Using the Anonymous Class–Like Syntax
Using the JavaAdapter Object
Using the Java.extend() Method
 Using a JavaScript Function
Accessing Methods of a Superclass

Using Lambda Expressions

Summary
Chapter 7: Collections
What Is an Array in Nashorn?
Creating an Array
Using an Array Literal
Using the Array Object
Passing No Arguments
Passing One Argument
Passing Two or More Arguments

Deleting Array Elements

Length of an Array
Iterating Over Array Elements
Using the for Loop
Using the forEach() Method
Using the for-in Loop

Checking for an Array

Multidimensional Arrays
Methods of the Array Object
Concatenating Elements
Joining Array Elements
Reversing Array Elements
Slicing an Array
Splicing an Array
 Sorting an Array
Adding and Removing Elements at Ends
Searching an Array
Evaluating Predicates

Converting an Array to a String

Stream-Like Processing of Arrays
Array-Like Objects
Typed Arrays
The ArrayBuffer Object
Views of an ArrayBuffer

Using Lists, Maps, and Sets

Using a Java List as a Nashorn Array
Using a Java Map as a Nashorn Object

Using Java Arrays

Arrays to Java Collections Conversions
Summary
Chapter 8: Implementing a Script Engine
Introduction
The Expression Class
The Instance Variables
The Constructor
The parse() Method
The getOperandValue() Method
The eval() Method

The JKScriptEngine Class

The JKScriptEngineFactory Class
Preparing for Deployment
Packaging the JKScript Files
Using the JKScript Script Engine
Summary
Chapter 9: The jrunscript Command-Line Shell
The Syntax
Execution Modes of the Shell
One-liner Mode
Batch Mode
Interactive Mode

Listing Available Script Engines

Adding a Script Engine to the Shell
Using Other Script Engines
Passing Arguments to Scripts
Global Functions
Summary
Chapter 10: The jjs Command-Line Tool
The Syntax
The Options
Using jjs in Interactive Mode
Passing Arguments to jjs
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
 Iphigenia. “The sea spray (kluzei[54]) washes away all the crimes of
men.”[55]
The rites used in the Greek mysteries illustrate the same subject.
“The benefits which the initiated hoped to obtain were security
against the vicissitudes of fortune and protection from dangers both
in this life and in the life to come. The principal part of the initiation,
and that which was thought to be most efficacious in producing the
desired effects, were the lustrations and purifications, whence the
mysteries themselves are sometimes called katharsia or
katharmoi.”[56]
Those of Eleusis were a manifest imitation of the Levitical feast of
ingathering or tabernacles. They were celebrated at the same
season,—immediately after the bringing in of the harvest; and were
in honor of Demeter, or Ceres, the patroness of agriculture. The
celebration proper, continued for seven days, after which there was
an additional eighth day, appropriated to the initiation of those who
had been too late for the regular observances. This, again, was
followed by a ninth day, which was named plēmochoai, from a vase
called plēmochoē. “Two of these vessels were on this day filled with
water or wine,” (Should it not be “water and wine?”) “and the
contents of one thrown to the east, and those of the other to the
west, while those who performed this rite uttered some mystical
words.”[57] From the appropriating of a ninth day to the outpouring of
the water and wine, it seems probable that the mysteries were
originally imitated from the Levitical feast before the festival of the
outpouring was instituted; and that when the latter rite was
introduced, an additional day was appropriated to it, so as to avoid
any change in what had become the established and consecrated
order of the preceding days.
These mysteries were of two orders. The less were celebrated at
Agræ, and were essential as a preparation for the greater at Eleusis.
In the preparatory rites, the candidates were required to keep
themselves continent and unpolluted for nine days; and were
purified with water sprinkled on them, by an officer who was thence
called the hydranos.[58] At Eleusis they offered sacrifices and prayers,
wearing garlands of flowers; and, standing on the skin of a sacrificial
animal, were again purified by the sprinkling of water by the
hydranos.
That the observances thus illustrated were corrupted forms
derived from the rites and institutions of Moses, is apparent. So
manifest is this, that in the third and fourth centuries it was made
the ground of a specious theory by means of which the advocates of
paganism sought to stay the progress of Christianity. “Among those
who wished to appear wise, and to take moderate ground, many
were induced to devise a kind of reconciling religion, intermediate
between the old superstition and Christianity, and to imagine that
Christ had enjoined the very same things which had long been
represented by the pagan priests, under the envelope of their
ceremonies and fables.”[59]
There was, no doubt, an element of truth in this conception. The
rites of Gentile idolatry were, it is evident, corrupted forms derived
from divinely appointed institutions, partly, it may be, by tradition,
from the parents of the race; but chiefly by imitation of the ritual of
Moses.

