Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

to the question, we could easily furnish many details. There are two Hebrew words which are translated variously, banner, sign, ensign, sail (Isa. xxxiii. 23), standard. Both these terms are derived from words whose root-meaning is 'to shine,' 'to glitter.' Whence it would appear that some metal, probably brass, was employed at first for standards, as undoubtedly it was among other ancient nations. In process of time, however, some species of coloured cloth seems to have come into use, so forming banners (in the present sense of the word), 'flags,' and 'colours;' an inference which we deduce from one of these two words being employed in Isa. xxxiii. 23 (comp. Ezek. xxvii. 7), to denote the sail of a ship.

We may also arrive at a probable conjecture respecting the distinctive character of the Hebrew standards. If the ensigns of the twelve tribes were all of brass, how were they known from each other? The employment of different colours seems the most obvious expedient. But the diversities thus gained would not be sufficiently marked and decided for the purpose. Forms would be far better, as admitting of the greatest contrariety. But what forms? This seems to have been decided by the highest authority known among a nomad people,-their chief or emir; for Jacob, in his dying blessing, assigned the characteristics of the several tribes, thus determining as their coat of arms, so the figure of their standards, —‘Judah is a lion's whelp;' 'Issachar is a strong ass, couching down between two burdens;' 'Dan shall be a serpent;' 'Napthali is a hind let loose; Joseph is a fruitful bough' (Gen. xlix.). Nor are these tokens taken at ran

dom: they are in each case emblematical of some historical or personal peculiarity. Ard it is scarcely credible, that, when so obvious and so suitable a resource as this was at hand, Moses should have adopted the ensigns of his people as chance might offer, or caprice dictate. Certainly these distinctive tokens were not soon lost from memory. To them the Saviour himself owes two of his appellations, the Lion and the Lamb.

The benediction, whence we derive the escutcheons of the Hebrews, was pronounced in Egypt; and here Moses would find himself only confirmed in adopting the symboli. cal_ensigns suggested by the dying patriarch. In Egypt each battalion and each company had its particular standard, which represented a sacred subject,-a king's name, a sacred boat, a sacred animal, or some emblematical device; the objects chosen being such as were regarded by the troops with a superstitious feeling of respect, in order to afford aid in rousing and sustaining their courage; nor are instances wanting, in Roman history, of the wonderful effect produced in rallying a discomfited host, by a timely display of the sacred standards of the army. Plutarch even goes so far as to refer the origin of animal worship among the Egyptians, to the emblem chosen by Osiris as his ensign. We supply a few specimens of Egyptian standards, which, with the previous remarks, go to confirm the opinion we have advanced, that the standards of the twelve tribes were, in each case, a brass figure of the animal, suspended on a pole (a spear, Diodorus says, i. 86, was used in Egypt), by which the particular tribe was betokened:

111111

BAPTISM (G. dipping).—The use of water in religious observances has been explained under the article ABLUTION. This nse prevailed generally among ancient and especially oriental nations, who practised washings and lustrations of various kinds. Tertullian states that, in Egypt, disciples were initiated into the religion of Isis and of Mithra by means of washing, and that the gods themselves were subjected to ablution. They everywhere absolve by water,

which they carry round, and sprinkle upon villages, houses, temples, and entire cities. Men are dipped at the Apollinarian and Pelusian games. This, they think, sets them free from their perjuries, and accomplishes their regeneration. If any one imbrued his hands in the blood of a fellow-creature, he expiated his crime by purifying water' (Le Bapt. c. 5). Traces of the use of water in religious observances among the Jews way be found in Gen. xxxv. 2, comp. with Exod.

[ocr errors]

