« PreviousContinue »
zein is, to immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The noun ought never to be rendered baptism, nor the verb to bapo tize, but when employed to a religious ceremony. The verb baptizein sometimes, and baptein, which is synonimous, often occur in thě Septuagint and Apochryphal writings, and is always rendered by one or other of these words, to dip, to wash, or to plunge. When the original expression, therefore, is rendered in familiar language, there appear's nothing harsh or extraordinary in the metaphor; phrases like these-to be overwhelmed with grief, to be iminersed in aifliction, will be found common in most languages.” This testimony is still more expli. citly given in his 66 Dissertations," page 23, vol. 2d.' le censures translators for translating certain names of rites and festivals, and for merely adopting the original names of others : his words are-Tbus the word peritome they have translated circumcisio, (circumcision); but the word baptisma they have retained, changing only the letters: from Greek to Roman. Yet the latter was just as suscep. tible of a literal version into Latin, as the former. Imo : mersio, tinctio, (immersion or dipping) answers as exactJy in the one case as circumcisio in the other. And if it. be said of these words, that they do not rest on classical authority, the same is true also of this. Etymology, and the usage of ecclesiastical authors, are all that can be pleaded.
Now the use with respect to the names adopted in the Vulgate, has commonly been imitated, or rather implicitly followed, through the western parts of Europe. We have deserted the Greek names where the Latios have deserted them, and have adopted them where the Latins have adopted them. Hence we say circumcision, and not peritony ; and we do not say immersion but baptism. Yet when the language furnishes us with materials for a version, so exact and analogical, such a version conveys the sense more perspicuously than a foreign pame. For this reason, I should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun regularly formed from the verb to immerse) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice."
Mr. W. then, is sufficiently refuted by one of the ablest critics of the Presbyterian church, and therefore I am exempted from the trouble of doing it. That the whole task may not devolve on the labors of Mr. G. Campbell to
refute the Paido-baptists, I choose rather to state some facts, and to adduce some other evidences, that may confirm what I have already quoted, from the learned 6 Distertations" and 66 Critical Notes."
It is a fact well known in some parts of Europe, and also to some persons in the United Statęs, that king James, by whose authority the present common version of the scriptures was made, prohibited the translators from translating into English baptisma and baptizo where these words respected the rite; but ordered them to adopt these words, as they were adopted in the vulgate.* These were not the only words concerning which the king gave instructions. His object was to prevent any of the contending parties in the church, from having any superior advantage from the new version, choosing rather to adopt than translate such words as were a subject of dispute amongst controversialists, leaving each party to affix what meanings it chose to these words.Had the translators been at liberty to have rendered these terms by appropriate words, the controversy would have been at an end long ere now. Instead of the command, Be baptised every one of you,” it would have read, be dipped every one of you, or be immersed every one of you. Instead of “baptise all nations," it would have read, immerse all pations. Instead of " he baptised him," it would have read, he immersed him-and instead of she baptised at Enon because there was much water there," it would have been, he immersed at Enon because the: was much water there. No controversy conøerning the 56 mode" of baptism would have now existed. Ev. ery person would have read in plain English, that immer, sion was performed by immersing.
Another fact worthy to be remarked in this place is, that the Westminster Divines were much perplexed and divided on the “ action" of baptism. Although they were convoked and authorised by the parliament, and their moderator.appointed by the parliament, when forming the creed of millions of protestants, yet they retained so much regard for the meaning of the terms baptisma and baptizo, that they could not at once consent to establishing sprinkling as baptism. After long debating, the question was
See Lewis's copy of the instrnctions given by king James, to the translators of the authorised translation of tbe Bible,
put to vote. There was an equal number on both sidese The moderator, yes, the parliamentary moderator, bad the casting vote. I need scarcely tell you that, as he was the creature* of the parliament, he would and did vote for the easiest and most polite" mode, in the cold climate of England. There were but 51 members present, besides the Lords that were appointed to watch themi, that they might not transgress their commission. These 51 stood when the votes were taken thus, 26 for sprink, ling, and 25 for immersion--the practice of all Episcopalians, Independants, and Presbyterians, rests upon the casting vote of this august moderator. As the poor Baptists neither had the disposition por privilege to be present, they were allowed to continue their practice upon the unanimous vote of all the Apostles who acted not under the commission of the parliament of England, but under the commission of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Never was there an assembly of Divines so completely trammelled, as the Westminster Assembly. They were the humble servants of the parliament. They were confined in their debates to such things as the parliament proposed. Many Lords and Commons were joined with them, to see that they did not go beyond their commission.” They met in Henry the 7th's Chapel, and when they had served the purposes of the parliament they dismissed them. Such was the assembly that framed the Confession of Faith, so popular and so canonical amongst so many devout people of the United States and orth Britain. The same parliament were of so devout a cas? that they attempted to have a parliamentary Bible, and actually summoned a number of the same Divines, with some others, to write a commentary on the whole Bible, such as they would approve. They succeeded in this also, and when the work was finished they entitled it, emphatically, “ The Annotations on the Bible."
