BAPTISM Critical inquiry suggests the following questions : 1. In what relation did Jesus stand to John before the baptism? 2. What object did Jesus intend to obtain by that baptism? 3. In what sense are we to take the miraculous incidents attending that act? With regard to the first point, we might be apt to infer, from Luke and Matthew, that there had been an acquaintance between Christ and John even prior to the baptism; and that hence John declines (Matt. iii. 14) to baptize Jesus, arguing that he needed to be baptized by him. This, however, seems to be at variance with John i. 31, 33. Lücke (Comment. i. p. 416, sq. 3rd edit.) takes the words 'I knew him not' in their strict and exclusive sense. John, he says, could not have spoken in this manner if he had at all known Jesus; and had he known him, he could not, as a prophet, have failed to discover, even at an earlier period, the but too evident glory of the Messiah. In fact, the narrative of the first three Gospels presupposes the same, since, as the herald of the Messiah, he could give that refusal (Matt. iii. 14) to the Messiah alone. With regard to the second point at issue, as to the object of Christ in undergoing baptism, we find, in the first instance, that he ranked this action among those of his Messianic calling. This object is still more defined by John the Baptist (John i. 31), which Lücke interprets in the following words: Only by entering into that community which was to be introductory to the Messianic, by attaching himself to the Baptist like any other man, was it possible for Christ to reveal himself to the Baptist, and through him to others.' Christ, with his never-failing reliance on God, never for a moment could doubt of his own mission, or of the right period when his character was to be made manifest by God; but John needed to receive that assurance, in order to be the herald of the Messiah who was actually come. For all others whom John baptized, either before or after Christ, this act was a mere preparatory consecration to the kingdom of the Messiah; while for Jesus it was a direct and immediate consecration, by means of which he manifested the commencement of his career as the founder of the new theocracy, which began at the very moment of his baptism, the initiatory character of which constituted its general principle and tendency. With respect to the miraculous incidents which accompanied the baptism of Jesus, if we take for our starting-point the narration of the three first Gospels, that the Holy Spirit really and visibly descended in the form of a dove, and proclaimed Jesus, in an audible voice, to be the Son of God, there can be no difficulty in bringing it to harmonize with the statement in the Gospel of John. This literal sense of the text has, indeed, for a long time been the prevailing interpretation, though many doubts respecting it had very early forced themselves on the minds of sober inquirers, traces of which are to be found in Origen, and which Strauss has more elaborately renewed. To the natural explanations belong that of Paulus, that the dove was a real one, which had by chance flown near the spot at that moment; that of Meyer, that it was the figure of a meteor which was just then visible in the sky; and that of Kuinoel (ad Matth. iii.), who considers the dove as a figure for lightning, and the voice for that of thunder, which the eyewitnesses, in their extatic feelings, considered as a divine voice, such as the Jews called a Bath-kol (Meyer). Such interpretations are not only irreconcilable with the evangelical text, but even presuppose a violation of the common order of nature, in favour of adherence to which these interpretations are advanced. A more close investigation of the subject, however, induces us to take as a starting-point the account of the Apostle St. John. It is John the Baptist himself who speaks. He was an eyewitness, nay, to judge from Matthew and John, the only one present with Jesus, and is consequently the only source-with or without Christ of information. Indeed, if there were more people present, as we are almost inclined to infer from Luke, they cannot have perceived the miracles attending the baptism of Jesus, or John and Christ would no doubt have appealed to their testimony in verification of them. In thus taking the statement in St. John for the authentic basis of the whole history, a few slight hints in it may afford us the means of solving the difficulties attending the literal conception of the text. John the Baptist knows nothing of an external and audible voice, and when he assures us (i. 33) that he had in the Spirit received the promise, that the Messiah would be made manifest by the Spirit descending upon him, and remaining—be it upon or in him--there; this very remaining assuredly precludes any material appearance in the shape of a bird. The internal probability of the text, therefore, speaks in favour of a spiritual vision in the mind of the Baptist; this view is still more strengthened by the fact, that Luke supposes there were many more present, who notwithstanding perceived nothing at all of the miraculous incidents. The reason that the Spirit in the vision assumed the figure of a dove, we