1

xix. 10. Washing was expressly required (Exod. xxix. 4) among the rites to be used in hallowing Aaron and his sons to minister in the priest's office:-Thou shalt bring them unto the door of the tabernacle, and shalt wash them with water' (xl. 12). A laver of brass was also appointed, whereat Aaron and his sons were to wash their hands and their feet when they went into the tabernacle, or when they went near to the altar to minister. The penalty of neglecting these washings was death (Exod. xxx. 17, seq.; comp. Lev. viii. 6). Washing of the person and of the clothes was practised also as a purification from ritual uncleanness or leprous contamination (Lev. xi. 25; xiv. 7. Num. xix. 7, seq.). The use of water on the cleansing of the leper is remarkable. The leper being brought to the priest, the latter, after the cure was effected, was to kill a bird over running water, and to sprinkle the leper seven times; after which, he that was to be cleansed had to wash his clothes, and wash himself in water (Lev. xiv. 2). Naaman was directed by Elisha to wash in the Jordan seven times. When his hesitation had been overcome by his servants, who urged him to 'wash and be clean,' 'he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean' (2 Kings v. 10, seq.). Cleansing, is thus used metaphorically for moral purification-such a change of head and heart as led to the renunciation of idolatry, and the pure worship of Jehovah (Ezek. xxxvii. 23; Zech. xiii. 1). So Judith, before she sought the Lord God of Israel to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people,' went out and washed herself in a fountain of water (Judith xii. 7, 8).

Hence it is clear that the Jews were accustomed to the idea of bathing and sprinkling, generally of the use of water, in connection with religious observances. Nor does the practice appear to have decreased with the lapse of time. When, in the later periods of their history, the Essenes came into existence, they employed water as a symbol of that moral purity which was the special aim of their collegiate life; and even made the use of it a requirement on the part of new converts, when they were initiated into the body. (Joseph. Jewish War, ii. 8, 7. Antiq. xviii. 5, 2.)

It cannot, therefore, be considered improbable that baptism was, at the time when the Gospel narratives begin, required of proselytes from heathenism by the Jewish church. Proselytism then, and some time before, was proceeding on a large scale. There were two kinds of proselytes: I. Those of the gate; who, admiring the spirituality and moral elevation of the law of Moses, became worshippers of Jehovah

(Acts xiii. 16, 26, 43), and were held bound to observe only the seven Noachian precepts (Gen. ix. 1-7). II. Proselytes of righteousness; that is, complete proselytes; those who had not only given up heathenism, and conformed to the moral requirements spoken of, but were circumcised, and thus were formally introduced into the Jewish church. These, it is affirmed by some, and denied by others, were subjected to the initiatory rite of baptism. This is not the place to discuss a purely antiquarian question. It must suffice to state, with a remark or two, that our impression is in favour of the affirmative. There was a propriety in such an act; it was analogous to observances co-eval with the Mosaic institutions; for a heathen was altogether unclean, and may well have been required to signify his purification from the leprosy of idolatry by the use of water. And though we are aware of the disposition of the Rabbins to claim an undue antiquity for their religious observances, yet their evidence for the existence of this baptism of proselytes of righteousness is admitted to be valid in regard to a somewhat later time than the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is not easy to see what peculiar circumstances there were which should lead to its introduction between the admitted epoch and the death of our Lord. Nor can it be accounted an inconsiderable fact in the case, that the practice of John in baptizing proselytes was regarded certainly as nothing extraordinary or unusual, if not as, in the case of a great outward and inward change, a matter of course, a thing congruous with prevalent ideas and usages. Moreover, it is not easy to understand how Josephus could mention John's baptizing in the way he does, as unsurprising and natural on the part of a great moral reformer, had the rite then, for the first time, been introduced as a symbol of repentance and moral reformation (Antiq. xviii. 5, 2). John the Baptist stood at no great dis tance from the sect of Essenes, and may have been influenced by them in making baptism introductory to his school; a view which is not incompatible with the divine origin of his baptism, which Tertullian held to have been commanded of God. And if we look into the pages of the Old Testament, we may readily find passages which agree in spirit with the nature of John's baptism. Thus, Ps. li. 2:

"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,

And cleanse me from my sin.' Isa. i. 16, 'Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings' (see also Isa. xxxii. 15; xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxvi. 25) This rite, however, which we see grew naturally out of pre-existent ideas and usages, was the token of a merely preliminary system, the great aim of which was to prepare the way of the Lord by turning the men of

that generation from moral evil to moral good (Matt. iii. 1, seq. Acts xix. 4).