* The reader will pardon me for calling the moderator of the Westminster assembly the creature of the parliament, when he considers that he was created moderator by the parliament, and that, when the first moderator died, the parliament would not allow them to elect one from among themselves, but appointed a successor according to their own will. See the minutes of the assembly, met at Westminster, A. D. 1643. See also the life of Dr. Lightfoot, in bis folio works.
A third fact that I shall mention, on this part of the gubject, is, that the Greek Church, which must be supposed to understand their own language best; always im. inerse all subjects of the ordinance of Baptism-cold as their climate is, and numerous as their defects may be, they never, as the Roman Church, departed from the true action of baptism, but at all times practised immersion,
A fourth fact, corroborative of the above, is, that the ancient Latin fathers considered sprinkling, even when applied to those whose debility and impending dissolution prohibited immersion, not worthy to be called baptism. Eusebius has these words recorded, page 113, spoken in the reign of Decius, against a certain person aspiring to the office of a bishop, viz. 66 He fell into a grievous dis. temper, and it being supposed that he would die immedi. ately, he received baptism (being besprinkled with water) on the bed whereon we lay; (if that can be called baptism.") Valesius hath the foitawing note on this occurrence. “ People that were sick could not be dipped in water by the priest, but were sprinkled with water by him. This baptism was thought imperfect, and not solemn (law.. ful) for several reasons. Also they who were thus baptised, were called ever afterwards Clinici, and by the 12th canon of the council of Neocæsarea, these Clinici werc prohibited priesthood.".
I come now to add, to the authority of Campbell's Notes and Dissertations, the testimony of eminent lexicographers. I begin first with the renowned Scapula, the father of modern lexicons: Bapto, he defines mergó, immergo, item lingo, (quod sit iminer gendo)-in English, to plunge, immerse or dye, because coloring is done by immersing. He quotes Luke 16, 24, ina s bapse to akron tou daktu. lou autau toy udatos"-" that he inay dip the tip of his finger in water." Baptizo, which, some pedo-baptists say, differs in signification, he defines, mergo, seu immergo, vel submergo, to plunge, immerse, overwhelm, or plunge under ; also, abluo, to wash, as ting, to color, being both the effects of dipping-he quotes Mark 7th as an instance of its being rendered to wash. How this washing was performed we shall shortly see.
We shall next cite the venerable Stockius : « Baptizo generatim advi vocis intinctionis ac immersionis noiionem obtinct-Speciatiin proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquam. Tropice, per metalepsin est lavare abito
ere, quia aliquid intingi ac immergi solet in aquam ut lavatur vel abluatur"- The English of which is, “ Generally, it obtains by the natural import of the word, the idea of dipping in, or immersing. Specially, and properly, it signifies to immerse or to dip-figuratively, it sig. nifies to wash, because any thing that is washed is usually dipped or immersed in water." Such is the meaning given by Stockius-he says, moreover, with a view to the pedo-baptist system, on Mark 7th, that washing may be performed by sprinkling water on the thing to be washed but this is not given as a meaning of the word, but as an accommodation of the term washing, to the views of bis practice as a pedo-baptist. Under the term baptisia, which he explains immersion, or dipping in water, he observes, “ this word is used to designate the first sacrament, which they call the sacrament of initiation, namely baptism, in which the baptised were, in former times, inmersed in water." - Even as now they are sprinkled with water.” Under the word baptismos, he uses these words: “Hinc transfertur ad baptismum sacramentalem ubi baptizandus olim in aqua immergebatur, ut a peccati sordibus ablueretur, ac in fædus gratiæ reciperetur.' Hence this word is applied to the sacrament of baptism, because, in ancient times, the baptised was immersed in water, that the filth of sin might be washed away, and that he might be received into the Covenant of Grace.
After these authorities, it will be of no great consequence to cite Parkhurst, who is but a follower of them and G. Campbell. Under the word baptizo, from bapto, to dip, he, however, accords with them in the six mean. ings he gives to it-1. To dip, inmerse, or plunge in water-2. - Mid and pass, to wash oneself, be washed, wash, i. e. the hands, by immersion or dipping in water3. 6 'To baptise, to immerse in, or wash with, water, in token of purification from sin." Under the first meaning he adds, that the meaning there placed under it, does not strictly occur in the New Testament, but only so far as it is included in the second and third meanings above quoted. His 4th, 5th and 6th meanings are the figura tive uses of the term in scripture, and ore analogical to what he says is the 6th acceptation of it, in the New Testa ment – To be immersed or plunged in a flood or sea, as it were of grievous afflictions and sufferings." Baptisma, he explains “ap iminersion or washing with water," im