would rather seek in the peculiar flight and movement of that bird, than in its form and shape. This interpretation moreover has the advantage of exhibiting the philosophic connection of the incidents, since the Baptist appears more conspicuously as the immediate end of the divine dispensation. Christ had thus the intention of being introduced by him into the Messianic sphere of operation, while the Baptist recognises this to be his own peculiar calling: the signs by which he was to know the Messiah had been intimated to him, and now that they had come to pass, the prophecy and his mission were fulfilled. None of the Evangelists give any authority for the common tradition that the descent of the Spirit upon Christ was sensibly witnessed by the multitude. Matthew simply states that the vision appeared to Christ; Mark adds that the Spirit appeared to him as a dove descending upon him; Luke, more generally, states only the fact of the Spirit's descent in a sensible form; and John informs us that besides Christ this vision was witnessed also by the Baptist. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.-Jesus, having undergone baptism as the founder of the new kingdom, ordained it as a legal act by which individuals were to obtain the rights of citizens therein. Though he caused many to be baptized by his disciples (John iv. 1, 2), yet all were not baptized who were converted to him; neither was it even necessary after they had obtained participation in him by his personal choice and forgiving of sin. But when he could no longer personally and immediately choose and receive members of his kingdom, when at the same time all had been accomplished which the founder thought necessary for its completion, he gave power to the spiritual community to receive, in his stead, members by baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16). Baptisin essentially denotes the regenerating of him who receives it, his participation both in the divine life of Christ and the promises rested on it, as well as his reception as a member of the Christian community. Each of these momentous points implies all the rest; and the germ of all is contained in the words of Christ (Matt. xxviii. 19). The details are variously digested by the Apostles according to their peculiar modes of thinking. John dwells-in like manner as he does on the holy communion-almost exclusively on the internal nature of baptism, the immediate mystical union of the Spirit with Christ; baptism is with him equivalent to being born again' (John iii. 3, 7). Paul gives more explicitly and completely the other points also. He understands by it not only the union of the individual with the Head, by the giving one's self up to the Redeemer and the receiving of his life (Gal. iii. 27), but also the union with the other members (ib. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Ephes. iv. 5; v. 26). He expresses a spiritual purport by saying that it intimates on the part of those who have received it, their being joined with Christ in his death and raised with him in his resurrection. As regards the design of Christian Baptism, different views have been adopted by different parties. The principal are the following: : 1. That it is a direct instrument of grace; the application of water to the person by a properly qualified functionary being regarded as the appointed vehicle by which God bestows regenerating grace upon men. This is the Romanist and Anglo-Catholic view. 2. That though not an instrument it is a seal of grace; divine blessings being thereby confirmed and obsignated to the individual. This is the doctrine of the Confessions of the majority of the Reformed Churches. 3. That it is neither an instrument nor a seal of grace, but simply a ceremony of initiation into Church membership. This is the Socinian view of the ordinance. 4. That it is a token of regeneration; to be received only by those who give evidence of being really regenerated. This is the view adopted by the Baptists. 5. That it is a symbol of purification; the use of which simply announces that the religion of Christ is a purifying religion, and intimates that the party receiving the rite assumes the profession, and is to be instructed in the principles, of that religion. This opinion is extensively entertained amongst the Congregationalists of Eng land. Differences of opinion have also been introJuced respecting the proper mode of baptism. Some contend that it should be by immersion BAPTISM alone; others, that it should be only by affusion or sprinkling; and others, that it matters not in which way it be done, the only thing required being the ritual application of water to the person. The first class appeal to the use of baptizo by the classical authors, with whom they affirm it is always used in the sense of dipping or immersing; and to such expressions as being buried with Christ in baptism,' &c., where they understand an allusion to a typical burial, by submersion in water. The second class rely upon the usage of baptizo by the sacred writers, who, they allege, employ it frequently where immersion is not to be supposed, as when they speak of baptism with fire,' and 'baptism with the Spirit; upon the alleged