Section XLIII.—Baptism in Egypt and among the Aztecs.

I am indebted to the courtesy of W. H. Ryland, F. S. A. Secretary

of the (British) Society of Biblical Archæology, for a copy of the
proceedings at a meeting held on the 4th of May, 1880. From it I
make the following extract including part of a communication read
from M. Paul Pierret. It is descriptive of “the Libation Vase of Osor-
ur,” preserved in the Museum of the Louvre (No. 908), an inscription
on which has been deciphered by M. Pierret.
“The vase, of the Saitic epoch, is of bronze, and of an oblong
form, covered with an inscription, finely traced with a pointed
instrument. The text has been published, by M. Pierret in the second
volume of his ‘Recueil d’Inscriptions du Louvre,’ in the eighth number
of the ‘Etudes Egyptologiques.’ The goddess, Nout, is represented
standing in her sycamore, pouring the water which is received by the
deceased, on one side, and by his soul, on the other. ‘Saith the
Osiris, divine father and first prophet of Ammon Osor-ur, truthful;—
Oh, Sycamore of Nout! give me the water and the breath [of life]
which proceed from thee. That I may have the vigor of the goddess
of vigor; that I may have the life of the goddess of life; that I may
breathe the breath of the goddess of the respiration of breaths; for I
am Toum. Saith Nout;—Oh the Osiris, divine father, etc., thou
receivest the libation from my own hands; I, thy beneficent mother, I
bring thee the vase, containing the abundant water for rejoicing thy
heart by its effusion, that thou mayest breathe the breath [of life]
resulting from it, that thy flesh may live by it. For, I give water to
every mummy; I give breath to him whose throat is deprived of it, to
those whose body is hidden, to those who have no funeral chapel. I
am with thee. I reunite thee to thy soul, which will separate itself no
more from thee, never.’”
The Saitic epoch, to which this vase is referred, began with the
accession of Psammetichus I, about 664, B. C., and closed with the
conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525. The parallel period of Jewish
history extends from the closing years of Manasseh’s reign to the
time of the machinations by which the decree of Cyrus for rebuilding
the temple was suspended. But, although the date thus given is
such as might suggest the idea of derivation from the institutions of
Moses, it seems highly probable that the inscription presents a
vestige, in a greatly corrupted form, of the primitive faith touching
the resurrection, as held by Noah and the patriarchs of the old
world, and transmitted to the founders of the Egyptian empire.
Whatever the view adopted on that point, the relation of the
inscription to the subject of the present treatise is manifest and very
interesting. Not only does it very strikingly illustrate the doctrine of
life to the dead, as symbolized by the effusion of water, but it brings
together the two symbols of water and the breath of life, in such a
manner as presents a very remarkable analogy to the similar
association of ideas presented in the scene of Pentecost, as unfolded
hereafter.
Very remarkable was the rite of infant baptism, as it was found by
the Spanish conquerors among the Aztecs of Mexico.[60]
 “When everything necessary for the baptism had been made
ready, all the relations of the child were assembled, and the midwife,
who was the person that performed the rite of baptism, was
summoned. At early dawn, they met together in the court-yard of
the house. When the sun had risen, the midwife, taking the child in
her arms, called for a little earthen vessel of water, while those
about her placed the ornaments which had been prepared for the
baptism in the midst of the court. To perform the rite of baptism,
she placed herself with her face toward the west, and immediately
began to go through certain ceremonies.... After this she sprinkled
water on the head of the infant, saying, ‘O, my child! take and
receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and is
given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash and
to purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your body
and dwell there: that they may destroy and remove from you all the
evil and sin which was given you before the beginning of the world;
since all of us are under its power, being all the children of
Chalchivitlycue goddess She then washed the body of the child with
water, and spoke in this manner: ‘Whence thou comest, thou that art
hurtful to this child; leave him and depart from him, for he now
liveth anew, and is born anew; now is he purified and cleansed
afresh and our mother, Chalchivitlycue, again bringeth him into the
world.’ Having thus prayed, the midwife took the child in both hands,
and lifting him toward heaven, said,—‘O Lord, thou seest here thy
creature, whom thou hast sent into the world, this place of sorrow,
suffering, and penitence. Grant him, O Lord, thy gifts, and thine
inspiration, for thou art the great God, and with thee is the great
goddess.’ Torches of pine were kept burning during the performance
of these ceremonies. When these things were ended, they gave the
child the name of some one of his ancestors, in the hope that he
might shed a new luster over it. The name was given by the same
midwife or priestess who baptized him.”[61]
How like, yet how different, the Græco-Roman, the Egyptian, and
the Mexican rites, from each other, and from those of Israel and of
Christ, appears at a glance.
 Section XLIV.—The Levitical Baptisms in the Christian Fathers.