Into this preparatory school, however, Jesus himself sought and received admission by baptism, while its head hesitated, and Heaven clearly signified its approval (Matt. iii. 13-17. Mark i. 9-11. Luke iii. 21. John i. 29, seq.). At the very com mencement of his ministry, the Saviour at least permitted baptism to be practised by his disciples, of whose baptism, however, we have no certain information; and it is expressly recorded that Jesus himself did not baptize (John iii. 22, 26; iv. 1, 2). An express sanction, however, was given to this rite by our Lord shortly before his departare from the world, when he directed his apostles to go and teach all nations, bap. tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt. xxviii. 19); agreeably with his own earlier declaration, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' (John iii. 5). In obedience to these directions, his messengers went forth and baptized both individuals and great numbers. In Acts ii. 41, three thousand persons were at once added to the church by this rite. In chap. xvi. 15, Lydia of Thyatira, and her household, are baptized. In the same way the jailor, at Philippi, 'he and all his,' are of a sudden converted and baptized (Acts xvi. 33. Ephes. v. 25-27). The formula employed in these lustrations, so far as it is recorded in the Acts, is different in words, but similar in substance, to that set forth by Jesus:- In Acts viii. 37, 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ;' 2. 48, in the name of the Lord;' xix. 5, in the name of the Lord Jesus.' What we find said in Scripture respecting the forgiveness in baptism of past sins (Acts iL 33, for the remission of sins;' Mark xvi. 16. Gal. iii. 27. 1 Pet. iii. 21); and of the regeneration and renewal of the soul (Eph. v. 26, 27. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Tit. iii. 5); these things are not to be taken of baptism considered in itself, but as united with faith and newness of life (Acts ii. 38). Repent, and be baptized' (John iii. 6). And even Paul understood his commission from his Master, so as to make baptizing subordinate to preaching the gospel; nor did he baptize any of the members of the church at Corinth, but Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. i 14-16). The state of mind (and the infinences leading to that state) which immediately preceded conversion and the consequent baptism, was various, though generally it involved contrition, repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts ii. 38; vili. 15, seq.; x. 44, seq.; xi. 15, seq.; xv. 8; riz. 6). The forgetting of the essentially moral character of baptism has been the great source of the corruptions which invaded the Christian church in connection

[ocr errors]

with its observance. These appear to have begun even in the apostolic age. With the aid of such an assumption, at least, the difficult passage in 1 Cor. xv. 29 may probably be best explained: -'Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why, then, are they baptized for the dead?' The practice seems to have been this:- disciples of Christ underwent a second baptism in the place or on behalf of their departed friends, in order that they might thus procure for the dead the advantages which they themselves enjoyed in being baptized members of the church. This fact the apostle makes use of as a sort of argumentum ad hominem, without intending to give the false ideas on which the practice rested, any sanction or support. So some have interpreted the passage. Others make the words of the apostle refer to the blanks which martyrdom was continually making in the Christian ranks, bat which were as continually filled by newlybaptized disciples. No sooner had the old fallen than the young stood up in their room. We cannot say that either interpretation is much to our mind. After all attempts to explain it the passage still remains an obscure

one.

The baptismal action is the sign of an ablution or washing. The baptismal grace, or blessing represented in baptism, may be spoken of under a variety of figures-as an ingrafting, as a burial, as a crucifixion, as a clothing, as a regeneration or new birth. But the baptismal sign, in whatever mode it is exhibited, by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, is a washing. The sign points primarily as a sign, to the purification of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin. This appears from all those passages in which reference is made to the outward symbol, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word. Baptism, then, whatever its mode, immersion, or sprinkling, is symbolical of a complete ablution of the whole person. It denotes not the washing of a part of the sinner only, but the sanctification of the whole person-soul, spirit, and body. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.' Baptism is not essential to salvation. It is a vulgar error,' says Dr M'Crie, in his able treatise on Christian Baptism,' "borrowed from Popery, that a child unbaptized cannot be saved, or at least must be left to something called the uncovenanted mercy of God. The child may be saved, as well as the man, if he is interested in God's covenant, though he may not have received its outward symbol. Simon Magus perished, we have reason to fear, after baptism; the thief on the cross was saved without it. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on any virtue in the