impossibility of immersing such multitudes as we learn were baptized at once in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; upon the supposed improbability of an Eastern female like Lydia allowing herself to be publicly immersed by a man whom she had never seen before; upon the language used by Paul at Philippi, when he commanded water to be brought into the room, that he might baptize the jailor and his family, language which, it is said, cannot be understood of such a quantity of water as would be required to immerse in succession a whole household; and upon the use of the term baptism, to designate what is elsewhere spoken of as the outpouring of the Spirit. The third class maintain, that according to universal usage baptizo signifies simply to wet, and that the following preposition determines whether it is to be taken in the sense of wetting by immersion or not; they urge especially that the word es used in the New Testament possesses so much of a technical character, that it is not possible from it to deduce any correct inference as to the mode of baptizing; and they adduce historical evidence to show that baptism was performed indifferently by immersion or affusion as convenience dictated. In fine, differences of opinion have arisen respecting the proper subjects of baptism. Here also we have three classes. 1. Those who maintain that baptism is to be administered only to those who believe and give evidence of being regenerated. This opinion is grounded chiefly upon the positions that, Repentance and Faith are distinctly prescribed in the New Testament as conditions of baptism, and the alleged fact that the Apostles did not baptize any, until satisfied that they sincerely believed It is urged also by the advocates of this opinion against the practice of infant baptism, that not only are infants excluded from baptism by their inability to comply with the required terms, but that they are virtually excluded by their baptism not being expressly enjoined in the New Tes tament. It is also alleged that infant baptism was unknown to the Early Church, and was a corrupt invention of the patristic age. 2. Those who contend that baptism is to be administered not only to believers who have not been before baptized, but to the infant offspring of believers. This opinion is chiefly based on the covenant established by God with Abraham. This covenant it is maintained was the everlasting covenant, the covenant of grace; under it a connection of a spiritual kind was recognised as existing between parents and their children; in BAPTISM virtue of this the latter received the sign of the covenanted blessings; no evidence can be adduced that this divinely-appointed connection has been abrogated, though the sign of the covenant has been changed; on the contrary, there is abundant evidence to show that the Apostles administered to the children of converts to Christianity the same rite, that of baptism, which they administered to the converts themselves. It is also affirmed by this party that the requiring of faith and repentance as a condition of baptism in the case of adults cannot be fairly held as including children, inasmuch as by the same reasoning children dying in infancy would be excluded from salvation. It is denied that the absence of any express injunction to baptize children virtually prohibits their baptism; and the assertion that infant baptism was unknown in the primitive age is rebutted by historical evidence. BAPTISM 133 existed in the Corinthian community is devoid of all historical evidence. Wette, that the Apostle approved of the absurd The difficulties will still more increase. if we practice in question, since he would thus be were to admit, with Olhausen, Rückert, and De brought into contradiction with his own principles on the importance of faith and external works, which he developes in his Epistle to the Galatians. In the words of Paul we discover no opinion of his own concerning the justice or injustice of the rite; it is merely brought in as an argumentum ex concesso in favour of the object which he pursues through the whole chapter (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 5). However much may be objected against this interpretation, it is by far other critics. The Corinthian community was more reasonable than the explanations given by ad-viduals of various views, ways of thinking, and different stages of education: so that there might certainly of a mixed character, consisting of indistill have existed a small number among them capable of such absurdities. We are not sufficiently acquainted with all the particulars of the grammatical sense of the passage is decidedly in favour of the proposed interpretation. case to maintain the contrary, while the simple 3. Those who assert that baptism is to be ministered to all who either will place themselves under Christian instruction, such as adults who have grown up as heathens, Jews, or infidels; or who may be thus placed by their parents or guardians, such as infants. In support of this view, stress is laid upon our Lord's words when he commanded his Apostles to go and teach and baptize all nations; the 'baptizing' being regarded as associated with