The writers of the primitive church distinctly recognize the Old

Testament sprinklings, and especially the water of separation, by the
name of baptism. By the same name, they designate the idolatrous
imitations above described. Tertullian was born about fifty years
after the death of the apostle John. In allusion to the renewing
efficacy which he attributed to Christian baptism and the futility of
the Gentile rites, he says,—“The nations, strangers to all
understanding of true spiritual potencies, ascribe to their idols the
self-same efficacy. But they defraud themselves with unwedded
waters; for they are initiated, by washing, into certain of their sacred
mysteries—as for example of Isis, or Mithras. Even their gods
themselves they honor with lavations. Moreover, everywhere,
country seats, houses, temples and whole cities are purified by
sprinkling with water carried around. So, it is certain they are
imbued (tinguntur) in the rituals of Apollo and Eleusis; and they
imagine this to accomplish for them renewing and impunity for their
perjuries. Moreover, among the ancients, whoever was polluted with
murder, expiated himself with purifying waters.... We see here the
diligence of the devil, emulating the things of God, since he even
administers baptism to his own.”[62]
Here, Tertullian expressly designates these rites of the Gentile
idolatries by the name of baptism, and represents them as imitations
of the divinely appointed ordinance. Some he distinctly describes as
sprinklings, and among them evidently refers to Ovid’s
representation of the dishonest merchant, sprinkling himself to wash
out his “perjuries.” He does not allude to immersion, and in fact that
form of rite was not found among the Greek and Roman
superstitions. The only difference which Tertullian recognizes
between the idolatrous rites and Christian baptism is indicated by
the phrase (viduis aquis), “unwedded,” or “widowed, waters,” by
which he designates the element used in the pagan rites. His
meaning, here, is to be found in the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, which already prevailed in the church; according to
which, it was believed that, in baptism, in response to the invocation
of the officiating minister, the Holy Spirit descended upon the water,
imparting to it a divine potency to produce a new birth in the
recipient of the rite. Thus, the waters of Christian baptism were
married waters, as being capable of generating life; whilst the others
were unmarried,—unendowed with any “spiritual potency.”
It is further worthy of special notice, that Tertullian here refers,
among other Gentile imitations of baptism, to that purgation for
murder, by affusion of water, from which evidently Josephus derived
his preposterous explanation of the sprinkling of the water of
separation, for defilement by the dead. The probability is great that
the Greek purgation was derived from that appointed for the elders
of Israel, in the case of a concealed murder.
Jerome, living between A. D. 340 and 420, comments thus upon
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27.—“I will pour out or sprinkle (effundam sive
aspergam), upon you clean water and ye shall be cleansed from all
your defilements. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a
right spirit within you.... I will pour out the clean water of saving
baptism.... It is to be observed that a new heart and a new spirit
may be given by the pouring out or sprinkling of water.” Again, he
paraphrases;—“I will no more pour out on them the waters of saving
baptism, but the waters of doctrine and of the word of God.”—
Jerome v, 341.
Ambrose, bishop of Milan from A. D. 374 to 391, thus expounds
the 7th verse of Psa. li.—“He asks to be cleansed with hyssop,
according to the law. He desires to be washed according to the
gospel, and trusts that if washed he will be whiter than snow. He
who would be purified by typical baptism was sprinkled with the
blood of a lamb, by a hyssop bush.”[63]
Again he says, “He (the priest), dipping the living sparrow, with
cedar, scarlet and hyssop, into water in which had been mingled the
blood of the slain sparrow, sprinkled the leper seven times, and thus
was he rightly purified.... By the cedar wood, the Father, by the
hyssop the Son, and by the scarlet wool, having the brightness of
fire, the Holy Spirit, is designated. With these three, he was
sprinkled who would be rightly purified, because no one can be
cleansed from the leprosy of sins, by the water of baptism, except
through invocation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit....
We are represented by the leper.”[64]
Again, addressing the newly baptized, he says,—“You took the
white garments, to indicate that you cast away the cloak of sin and
put on the spotless robe of innocence; whereof the prophet said:
‘Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean, thou shalt
wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.’ For he that is
baptized appears cleansed both according to the law and the gospel;
according to the law, since Moses, with a bunch of hyssop sprinkled
the blood of a bird; according to the gospel, because the garments
of Christ were white as snow, when, in the gospel, he showed the
glory of his resurrection. He whose sins are forgiven is made whiter
than snow.”[65]
Cyril lived in the next century. He was bishop of Alexandria, A. D.
412-444. In his exposition of Isaiah iv, 4, he says, “We have been
baptized, not with bare water, nor with the ashes of a heifer,—We
are sprinkled [with these] to purify the flesh, alone, as says the
blessed Paul,—but with the Holy Spirit, and fire.”
Thus, from the translation of the Old Testament into Greek down
through the time of Christ and the apostles, and to the middle of the
fifth century, the Levitical sprinklings were known and designated as
baptisms. Further we need not trace them.
 Part VI.
STATE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.

