« PreviousContinue »
mersing in grievous and overwhelming afflictiong. He manifests a degree of reluctance in thus explaining it knowing it to be condemnatory of his system; but he is constrained, with those authorities I have before quoted full in his view, to admit the meanings given by Scapula, Stockius and Campbell. From all these authorities we cannot acquire one idea favorable to sprinkling. Dipping or immersion is the uniform meaning of the term. Nor-can there be one solitary instance found in all the Dictionaries of the Greek language, nor in classical use, that bapto or baptizo signifies to sprinkle or pour. The Greek language, the most philosophic in its construction of all languages, does not use words in a manner so lax and incongruous. Raino signifies to sprinkle, and bapto to dip. Rantizo signifies to besprinkle or scatter all over, and baptizo to plunge or immerse all over. With as much propriety we might say, that to sprinkle and to immerse are one and the same thing, as that baptizo and rantizo were of one and the same import. The ideas attached to each term are as distinct as the words them. selves.
That Mr. W. may rebut the Paido-baptist authorities which I have empanneled against him, I give place to him.
Mr.W. then proceeded :
I was telling you, my friends, that Mr. C. was going to give you a bundle" of Greek, and you see I was not inistaken. He has read you a "bundle" of Canpbell, but this Campbell did not care much how baptism was adminis. tered, he is so much the more suitable to be quoted by my opponent. With regard to all these dictionary authori. ties I only observe, that it may be so and so, and yet so long as they admit that “to wash" is one ineaning of the term, it is easy for us to shew that washing may be performed by sprinkling I shall read you a passage from Mark 7th, and make some observations on it, which will serve to shew that the term was used to denote sprinkling: Mark 7th, 2, 4, “ And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say with unwashen) hands, they found fault; for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, cat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And
many other things there be, which they have received to , hold, as the washing of cups and pots, and of brazen ves.. sels and cables.” In the fourth verse we have parts of te verb baptizo-it would read, according to Campbell, " And when they come from the market, except they are immersed, they eat not.” Again, in the last clause of the verse the same word occurs, « baptismous," the baptisms or inmersions of cups, pots and tables. Are we then to suppose that the Jews, every time they came home from market, dipped themselves in water, or that they dipped their cups and tables in water every time they washed them? Now we must either admit that the Jews washed by sprinkling or pouring, or baptised by sprinkling, or that they dipped themselves all over in water every time they came from market. I insist, then, that the term baptizo signifies to wash, and that this washing must hare been done by sprinkling, and not by dipping; and if, in one place, or in some places, it signifies to wash by sprinkling, it
do so in many others. I then continue to hold fast my integrity, and to maintain that baptism may be administered by sprinkling.
Mr. C. has been so much engaged in reading Greek, that he forgot to reply to what I advanced concerning the anatogy, that sprinkling bears to the application of the blood of Christ, as represented in this ordinance. Pero haps he wishes to wave the discussion of that part of the subject-he was also entertaining us with the Westmiaster Divines, and the parliamentary moderator, the crea. ture of the court of parliament. I consider it no dispar. agement to a good man to be appointed by the parliament, nor does it, in my opinion, weaken the influence of his decision, on the various subjects discussed in that assembly. I would wish to know how my opponent views the word embapto, it occupies no distinct place in the Grek language, if bapto is to be translated dip. The truth is, that embapto is the only word translated dip in the New Testament, and must be somewhat different from bapto, else there is a prefixed syllable, which has no meaning
My friends this is the last time that I am to address you on this occasion. According to the arrangement made, my opponent will fiuish the debate. It is my place, then, to draw my remarks to a close; and I would briefly observe, that I nerer argued with any person, that appea
red more to feel the force of iny arguments, than my, present opponent. You will, no doubt, many of you at least, have observed, with what difficulty he replied to many things I advanced. I have no doubt, he will strive to persuade you, that he has had the best of the argument; but I have no doubt, that many of you are so well infor- . med, that you will not be led by him. It is not the man who bas the most to say, that is always right. Nay, the truth is plain, and does not require so much to defend it, as error requires to maintain its precarious ground. I hope you, who have been baptised in your infancy, will realize the obligations you are under; and you, who have dedicated your children to the Lord in baptism, will see that you bring theoi up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and make them acquainted with the vows whicle you have vowed for them; and thus both you and they will receive the benefits arising from the ordinance of infant baptism ;'and the difference betwixt your children, and those of others, who deny them the seal of the core. .. nant, will be the more conspicuous. I must, then, entreat you to judge impartially for yourselves, on the merits of all that has been said, on both sides, and ever follow that which is good.
