« AnteriorContinuar »
we are told many things concerning this tradition, as the quantity and quality of the water they used, the vesels they washed in, as well as how far this waihing reached, which was pra wy, by which they meant, either the back of the band or the wrist, or else the elbow, as Theophylałt obferves on Mark vii. 3. who in this is followed by Capellus“. Now some one of these, the word πυγμη,
intends, which we transate oft. As to their manner of washing, it was either by taking water in one hand and pouring it upon the other, and then lifting it up', that the water might run down to the aforesaid parts, that to it might not return and defile them; or else it was performed by an immersion of them into water; which lacier was accounted the most effectual way, and uled by the more fuperftitious part of the Jews. Now those who contend the most for a washing of hands, and not the whole body, as Pocock P and Lightfoot, yet frankly acknowledge that it must be understood of washing of them by immersion. Lightfooi's words are these, “ The Jews used, says he, o't nog“ a washing of hands o;" that is, by
lifting them up in the inanner before delcribed; and '71523an immersion " of the hands; and the word uit. cop tall, used by our Evangelist, seems cu aniwer “ to the former, and Barli wartal, to the latter." So that from the whole, luppole washing of hands is here intended; yet the sense of the Greek word, B27TIS contended for, is nevertheless effcctually secured: Nor need we be much concerned at 2 Kings iii. 11. being thrown in our way by Mr M. p. 41. For,
1. The text does not say that Elisha poured water upon the hands of Elijab, to wash his hands withal : and if he asks what did he then do it for; fuppofe I should answer, I cannot tell, how will he help himselt? it lies upon him to prove that he did it for that end, which he will not find very easy to do.
2. Sone of the Jewish writers' think, that washing of hands, is not intended, but fonie very great miracle, which followed upon Elisha's pouring water on Elijab's hands, and is therefore mentioned as a thing known, and what would Terve to recommend him to the kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom. But taken in the other sense, the recommendation would be but very inconsiderable ; besides, they were now in a very great strait for water, ver. 9. and they might expect, from his former performance, fome miracle would be now wrought by him for their relief, as was ver. 17, 20. But,
Spicileg, in Mar, vii. 3. o Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. 8. & Lex. Talm. p. 1335. Pocock not. misc. p. 375, 376, 393. Scaliger. Elenchus Trihæres. Serrar. c. 7.
P Pocock, not, misc. p. 397, 398. 9 , & videtur vocabulum motwan, apud Evangelistam noftram, priori refpondere, & Barti(witae pofteriori. Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. in Mar. vii. 4.
immerfionein manum טבילת ידים & ,lotionem manuum נטילת ידים a Adhibuerunt Juda
s Vid. R. David Kimchi & R, Sol. Jarchi in loc.
3. Suppose washing of hands is intended, and that this phrase is expressive of Elisa's being Elijab's ministering servant, and that it was his usual method to wash his master's hands by pouring water upon them; it makes nothing aginst the sense of the word in Mark vii. 4. since that regards the superstitious washing of hands, as has been observed, which was performed by an immersion of them, and is there juftly reprehended by our Lord.
Secondly, The other text produced by Mr M. in p. 41. is Heb. ix. 10. where the apostle fpeaks of divers washings or baptisms, which I have asserted to be performed always by bathing or dipping, and never by pouring or sprinkling. And I still abide by my assertion, the instances produced by him being insufficient to disprove it.
1. He mentions Heb. ix. 19. where the apostle speaks of Moses's sprinkling the book and people with blood; but does he say that they were washed therewith ? or was ever this instance of sprinkling reckoned among the ceremonial ablutions ? When only a few drops of blood or water are sprinkled upon persons or things, can they be said, in any just propriety of speech, to be washed therewith?
2. He instances in Exodus xxix. 4. which speaks of the washing of Aaron and his fons, but not a word either of sprinkling or pouring, so that it makes nothing for his purpose : Besides, the Septuagint here use the word awa, by which they always express the Jewish bathings, which were performed by a total immersion of the body in water.