mere symbol. Baptism is a mere symbol of spiritual good, not the spiritual good itself. The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the mere act of administration. We have seen that baptism is, in and of itself, not grace, but the mere symbol of grace. This some may grant, and yet plead that God has so inseparably linked the sacred sign with the spiritual blessing, that in all cases where it is rightly administered the blessing will follow; or at least that it becomes us to believe in the judgment of charity, that it will follow, or has preceded. It might easily be shown that this really amounts to an identifying or confounding of the sign with the thing signified; for, if baptism, when rightly observed, is invariably accompanied by regeneration and spiritual benefits, then to be baptized is to be regenerated; and it must be unbelief to hold the contrary. It is inconsistent with the office of the Spirit as a free agent, and virtually ascribes to man and to the act of man what is due only to God. The Spirit may, no doubt, bless any ordinance for salvation; but, according to this theory, he not only may, but he must bless this ordinance, and bless it in the very act of its administration. The moment that grace is made to hang on the performance of a ceremony or the pronouncing of a certain form of words, that moment its nature is changed, and we ascribe to the sign what is due only to the divine agent. It is a reversal of the divine order: the Spirit in this case depends on the sign, instead of the sign depending on the Spirit. The priest is converted into a sort of spiritual Prometheus, who, at his own pleasure, can call down fire from heaven to animate the dead clay of fallen nature, and God becomes subservient to man. The very idea is tainted with blasphemy. No; the Spirit of God is a free spirit: he giveth to every man severally as he willeth; and he is not tied down to any institution.'-(Lectures on Christian Baptism, PP. 115-118.)

BARABBAS (C. Abba's son), one of a class of men who, at a later period especially, availing themselves of the dependent and disturbed state of Judea, lived under the name of Sicarii (dagger-men), in an almost constant state of guerilla warfare, which they carried on under various pretexts both against the Romans and their own countrymen, solely with a view to their own selfish and wicked ends; and so united in themselves the attributes of rebel, robber, and murderer. Barabbas, with certain accomplices, lay in prison under sentence of death, when the last hour of our blessed Lord approached Without any sanction on the part of the law, it had grown customary, perhaps as a favour from the Romans (John xviii. 39), for the governor to release a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. Pilate, in his conviction of the innocence of Jesus, wished to throw his death

on others, and therefore gave the people the option of the life of Barabbas, or that of Christ. Instigated by the priests and their own vile passions, they saved the murderer, and demanded the execution of our Lord.

Reverence to Christ appears to have caused the word Jesus to be dropped from the text, which there is good reason to believe stood, in Matthew, originally before Barabbas, making a part of his name; the words of Pilate would, with 'Jesus' inserted, run thus: 'Whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus son of Abba, or Jesus called Christ?' Jesus was a common name among the Jews (Matt. xxvii. 15. Mark xv. 6. Luke xxiii. 17. John xviii. 39. Acts iii. 14).

BARBARIAN is a word which with us has a reference to the want of culture and the scale in human society, on the part of those of whom it is used; but originally it regarded, in its primary application, the mode of speech of nations that were not of pure Hellenic blood. That speech, whether in consequence of a less favourable structure of the organs, or a less advanced personal culture, was, even in those who used the Greek tongue, marked by rough, thick, hurried, or imperfect intonations, and became, in consequence, an obvious ground of distinction. The ears of the Athenians, especially, were very susceptible of the diversities of tone, accent, and dialect; and, readily detecting any provincial or foreign peculiarities in a man's speech, that people were led, by their national and individual pride, to give these discoveries utterance, and to set an invidious mark on the disqualified person. The word barbarian expressed this disqualification. Its natural antithesis was Greek. Hence the family of man was divided into two great classes, Greek and Barbarian,' as by their social condition they were also divided into two great classes, bond and free. The Romans, on becom ing masters of the world, adopted, with other prejudices, this alienating distinction; taking care, however, to include themselves in the favoured class. With them, accordingly, all were barbarians but the Greeks and Romans. It is in this classical sense of the term that it is used by Paul, who was acquainted with the Greek, and probably the Latin, literature, in relation to the inhabitants of Malta (Acts xxviii. 2, 4), who were, for the most part, of Carthaginian blood. In Rom. i. 14, he appears to have employed the very common phrase, 'Greeks and Barbarians,' as supplied by memory from his classical studies (comp. Col. iii. 11). These explanations throw light on Paul's language in 1 Cor. xiv. 11, where those who speak in unknown tongues are said to be barbarians to Paul, and he a barbarian to them; where the term is nearly equivalent to 'foreigner.'