My last reply was to the following effection
I shall now bring forwapanother extract from Mr. * Campbell, which will plače, in true light, those verses duoted by Mr. Walker, from Mark 7, 2-4. I expected Mr. W. would bring forth this passage, so much backDeyed by the paido-baptists I presume it was with a view to correct the false glosses of his brethren that Mr. G. , Campbell wrote the following article. If he stood in my o place this day, he could not use words better calculated to silence my opponent and to expose the fallacy and insignificance of his remarks. I shall, therefore, satisfy inyself with merely transcribing them .I shall first transcribe his translation of the passage, and then his critical notes upon it.
Cainpbell's Gospels, Sect. 4, page 71-Mark 7,2 * When these observed some of his disciples eat, with: impure (that is unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, who observe the traditions of the Elders, eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them; and if they
be come from the market, by dipping them; and many other usages there are which they have adopted, as baptisms of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds.": Elis critical notes on this passage, are, page 205, vol. 4; 6 A small degree of attention will suffice to convince a judicious reader, that there must be a mistake in the common version of this passage. For if, by what we are told, v. 3d, we are to understand, as it is allowed by every body, that they did not eat on any occasion, till they had washed their hands; to what purpose was this added, v. 4: “ And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not ? Could any person suppose that, if washing before meals was a duty, their having been at market, where they were more exposed to defilement, would release thein from the obligation ? Besides, there is, in the first clause, an indistinctness and obscurity which leaves the reader much at a loss for the meaning.' “ Except they wash oft, they eat not." ! Does this imply that they must wash often before every meal? Or that their washing frequently before one meal, will compensate for their not washing at all before another? It is well known, and indeed the circumstances of the story, as related here, and in Math. may satisfy us, that neither of these was the case. For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, 1st That the two verbs rendered wash in the common Testament are different in the origiriak The first is, nipsontai, properly translated wash; the second is baptisontai” which limits us to a particular mode of washing, for baptizo denotes to plunge, to dip.” (Here follows a criticism on pugme which is foreign to our purpose-he resuines
the subject, p. 206 :) “ Baptisesthai, says the excellent critic Wetstein, with which I concur (as also Bishop Pearce) “est manus aquæ immergere, niptesthai mapibus aifundere.” The former signifies to dip the hands in water, the latter to sprinkle them with water. This is inore especially the import when the words are, as here, opposed to each other, otherwise neptein, like the general word to wash in English, may be used for baptizein to dip, because the genus comprehends the species, but not conversely baptizein for niptein the species for the genus.By this interpretation, the words, which, as rendered in the common version, are unmeaning, appear both signifcant and emphatical; and the contrast in the Greek is preserved in the translation. The Vulgate does not confound
the two verbs as the English Testament does : at the same. time it fails in marking the precise meaning of each -Pharisaei enim-nisi crebo layerint manus, non manducant: el a furo, nisi baptizentur, non commedunt. Ful the Pharisees unless they frequently wash, do not eat: and when they come froin the market unless they are dipped, or edip themselves) they eat not."
Maimonides says of this custom amongst the Jews, and who could know better than a Jewish Rabbin of those tinies ? 6 they washed in a laver which holds 40 seahs of water, which are not drawn; every defiled man dips limself, except a profiu vious man, and in it they dip all unclean vessels, as cups, pots, and brazen vessels."
A paido-baptist, ihen, refutes Mr. W's view of Mark so completely as not to require a word from a baptist on the subject.
His remark on os embapto" is in no wise better than his comment on Mark 7—4. It is not a fact, that embapto is the only word rendered dip, in the common version. Ses Luke 16-24, "ina bapse to akron"-'That he may dip the tip of his finger in water, here it is bapto, and not embapto that is used. Again Juho 13-26 bapsas" a part of bapto is rendered dipped when I have dipped it." “ Again, in Revel. 19-13, bebamenor, the participle of bapto, is translated dip— bis garment dipped in blood." On these three phrazes Parkhurst observes, that bapteinudatos is a good Greek phraze for dipping in water. Where now is Mr. Wi's criticisni and his fact concerning embanto. Enbapto occurs in John 13 and 26 and is there translated as bapsas, and when he had dipped the sop, so that it is synonymous with bapto, only expressive of the same idea with a greater emphasis-Stokius and Scapula explain it by mergo, immergo, just as they do bapto, and Parkhurst renders it in English to dip in-bapto and embapto, occur, each, three times in the New Testament, and are alike translated to dip or to dip in, in every place they occur, Mr. W's. criticisins in this, as in all former instances, will not bear the test. When weighed in the balance they are found wanting,
I come now to the last branch of the argument to be submitted at this time. My opponent has told you
my neglect in not replying to his remarks on the blood of sprinkling," and the analogy of sprinkling water to the sprinkling of blood. My reason for so-doing was, that