the teaching' and commensurate with it, whilst what is said about 'believing' is regarded as relating to something which may or may not follow the teaching and baptizing, but which is declared to be essential to salvation. It is argued that the Apostolic practice was altogether in accordance with this view of our Lord's commission, inasmuch as the multitudes frequently baptized by the Apostles were such, that to obtain satisfactory evidence of the knowledge and piety of each individual was impossible in the time which elapsed between the Apostles' preaching and the baptizing to which it led; whilst such cases as those of Simon Magus and the Philippian Jailor show that even very ignorant meu, and men who could not possibly give what any person would receive as credible evidence of piety, were at once baptized. The practice of the Apostles also in baptizing whole households, including children and servants, without asking any questions as to their knowledge and belief, is urged in favour of this opinion, as well as the corresponding practice of the Church. BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.-Paul (1 Cor. xv. 29) uses this phrase. Few passages have undergone more numerous and arbitrary emendations than this text. We shall examine first A. Those interpretations which take it to be some particular application of baptism. 1. Some imagine that Paul speaks of a baptism which a living man receives in the place of a dead one. Various passages have been quoted from the fathers in support of this opinion; but all we can infer from their statements is, that baptism by substitution had taken place among the Marcionites, and perhaps also among the Cerinthians and other smaller sects towards the end of the fourth century; but that it existed between that period and the time when Paul wrote the above passage is wholly unsubstantiated. The idea, then, that such a superstitious custom hard, interpret the words as relating to baptism 2. Origen, Luther, Cheninitz, and Joh. Gernity, a favourite rendezvous of the early Chris-, tians. Luther says that in order to strengthen over the graves of the members of the commutheir faith in the resurrection, the Christians baptized over the tombs of the dead. But the custom alluded to dates from a much later period. to which the word rendered 'dead' is to be belongs the oldest opinion we know of, given in adopts the same meaning as regards the dead,' 3. Pelagius, Olearius, Fabricius, are of opinion 134 BARAK BARNABAS here alludes to an individual, namely, to Christ, | tation, he resolved to do her bidding, on con 'on account of whom' we are baptized, alluding to Rom. vi. 3. 4. Among the best interpretations is that of Spanheim and Joh. Christ. Wolf. They consider 'the dead' to be martyrs and other believers, who, by firmness and cheerful hope of resurrection, have given in death a worthy example, by which others were also animated to receive baptism. Still this meaning would be almost too briefly and enigmatically expressed, when no particular reason for it is known, while also the allusion to the exemplary death of many Christians could chiefly apply to the martyrs alone, of whom there were as yet none at Corinth. 5. Olhausen's interpretation is of a rather doubtful character. The meaning of the passage he takes to be, that all who are converted to the church are baptized-for the good of the dead, as it requires a certain number (Rom. xi. 12-25), a "fullness" of believers, before the resurrection can take place. Every one therefore who is baptized is so for the good of believers collectively, and of those who have already died in the Lord.' Olhausen is himself aware that the Apostle could not have expected that such a difficult and remote idea, which he himself calls a mystery,' would be understood by his readers without a further explanation and development of his doctrine. He therefore proposes an explanation, in which it is argued that the miseries and hardships Christians have to struggle against in this life can only be compensated by resurrection. Death causes, as it were, vacancies in the full ranks of the believers, which are again filled up by other individuals. What would it profit those who are baptized in the place of the dead (to fill up their place in the community) if there be no resurrection?' BAR, a Hebrew word meaning son, but used only poetically in that language (Ps. ii. 12; Prov. xxxi. 2). In Syriac, however, Bar answered to the more common Hebrew word for son, i. e. ben; and hence in later times, in the New Testament, it takes the same place in the formation of proper names which Ben had formerly occupied in the Old Testament. BARAB BAS, a person who had forfeited his life for sedition and murder (Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 25). As a rebel, he was subject to the punishment laid down by the Roman law for such political offences; while, as a murderer, he could not escape death even by the civil code of the Jews. But the latter were so bent on the death of Jesus, that, of the two, they preferred pardoning this double criminal (Matt. xxvii. 16-26; Mark xv. 7-15; Luke xxiii. 18-25; John xviii. 40). BARACHI'AS, father of the Zechariah (Zecharias) mentioned in Matt. xxiii. 