No nation has probably been free from

the vanity which forms the groundwork of this distinction. Diversities of language are most noticeable; they are also most numerous; every family has at least an intonation peculiar to its members. Hence speech, which was given to unite, is, under the workings of little passions, made to sunder the children of men. Those who dwell in the metropolis are sundered from those who dwell in the provinces; townspeople are sundered from villagers; tradesmen from tillers of the ground: in an especial manner the rich and educated are sundered and alienated from the poor and the (so called) uneducated. Yet ought they to be all one in Christ Jesus. They have all one human heart; the alleged diversities of culture are to no small extent imaginary; and the man who can look beneath the mere exterior will often find the greatest worth, as well as the truest politeness, in connection with an unpolished accent and grammatical inaccuracies. True culture lies essentially in the heart.

A diversity in pronunciation is recorded (Judg. xii. 6) to have been made use of by the Gileadites, after they had routed the Ephraimites, in order to detect the latter, while they attempted in their flight to pass the Jordan, where the Gileadites had stationed themselves to cut off the retreat. The word given as a test was Shibboleth (an ear of corn, also a stream), which the Ephraimites in their dialect pronounced Sibboleth, leaving out the sound represented by the h, and so lost their lives, to the number of forty-two thousand. At the present day, those who love to apply tests of this kind only degrade the character and impair the happiness of their Ephraimite brethren.

BAR-JESUS (H.)-This name, compounded of two words, signifies the son of Jesus, being formed after the same manner as Barabbas, Bar-jonus, and Bar-tholomew. It was borne by a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, called also Elymas (in Arabic, magician), who is recorded (Acts xiii. 6-13) to have resisted the attempt of the Apostle to the Gentiles when at Paphos, on the western coast of the island of Cyprus: the latter, having been sent for by the pro-consul Sergius Paulus, smote, at the termination, as it would appear, of a severe conflict of words, the diviner with temporary blindness, and so completed the conversion of the Roman governor. Nor can a more forcible and impressive appeal be well imagined. Sergius Paulus seems to have been one of those pagans who were darkly feeling after a better form of faith. In the pure earnestness of his wishes, he had associated with himself this Bar-jesus, one of a class of men of whom Simon (Acts viii. 9, seq.) was another, who bore the name, and by their false pretensions disgraced the character of the ancient Persian magi; and who, in the

days of Paul, were spread abroad over the world, practising arts of deception for selfish purposes. Having not unfittingly characterised Elymas as an impostor, Paul says, with as much simplicity as force, 'Behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee; and thou shall be blind, not seeing the sun, for a season.' Then, in language which of itself makes a picture, and so assures us that it fell from the pen of an eye-witness, the record adds,-'Immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.' The deputy,' thus seeing his adviser smitten, and his art condemned in the stroke, may well have passed over into the Christian camp. And thus miracle without, operating on faith within,- good seed falling on good ground, converted to Christ a man of no mean standing and no small influence in life. But the dews of heaven themselves fall in vain on stony ground; and probably the deceiver Elymas remained a deceiver to the end of his days. The only way to gain the truth is to seek that divine good in the love of it. A sound scholar and a true Christian has well remarked on this miracle,-'There is not the faintest plausibility in arguing from this case for the civil punishment of any, even the rudest assailants of Christianity.'

BARLEY was anciently cultivated by the Egyptians (Exod. ix. 31) and the Hebrews (Lev. xxvii. 16. Joel i. 11), partly as fodder for cattle (I Kings iv. 28), partly to make bread for the poorer class of people (Judg. vii. 13. 2 Kings iv. 42. John vi. 9). Barley in Palestine was sown at the time of the autumnal rains, that is, October-November, and reaped in our spring, March April; the latter being the month in which the chief part is gathered in.

BARNABAS (C. son of consolation. Acts iv. 36; A.D. 33), a name which Joses, a Levite of the isle of Cyprus, received on becoming a Christian. He is found in intimate connection with the apostles in the very cradle of the apostolic church, and, if the evidence of ecclesiastical historians may be credited, was one of the seventy disciples. He first appears in the pages of the New Testament as a benefactor of the church. The Mosaic law, which forbade the land of the Levites to be sold (Lev. xxv. 34), having apparently undergone some relaxation, Barnabas sold a piece of land which he possessed, and put the money at the disposal of the apostles. Having performed this generous act, Barnabas disappears from the scene, till he is found in company with the recently converted Saul at Damascus (Acts ix. 27; A.D. 35), where, being introduced in the course of the narrative without explanation as a person well known in the church, he is represented as introducing Paul to the

« VorigeDoorgaan »