« PreviousContinue »
a clearer emblem of the atoning blood of Christ, than the total immersion of the body in water. Besides, there is as much virtue in a few drops of water, as there is in the largest quantity. And if we suppose baptism to have a reference to the conferring of the spirit of God, immersion is not a suitable emblem of it, but pouring is very expressive of it. So that all the things signified by baptism, are better illustrated & exhibited by sprinkling than by dipping.
The phrase 66 en udati," so often quoted by the bantists, to shew that baptism was performed in water, is capable of being rendered with water. Thus en is translated, Luke 14, 31, “ He that cometh (en) with ten thousand”-indeed, en is often translated by sundry words besides in, such as by, with, through, towards, &c. And even where it is translated in, it does not always signify immersed or enveloped with that in relation to which it is used. Thus in John, first chapter, we read, John was in the wilderness-these things were done in Bethabara --the light shineth in the darkness : now we are not to suppose that John was immersed in the wilderness, or that those miracles were enveloped in Bethabara.
Again : the word " baptizo," which is commonly translated baptise, does not necessarily signify to dip, but to sprinkle or pour. This I will prove from the usage of the word in the New Testament it is said, Luke 11, 87, “A certain Pharisee asked Jesus to dine with him; and - he went in anil sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first wash.. ed before dinner.” Now certainly it was not his whole body, but his hands, that is intended here, and we know, that a man's hands is washed by sprinkling water or pouring water upon them. Thus Elisha poured water upon the hards of Elijah. Again, the Jewish sprinklings, and there were not a few of them, were called baptisms. The Apostle, in the ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, 10th verse, says, “ It stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings," (baptisms.) Even 6 bapto"». itself, which is the root of baptizo, sometimes signifies to sprinkle-thus Nebuchadnezzer's body was wet with the dew of Heaven, Daniel 4th, 33d, & 5th, 21st; here the term bapto is applied, when only sprinkling could be inteaded, for, certainly, Nebuchadnezzer's body was not immersed in the dew. Now as it is agreed that the words bapto and baptizo signify to wash, the only thing to con
tend for is, how is the water to be applied in washing, whether by sprinkling or pouring, or by dipping, the thing washed in water. The above texts shew that it was by sprinkling, and not by dipping. Again, the meaniog of the ordinance of baptism, as explained in many passages, fully shews that this is the true meaning of the word-thus, 66 be baptised for the reinission of sins, be baptised and wash away your sins, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, but ye are washed, but ye are justified ;' now how is this washing performed, « by the blood of sprinkling"66 your hearts are sprinkled from a guilty conscience." So that the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the ordinance, concur in establishing the point, that sprinkling is the true mode of baptism. I know Mr. C. is anxious to get at this huge pile of Greek-you will po doubt be much entertained with it he may now proceed.
I then rejoined: . Mr. W. has inveighed no little against these Greek authorities which lie before us. Though I am not surpri. sed at this, when I consider what they contain, yet I can. not but remark, that his complaints are very unreasona. ble. Who has rendered an appeal to the original languages necessary ? Most assuredly not the baptists: they are content with the present version, in so far as the merits of this question is concerned ; at least they are willing to abide by it alone. They can see their practice clearly sanctioned by it, and not a word can they see in ít, concerning the sprinkling of infants or adults. If, then, the Pedo-baptists will abide by it, and admit it as evidence in this and every such investigation, we shall have no occasion for this 66 pile of Greek." But this they have not hitherto done, and it is to be feared that they will mot consent to it. How often, when a plain unlettered baptist reasons with some "learned divine," or 6 wise layman,” is he told of his incapacity to argue on baptism, because of his want of erudition. Oft, when the pasa suming English reader of the New Testament tells the só profound linguist" of their being baptised in rivers, of their going down into the water, and of their coming up out of the water, he is modestly told, that if he understood Greek he would know better, for the Greek Testaa. ment made it plain that they were only baptised at or
dear to, rivers, and that going down into, only meant going down « towards” the water; and that coming up out of, only meant, “in Greek," coming from the edge of the water. It is the Pedo-baptists that render this appeal necessary; and therefore it is, that it comes with so bad a grace from Mr. W. to speak against an appeal, which his own cause and party have rendered necessary. But I repeat it again, that the English New Testament sufficiently shews us that a believer is the only proper subject, and that the only baptism of divine au. thority is immersion. An appeal to the original, however, very much strengthens our cause, for in fact our faith and practice on this subject, is much more plainly sanctioned from the Greek New Testament than from the Eoglish version of it. I am always led to suspect that a man's acquaintance with Greek is very superficial, or his prejudices very strong, when he atteinpts to justify the custom of sprinkling infants by Greek criticism.