Section XLV.—Points established by the foregoing Evidence.

A review of the preceding pages will discover the following points

to have been established.
1. Baptism was a rite familiar among the Jews at the time of
Christ’s coming, and not a new institution then first introduced.
2. Paul being witness, it was an ordinance imposed on Israel at
Sinai, as part of the Levitical system.
3. There is no trace, in the Levitical law, of an ordinance for the
immersion of the person, in any circumstances, or for any purpose
whatever.
4. There is not, anywhere, in the Old Testament an allusion to
immersion as a symbolic rite, nor a figure derived from it, although
those Scriptures are full of allusions and figures referring to the
symbolic import of the pouring and sprinkling of water.
5. There was an ordinance for the immersion of certain things
very slightly defiled; which at once illustrates the ritual value of
immersion as compared with sprinkling, and the plainness of the
language where immersion was meant.
6. The baptisms, therefore, to which Paul refers as having been
“imposed on” Israel, could not have been immersions, and the word,
baptizo, did not in his vocabulary mean, to immerse.
7. The only institutions to which he can have referred are
comprehended under the two heads of, administered rites, and self-
performed washings.
8. The self-washings were not sacraments, or seals of the
covenant, but monitory symbols of duty.
 9. The gradation of these washings, the frequency and
circumstances of their observance, and the limited facilities available,
render it impossible that they can have been immersions.
10. Their symbolic significance, the words used to describe them,
the customs as to ablutions, and the washings of the priests in the
court of the sanctuary, and of the high priest in the holy place,
concur to demonstrate that they were ablutions performed by
affusion.
11. The administered rites were sacramental seals of the
covenant. They were essentially one in meaning, office, and form;
and were invariably performed with a hyssop bush, by an official
administrator, sprinkling the recipient with living water, in which was
the blood or ashes of sacrifice.
12. In the Hellenistic Greek, the language of the Septuagint, the
Apocrypha, and the New Testament, these purifications by sprinkling
were called baptisms, and they were known and designated by that
name by the primitive fathers of the Christian church.
13. These sprinklings of the law were the “divers baptisms” of
Paul. So far, therefore, from baptizo meaning to dip, or, to immerse,
and nothing else, it is an indisputable fact that for at least fifteen
hundred years after the first institution of the rite, baptism was
always performed by sprinkling.
14. The ordinance was first instituted to seal the covenant by
which the church of God was founded in Israel; and that form of it in
which the ashes of the red heifer were used was divinely appointed
as the ordinary rite for the reception of applicants to the privileges of
that covenant and church.
15. Its symbolism set forth all that is recognized in the Scriptures
as meant by Christian baptism. Especially and distinctively was it the
sacrament of the purification, or remission of sins.
16. The figure presented in the form of sprinkling or pouring is
derived from the rain descending out of heaven, penetrating the
earth and making it fruitful; and it signifies the Spirit of life from God
imparted to the dead, entering the heart, purging its corruption, and
creating new life. To the case of indwelling corruption, with
reference to which this rite was appointed, no external washing,
such as immersion is supposed to represent, can be of any avail.
17. Affusion is the constant form of action in the ritual law,
whether with water, blood, or oil, to signify the efficient agency of
the Lord Jesus, in all the functions of administration in his
mediatorial office.
18. The recipients of the Levitical baptism, were, at its first
institution, the whole congregation of Israel, old and young, thus
purified from the defilements of Egypt, sealed unto the covenant of
God, and installed as his church. Afterward, they were all, without
distinction of sex, age, or nation, who having been suspended for
any cause from the communion of the church of Israel, sought in the
appointed way restoration; or who were received into it, as infants
or proselytes.
19. While this rite was the door of admission to the privileges of
