Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

But, since the greatest number of christians are not so well versed in the Greek language, as to be able to judge whether those methods of reasoning that are taken from the use of the word which we render baptize, are sufficiently conclusive: And, when it is asserted, that many who are undoubtedly very good masters of the Greek tongue, have determined that it signifies all manner of washing with water, as well as dipping into it, this will be reckoned, by them, a very fruitless and unprofitable subject; however, we are obliged to mention it, because great stress is usually laid on the sense of this word, say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man, who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to wash, as well as to dip. (a)

(a) Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water was certainly that of pouring, and net that of dipping. It is as follows:-St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires thus of the Pharisees; "How could you think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, "who did not in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not once "only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, "who did not then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself baptize, when be "should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear here on earth?"

We find in the first book of Kings, viii. 33, that the order given by Elijah was to fill for barreis with water, and pour it on the wood and on the burnt offering. This pouring of water, Origen, that accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word Baptizo four times; twice with express reference to the Baptism of John; and twice with express reference to that Baptism which took place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are expressly told, was not performed by dipping the wood and sacrifice into water, but by pouring water upon them.

It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion. Mr. Walker tells us," that Porphyrie mentions "a river in India, into which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is imme diately baptized up to his head:" (baptizetai mechri Kephales) ere a person is said to be baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not a total immersion.

"He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the oracle (viz, askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti.") In which instance, if dunai signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it certainly does, then baptize must signify something less than a total immersion.Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under the water. The baptism here described, resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.

The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelli's and Robertson's Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word bapto signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is this. (Baptei men asken, udor de ugron dunei pote.) He indeed baptizeth a bladder or bottle, bus ti "never goeth under the liquid water."

To these instances, we inight add a well known case, taken from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in which the lake is said to be baptized by the bloot of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimati limne porphuree.) This lake was not dipped into the blood of a fog; it was only bespattered and tinged therewith.

We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers and commentators, both ancient and mo dern, that the word baptize has other significations besides that of a total dipping or immer

sion

The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have often translated baptizo into the solowing Latin words, viz. baptizo, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lave, ablun, midefacio, purgo, mundo. No one, I presume, will pretend that all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous-of the same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptirs signify any thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be baptized in some other mode

Besides. if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected from the Greeks language words of the most unequivocal and definire signifi cation. If it had been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they might have used the word Rantize; if the mode of pouring, they might have used the word Etches; if tha mode of bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word Leae: and if it had been their intention to specify thmode of dipping, they might have used the word Dupto or Duno, &c.

REED'S APOLOST

to establish that mode of baptism which is always used by those who are on the other side of the question.

I shall take leave to add, to what that learned author, but now quoted, refers to, has observed on this subject; that it does not appear to me that the word i always signifies to wash, by dipping into water, but by the application of water some other way; because it is sometimes applied to those things which were too large and cumbersome, and therefore could not well be cleansed that way. Thus it is said, in Mark vii. 4. that the Pharisees not only held the washing, or, as it is in the Greek, the baptism of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, which might, indeed, be washed by immersion, but of tables, or, as it may be rendered, of beds, or those seats on which the Jews, according to the custom of the eastern nations, lay at their ease, when they eat their meals. These, I conceive were washed some other way, different from that of dipping or plunging in water; And if it was possible that they might be washed that way, yet the word may be applied to innumerable things, that cannot be baptized by immersion: Therefore, the general sense that we have given of it, that it signifies to wash, whether by dipping into the water, or by the application of water to the thing washed, may justify our practice, with respect to the mode of baptism, commonly used by us.

Object. 1. It is objected hereunto, that the mode used by us, is not properly baptism, but rantism; or, that to sprinkle, or pour, is not to baptize.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that this method of beg ging the question in controversy, is never reckoned a fair way of arguing. If baptism be a using the means of cleansing, by the application of water, which is the thing we contend for, then the word baptize may as well be applied to it as to any other mode of washing. That which may be further replied to this objection is, that if the thing signified by the action of baptizing, namely, the blood of Jesus, together with those gifts and graces of the Spirit, which are applied to those to whom God makes this a saving ordinance, be sometimes set forth by sprinkling or pouring clean water upon a person, then it cannot be well concluded, that sprinkling, or pouring, is not baptizing, though it differ very much from that which they who contend with us about this matter generally call baptizing. That sprinkling or pouring, is sometimes used in scripture, to signify the conferring of those spiritual gifts and graces which are signified in baptism, is very evident; inasmuch as it is said in John i. 17. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us from all sin; and this is called the blood of sprinkling, in Heb. xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. Therefore, in a spiritual sense, sprinkling is called cleansing from sin; and the graces of the

Spirit conferred in regeneration, are represented in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. by sprinkling clean water; which mode of speaking would never be used, were not sprinkling a means of cleansing. And, some think, that the apostle when he speaks of our drawing near to God, having our bodies washed with pure water, Heb. x. 22, intends the ordinance of baptism; yet it alludes to the ceremonial cleansings that were under the law, which were often done by sprinkling: Therefore we cannot but assert, that sprinkling water in baptism, is as much cleansing as any other mode used therein.

Moreover, sometimes the thing signified in baptism, is represented by a metaphor taken from pouring; which, if our mode of baptizing be just, will not seem disagreeable to it; and, it may be, the explication is taken from it, as the conferring the Holy Ghost, which they who were baptized were given to expect, is often called pouring out the Spirit, Acts ii. 17, 18. chap. viii. 38.