As my opponent has broken the way into Greek criti. cism, I shall attempt to follow him ; I shall only premise one thing concerning the authorities which I am about to quote, which is, that they were the most eminent scholars and confessedly the greatest masters of the Greek language, which modern Europe has produced ; and, what is not a little remarkable, they were pedo-baptists ; consequently, their testimony cannot be suspected of any partiality to the cause I advocate. I shall begin with Dr. George Campbell, Professor of Greek in the college of Aberdeen, who is the boast of the Athens of Europe, and the most distinguished luminary in the Greek tongue, in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. He was a pedobaptist, because he considered the sprinkling of infants a matter of indifference as a religious custom that had obtained in the Presbyterian Church without scripture authority, which he found himself, from some causes of expediency, inclined to support ; at the same time, he is so candid as to tell them the plain truth, with regard to the true meaning of those terms and phrases, which are so often quoted by them, in support of their practice. With regard to the scripture form of Church government, as far as that was to be ascertained, either from a knowledge of the ancient languages, or from ecclesiastical history, they argued that it was independent, and not Presbyterial, in the common sense of that word.' I mention this as an
evidence of his candor and impartiality even in those things, on which, as a true son of the Church, he might have been expected to have been either silent, or more flattering in his remarks. It is a fact well known in Scotland, and in some regions in America, that bis books contributed no little to making many independents and baptists.
The first quotation that I shall make from him, is from his Notes, critical and explanatory, on the most difficult and doubtful phrases in the New Testament, particularly the 4 Gospels. What I quote from him here, is intended as an answer to Mr. W's criticism
prepositions; and also bearing upon the word, baptizo. His words are the following, Boston Edition, pages 23 and 24 - In water in the Holy Ghost, en udati en agio pneuinati.” English Testament, with water--with the holy gkost-Vulgate-in aqua, in Spiritu Sancto. Thus, also, the Syriac and other ancient versions. All the modern translations from the Greek, which I have seen, render the words as common ver: sion does, except Le Clerk, who says, dans l'eau, dans le Saint Esprit. I am sorry to say that the Popish translators from the vulgate, have shown greater veneration for the style of that version, than the generality of protestant translators have shewn from that of the origia nal. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render 6 en to Jordana,” in the sixth verse, in the Jordan, though nothing can be plainer, that if there be any incongruity in the espression in water, this in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition en could not be avoided there, without adopting a circuinlocution, and saying, with the water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring.
The word baptizein, both in sacted authors and in elassical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Falhers, tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this inean ing-thus it is, en udati, en to Jordano. But I would not lay muth stress on the preposition en, which answering to the Hebrew. beth, may denote with as well as inun
did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said anabainein, to arise, emerge or ascend, verse 16, apo tou udatos-and Acts 8, 39, ex tou udatos, from, or out of the water. Let it be observed farther, that the verbs raino and rantizo used in scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, saith God, Ezek. 36 & 25, or as it runs in the English Bible literally from the He. brew, I will sprinkle clean water upon you, in the Septuagintaw Raino eph'umas katharon udon, and not as baptizo is always construed Rano umas en katharo udati. See, also, Exodus 29, 21 : Lev. 6, 27_16, 14. Had bap. tizo been here employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, (which, as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical,) the expression would, doubtless, have been, Ego men baptizo eph umas udor, or apo tou udatos, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo, is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original inport. It is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgment to be warped by the sentiments and OUSTOMs of the sect which they prefer. The true par. tizan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to cor, rect the diction of the spirit by that of the party.” Thus far Mr. G. Campbell. I have thus brought a pedo-baptist to confront a pedo-baptist, a pedo-baptist to condemn a pedo-baptist; and it is done rationally, candidly and effectually, by a critic that has no superior in the sphere of his criticism. I could adduce many critical remarks, corroborative of Mr. C.'s criticism, but I deem it as unnecessary as to paint the diamond or perfume the rose. I would much rather silence Mr. W.'s critical remarks by . learned men from his own ranks, than by my own obsero vations or those of the baptists. With regard to the Eng lish of the word bapto, and baptizo, we shall further hear my namesake, Campbell's Critical Notes on Math. 20, 22, page 128, vol. 4—66 Undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo-To baptisma o ego baptizomai baptisthenai.” Eng. Testament, 6 To be baptized with the baptism which I must be baptized with.” The pris mitive signification of baptisma is immersion, of banti