35 [ZECHARIAH]. BA'RAK, lightning; son of Abinoam of Kedesh-Naphtali, a Galilean city of refuge in the tribe of Naphthali (Judg. iv. 6; comp. Josh. xix. 37; xxi. 32). He was summoned by the prophetess Deborah to take the field against the hostile army of the Canaanitish king Jabin, commanded by Sisera, with 10,000 men from the tribes of Naphthali and Zebulon, and to encamp on Mount Tabor, probably because the 900 chariots of iron (Judg. iv. 3), in which the main force of Sisera consisted, could not so easily manœuvre on uneven ground. After some hesi dition that she would go with him, which she readily promised. Confiding, therefore, in the God of Israel, he attacked the hostile army by surprise, put them to flight, and routed them to the last man. In conjunction with Deborah, he afterwards composed a song of victory in commemoration of that event (Judg. v. 14, 15, 16). BARBARIAN. This term is used in the New Testament, as in classical writers, to denote other nations of the earth in distinction from the Greeks. I am debtor both to the Greeks and Barbarians.' In Coloss. iii. 11, 'Greek nor JewBarbarian, Scythian'- Barbarian seems to refer to those nations of the Roman empire who did not speak Greek, and Scythian to nations not under the Roman dominion. In 1 Cor. xiv. 11 the term is applied to a difference of language: 'If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian (as of another language, Geneva Vers.), and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian (as of another language,' Geneva Vers.) unto me.' Strabo (xiv. 2) suggests that the word Bar-bar-os was originally an imitative sound, designed to express a harsh dissonant language, or sometimes the indistinct articulation of the Greek by foreigners. BAR-JESUS. [ELYMAS.] BAR-JONA (son of Jonas), the patronymic appellation of the Apostle Peter (Matt. xvi. 17). BARLEY. This grain is mentioned in Scripture as cultivated and used in Egypt (Exod. ix. 31), and in Palestine (Lev. xxvii. 16; Deut, viii. 8; 2 Chron. ii. 10; Ruth ii. 17; 2 Sam. xiv. 30 ; Isa. xxviii. 25; Jer. xli. 8; Joel i. 11). Barley was given to cattle, especially horses (1 Kings iv. 28), and was indeed the only ccrn grain given to them, as oats and rye were unknown to the Hebrews, and are not now grown in Palestine. This is still the chief use of barley in Western Asia. Bread made of barley was, however, used by the poorer classes (Judg. vii. 13; 2 Kings iv. 42; John vi. 9, 13; comp. Ezek. iv. 9). In Palestine barley was for the most part sown at the time of the autumnal rains, October-November, and again in early spring, or rather as soon as the depth of winter had passed. The barley of the first crop was ready by the time of the Passover, in the month Abib, March-April (Ruth i. 22; 2 Sam. xxi. 9; Judith viii. 2); April is the month in which the barley-harvest is chiefly gathered in, although it begins earlier in some parts and later in others. In Exod. ix. 31, we are told that the plague of hail, some time before the Passover, destroyed the barley, which was then in the green ear; but not the wheat or the rye, which were only in the blade. This is minutely corroborated by the fact that the barley sown after the inundation is reaped, some after ninety days, some in the fourth month, and that it there ripens a month carlier than the wheat. BARNABAS. His name was originally Joses, or Joseph (Acts iv. 36), but he received from the Apostles the surname of Barnabas, which signi fies the Son of Prophecy. Luke interprets it by Son of Exhortation. It can hardly be doubted that this name was given to Joses to denote his eminence as a Christian teacher. He is described by Luke as a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith' (Acts xi. 24). He was a native of BARNABAS Cyprus, but the son of Jewish parents of the tribe | of Levi. From Acts iv. 36, 37, it appears that he was possessed of land, but whether in Judæa or Cyprus is not stated. He generously disposed of the whole for the benefit of the Christian community, and laid the money at the Apostles' feet. As this transaction occurred soon after the day of Pentecost, he must have been an early convert to the Christian faith. When Paul made his first appearance in Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas introduced him to the Apostles, and attested his sincerity (Acts ix. 27). Though the conversion of Cornelius and his household, with its attendant circumstances, had given the Jewish Christians clearer views of the comprehensive character of the new dispensation, yet the accession of a large number of Gentiles to the church at Antioch was an event so extraordinary, that the Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem resolved on deputing one of their number to investigate it. Their choice was fixed on Barnabas. After witnessing the flourishing condition of the church, and adding fresh converts by his personal exertions, he visited Tarsus to obtain the assistance of Saul, who returned with him to Antioch, where they laboured for a whole year (Acts xi. 23-26). In anticipation of the famine predicted by Agabus, the Antiochian Christians made a contribution for their poorer brethren at Jerusalem, and sent