Obj. There is another objection which is concluded by many, to be unanswerable, viz. that when we read of baptism in the New Testament, the person baptized is said to go down into the water. Thus the Eunich did, chap. viii. 38. and immediately after this, he is said to come up out of the water; which can be applied, as is supposed, to no other mode of baptism but that of immersion.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that the whole strength of this objection depends upon the sense that is given of the Greek particles, which we often render into, and out of *. But this will have no weight with any but those who are unacquainted with the Greek language, since it is so well known to all that understand it, that the former of these particles often signifies to, as well as into; and the latter from, as well as out of; as innumerable instances might easily be given, was it needful, from scripture, and other Greek authors, in which the words are applied to those things, that according to the natural signification thereof, cannot be understood as denoting into, or out of. There is one scripture which no one can suppose is to be taken in any other sense but what is agreeable to our present purpose, viz. Mat. xvii. 27. wherein our Saviour bids Peter Go to the seat, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh thence, &c. where, by go to the sea, we can understand nothing else, but go to the sea-shore; and yet the word is the same with that which is, in some other places, rendered into. There are other scriptures in which persons are said to go to the mountain, or some other places, wherein it would be very improper to say, that they went into the place; though † Εἰς τὴν θαλασσαν.

•'s and ég.

the word be the same with that which in other instances we render into. And the word * which is sometimes rendered out of, is frequently rendered from, and can be understood in no other sense: As when it is said, in Luke xi. 31. The queen of the south came from the utmost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon; which cannot be understood of her coming out of, but from thence. But, this matter being so well known to all that read the New Testament in the original, it is needless for me to give any other instances. †

As to what concerns the Eunuch's going into the water, I cannot think any thing else is intended by it, but that he descended or lighted down from his chariot, to the water, that is, by a metonymy, to the water-side, in order to his being baptized by Philip. It is no uncommon mode of speaking, to say, that a person goes down to the river-side, to take water, or to the well, to draw it; therefore, this is no strain on the sense of the word; and I am the rather inclined to give into this opinion, because some modern travellers, taking notice of the place where this was done, intimate, that it was only a spring of water; and therefore without sufficient depth to plunge the body in: And some ancient writers, who lived between three and four hundred years after our Saviour's time, as Jerom and Eusebius, intimate the same thing. If it be said, that these

be mistaken as to the place, inasmuch as the particular spot of ground in which this water was, is not mentioned in scripture: I will not lay much stress upon it; however, I cannot but observe, that it is represented by a dimininutive expression, as it is said, they came to a certain water, that is, probably, a brook, which was by the way-side; not a river, or a great collection of water. And it is further observed, that Philip, as well as the Eunuch, went down into the water: though none suppose that he was plunged in the water; therefore it does not certainly appear, from the sense of the word, that the Eunuch was, unless the matter in controversy be taken for granted, that baptism can be performed in no other way, but by plunging.

Moreover, to go down to the water, does not always signify in other scriptures, going down to the bottom of the water; as when the Psalmist, in Psal. cvii. 23. speaks of them that go down to the sea in ships, he does not mean them that go down to the bottom of it; therefore, going down to the water does not always

'Ex.

If any one has a mind to see how these particles us and ex, are used in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. us and w, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out of; but rather to, or fro

signify being plunged in it. As for what is said concerning Philip and the eunuch's coming up out of the water, it may very fairly be understood of their returning from the water-side, and the eunuch's going up again into his chariot. Moreover, I cannot but think, that in this, and all other places, where persons are said to come up out of the water, it denotes an action performed with design, and the perfect exercise of the understanding in him that does it; which seems not agreeable to one who is at the bottom of the water, and cannot well come up from thence, unless by the help of him that baptized him. The sense of the words, coming out of the water, is agreeable to what is said concerning our Saviour at his baptism, in Matt. iii. 16. Jesus went up straightway out of the water; which seems to be a mistake in our translation; where the words maò rõ ùdules, have been rendered, from the water; which is of the same import with the sense of the Greek particle iz, when a person is said to come up out of the water.

Obj. 3. It seems very evident, that John the Baptist used no other mode but that of immersion; because he chose those places to exercise this part of his ministry in, that were well supplied with water, sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, we first read of his removing from the wilderness of Judea, in which he preached the doctrine of repentance; and told the people, that the kingdom of heaven, that is, the gospel-state, which was to begin with the appearing of the Messiah, was at hand; and then we read of his removing to the banks of the river Jordan, for the conveniency of baptizing those who came to him for that purpose: And, after that, we read of another station in which he resided, viz. Enon, near to Salim, and this reason is assigned; because there was much water there, John iii. 23. Now, if he had baptized by sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face, he had no need to remove out of the wilderness of Judea: For, whatever scarcity of water there might be there, it was no difficult matter for him to be supplied with enough to serve his occasion, had this been his mode of baptizing.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that though John removed to Jordan and non, that he might be well supplied with water, as he daily wanted large quantities thereof; yet it doth not necessarily follow from hence, that this was done for the sake of immersion therein: And it doth not sufficiently appear to me, that Enon afforded water deep enough for a person to be baptized in it after this manner; for it seems to be but a small tract of land, in which it is hardly probable, that there were many lakes, or rivers of water contained; which is as much as can be said concerning a well watered country.

« НазадПродовжити »