the covenant, at Sinai, and so long as the Levitical system survived,
it is appropriated by the Spirit, as the chosen figure by which is set
forth, in prophecy, the bestowal of the grace of Christ upon the
Gentiles, in the gospel day, and upon Israel, restored. “So shall he
sprinkle many nations.” “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,
and ye shall be clean.”
20. The figures of speech corresponding to the forms of sprinkling
and pouring appear everywhere in the Old Testament. Pervading and
determining the entire structure of the ritual law, they reappear
continually, in the historical records, in the devotional and penitent
utterances of the Psalmist, the discourses of the Preacher, and the
expostulations and warnings of the prophets, and in their glad
anticipations of the grace of the coming Messiah. With one and the
same spiritual meaning everywhere, these figures pervade and
control the whole texture of thought and mode of expression of the
sacred writers.
21. This rite of purification by sprinkling was not only thus familiar
to Israel, but, under corrupted forms, it had been disseminated
throughout the civilized world; so that when the apostles went forth
to carry the gospel to the nations, the ideas of sin and guilt,
defilement and cleansing, thus nourished, were a very important
element in the providential preparation of the world to appreciate
and accept the salvation of Christ. While such was the case, the fact
is equally significant that among the nations contiguous to Israel
there is no trace of ritual purification by immersion,—a form of
observance which, had it existed in Israel, could not have failed of
imitation by her idolatrous neighbors.
Thus assiduously and multifariously were the people of Israel
taught, and trained—by instructions, by warnings, by promises, by
rites and ceremonies, enjoined and observed at the sanctuary and at
home, which laid hold upon them in every relation of their being and
every function of their lives—to conceive of themselves in all their
sinfulness and need, and of the coming Messiah in his offices of
grace, in the light of this ordinance, and according to the similitude
embodied in it. For fifteen centuries these influences were
continually at work, until the very bent and tendency of their
thoughts and conceptions, in so far as they yielded themselves to
the divine agencies thus applied, were moulded to the forms of
those rites.
In view of the facts thus developed, two questions present
themselves for thoughtful consideration as we proceed with our
inquiry. (1.) Is it to be imagined that John and Jesus, in coming to
fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, which were embodied in
sprinkled baptism, would ignore that ordinance, and silently
substitute in its place the rite of immersion; thus bringing to naught
and repudiating the products of the divine discipline so assiduously
pursued through all those centuries, and dissolving every tie of
association between the gospel of Christ and the hopes and
expectations which the saints had been taught to cherish, by the
unanimous testimony of the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, all
speaking in the language of the repudiated rite? (2.) Since the name
of baptism, was, beyond question the designation used for the
Levitical sprinklings, how else can we understand John, Christ, and
the apostles, than as meaning the same thing, in the similar use
which they make of the same word?
 The Greek Bath.—From Sir. Wm.
Hamilton’s
vases, in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek
and Roman
Antiquities; article “Balneæ.”
 Book II.
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.
 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.

The Greek Bath.—The god, Eros,

presides. From
Sir. Wm. Hamilton’s vases, in Smith’s
Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Antiquities; article
“Balneæ.”
 Part VIII.
THE PURIFYINGS OF THE JEWS.

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 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.”

Section XLIX.—Baptism upon return from Market.

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:—
 ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ.
ΡΑΝΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ
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 the 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.
 Part IX.
JOHN’s$1BAPTISM.

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