it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 28-30), who speedily returned, bringing with them John Mark, a nephew of the former. By divine direction (Acts xiii. 2) they were separated to the office of missionaries, and as such visited Cyprus and some of the principal cities in Asia Minor (Acts xiii. 14). Soon after their return to Antioch, the peace of the church was disturbed by certain zealots from Judæa, who insisted on the observance of the rite of circumcision by the Gentile converts. To settle the controversy, Paul and Barnabas were deputed to consult the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 1, 2); they returned to communicate the result of their conference (ver. 22), accompanied by Judas Barsabas and Silas, or Silvanus. On preparing for a second missionary tour, a dispute arose between them on account of John Mark, which ended in their taking different routes; Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia, while Barnabas and his nephew revisited his native island (Acts xv. 36-41). At this point Barnabas disappears from Luke's narrative, which to its close is occupied solely with the labours and sufferings of Paul. From the Epistles of the latter a few hints (the only authentic sources of information) may be gleaned relative to his early friend and associate. From 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6, it would appear that Barnabas was unmarried, and supported himself, like Paul, by some manual occupation. In Gal. ii. 1, we have an account of the reception given to Paul and Barnabas by the Apostles at Jerusalem, probably on the occasion mentioned in Acts xv. In the same chapter (ver. 13) we are informed that Barnabas so far yielded to the Judaizing zealots at Antioch, as to separate himself for a time from communion with the Gentile converts. Respecting the later years of Barnabas we have no authentic information. The year when he died cannot be determined with certainty; if his nephew, as some have supposed, joined Paul after that event, it must have taken place not later than A.D. 63 or 64. BARRENNESS is, in the East, the hardest lot that can befal a woman, and was considered among the Israelites as the heaviest punishment with which the Lord could visit a female (Gen. xvi. 2; xxx. 1-23; 1 Sam. i. 6, 29; Isa. xlvii. 9; xlix. 21; Luke i. 25). This general notion of the disgrace of barrenness in a woman may early have given rise, in the patriarchal age, to the custom among barren wives of introducing to their husbands their maid-servants, and of regarding the children born in that concubinage as their own, by which they thought to cover their own disgrace of barrenness (Gen. xvi. 2; xxx. 3). BAR'SABAS. JOSEPH BARSA BAS; JUDAS BARSABAS.] BARTHOLOMEW (the son of Tolmai, 2 Sam. xiii. 37) was one of the twelve Apostles, and is generally supposed to have been the same individual who in John's Gospel is called Nathanael. The reason of this opinion is, that in the three first Gospels Philip and Bartholomew are constantly named together, while Nathanael is nowhere mentioned; on the contrary, in the fourth Gospel the names of Philip and Nathanael are similarly combined, but nothing is said of Bartholomew. Nathanael therefore must be considered as his real name, while Bartholomew merely expresses his filial relation. He was a native of Cana in Galilee (John xxi. 2). He was introduced by Philip to Jesus, who, on seeing him approach, at once pronounced that eulogy on his character which has made his name almost synonymous with sincerity: 'Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile' (John i. 47). He was one of the disciples to whom our Lord appeared after his resurrection, at the Sea of Tiberias (John xxi. 2); he was also a witness of the Ascension, and returned with the other Apostles to Jerusalem (Acts i. 4, 12, 13). Of his subsequent history we have little more than vague traditions. BARTIME US, son of Timeus, the blind beggar of Jericho whom Christ restored to sight (Mark x. 46). BA'RUCH, blessed; the faithful friend and amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah, was of a noble family of the tribe of Judah, and generally considered to be the brother of the prophet Seraiah, both being represented as sons of Neriah; and to Baruch the prophet Jeremiah dictated all his oracles. During the siege of Jerusalem, Baruch was selected as the depositary of the deed of purchase which Jeremiah had made of the territory of Hanameel, to which deed he had been a witness. In the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiachim, king of Judah (B.c. 605), Baruch was directed to write all the prophecies delivered by Jeremiah up to that period, and to read them to the people, which he did from a window in the Temple upon two solemn occasions. He afterwards read them before the counsellors of the king at a private interview, when Baruch being asked to give an account of the manner in which the prophecy had been composed, gave an exact description of the mode in which he had taken it down from the prophet's dictation. Upon this they ordered him to leave the roll, advising that he and Jeremiah should conceal themselves. They then informed the king of what had taken |