3. His next instance is Numbers viii. 6, 7. Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus Malt thou do unto them to cleanse them; Sprinkle vater of purifying upon them. But why did not he read on? and let them Mave all their flesh, and wah their clothes, and so make themselves clean ; that is, by bathing their whole bodies, which was done, as the Targum of Jonathan upon the place says, in forty measures of water. Now, it was thus the Levites were washed. Sprinkling the water of purification, was indeed a ceremony used preparatory to this bathing, but was itself no part of it, as will more fully appear from,
4. His other instance in Numbers xix. 18. where it is said, that tents, vessels, or persons, that touched a bone, or one sain, or one dead, or a grave, were to be Sprinkled; but why did not he transcribe the 19th verse? where his readers would have been informed, that as this sprinkling was to be done on the third and seventh days, so after that, on the seventh day, the unclean person was to purify bimself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water : So that all those asperfions before, were but so many preparations to the general washing or bathing himself all over in water, on the seventh day. I shall therefore still abide by it, that none of the ceremonial washings were performed by sprinkling; and indeed, to talk of washing by sprinkling, deserves rather to be laughed at, than to have a serious answer; it being no more reconcilable to good sense, than it is to the just propriety of language, or universal customs of nations. Froin the whole it appears, that Maimonides was not mistaken in his observation; and that the word in Hebrews ix. 10. properly signifies bathings or dippings. And now,
Thirdly, We are come, as he says, to that great text, i Cor. x. 2. which he directs to, as the poor man and woman's Lexicon; and it is pity but that they should know how to make use of it. Here the children of Israel are said to be baptized in the cloud, and in the sea. But since the word is here used in a figurative sense, it is not very fair in our antagonilts to urge us with it, nor, indeed, any other place where it is so used; yet we are not afraid of engaging with them in the consideration of those places, and particularly this; wherein there is enough to justify the apostle in the use of the word, and at the same time fecure its fenfe on our side. When we consider, that the cloud in which they are said to be baptized, passed over them, so that they were covered therewith; and if it let down, at the same time, a shower of rain upon thein, it makes it still look more like a baptism; which also is aptly resembled by their partage through the sea, the waters itanding up on both sides, so that they seemed to be buried in them. Which things being considered, justifies the apostle, I say, in the use of the word, which strietly and properly signifies dipping or plunging, Words, when used in a figurative sense, though what is expressed by them is not literally true ; yet the literal sense is not lost thereby: For instance, in the word dip. When a person has been in a large shower of rain, fo that his clothes and body are exceeding wet, we often say of such an one, he is finely dipt; the meaning of which is, that he is as wet as if he had been dipe all over in a brook or river. So likewife of a person that has just looked into a book, controversy, art, or science; we say, that he has just dipt into it; whereby we mean, that he has arrived but to a small acquaintance with, or knowledge in those things. Now would it not be a vain thing for a man, from hence, to attempe to prove, that the word dip is not to be understood in its native, common, and literal sense, in which we mostly use it. This observation will serve to vindicate my way of accounting for the use of the word in the present text, as well as for Barlow, in Dan. iv. 33. In fine, fron the whole, we may well conclude that Baptilm ought to be performed by immersion, plunging, or dipping in water, according to the practice of John, Christ, and his apostles, the nature and end of the ordinance, and the true and native signification of the word; which mode of baptizing has been used in all ages of the world, and I doubt not but will be, notwithstanding all opposition made against it.
As to the endangering of health by immersion, I referred the reader to Sir John Floyer's History of Cold-bathing. Mr M. insinuates that I have misrepresented him. I only intimate to the reader, that Sir John gives a relation of several cures performed by cold-baching : And I could easily fill up several pages with a catalogue of diseases for which he says it is useful, together with instances of cures performed by it. He asks, “Why I do not inform my reader in how
many cases Sir J. F. and Dr B. thought cold-bathing inconvenient and dan
gerous ?” I could, indeed, soon acquaint the reader, that Sir John Floyer thought it not proper to be used when persons were hot and sweating, nor after excessive eating or drinking; as also, that they should not stay in it too long, until they were chilled; and that if any danger came by it, it was usually in such cases : But this will do his cause no service, nor affect ours. I could also have cold my reader, that he thinks cold-bathing to be useful in Consumptions, Cacarrhs, &c. the cases which Mr M. instances in; who cites Dr Cheyne's Esay on Health, p. 108. where the Doctor says, “that Cold-bathing should never be “ used under a fit of a chronical distemper, with a quick pulse, or with a head“ ach, or by those that have weak lungs.” But why does he not acquaint his reader that the Doctor in the very same paragraph, says,
" that cold-bathing “ is of great advantage to health-It proinotes perspiration, enlarges the circu
lation, and prevents the danger of catching cold.” So that every body will easily see, as all experience testifies, that there is no force in the argument, taken from the endangering of health by immersion. By this time the reader will be capable of judging whecher Mr Gill is fairly answered or no, as Mr M. has expressed in his title-page; though it would have been as well to have left it for another to have made the remark, and so cook the advice of the wise man, Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips: But before I conclude, I fall take liberty to ask Mr M. four or five questions.
1. Why does he not tell the world who that fervant of Christ is, whose words he uses; he says, I am mistaken in saying that they are the words of Russen; but I still aver, that they are used by him ; but whether Rusen took them from his servant of Christ, or his servant of Christ from Russen, I cannot tell; for that two men, without the knowledge of one another's words, should fall into the same odd, and aukward way of speaking, and commit the very fame blunders, is not reasonable to suppose ; but however, let him be who he will, Mr Slennett's reply to Russen, which I have transcribed, fully detects the fin and folly of those indecent expressions. As to what Mr M. says, p. 44. “ that " he is very willing that both Stennett and Rusjen should lie dormanc;" I beVOL. II. LL
lieve • Proverbs xxvij. 2.
lieve it, for as the latter will never be of any service to his cause, so the former would give a considerable blow to it, was his book more diligently perused.
2. What does he mean by the word of the Lord, he so often mentions, when speaking of the sense of the Greek word ? Does he mean the original text of the New Testament? That uses a word in the account it gives of this ordinance, which, as has been made appear, always signifies to dip or plunge. Or, by the word of the Lord, does he niean our translation; which uses the word baptize, thereby leaving the sense of the Greek word undetermined, had not the circumsances, attending the accounts we have of the administration of this ordinance, sufficiently explained it; as will clearly appear to every one who considers them: Had this rendered it dip, as some other versions have done, none, one would think, would have been at a loss about the right mode of administering this ordinance ; though in Holland, where they use no other word but dipping to express baptism by, yet they nevertheless use sprinkling; nay, as I am informed, the minister when he only sprinkles or pours water upon the face of the infant, says, “I dip thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
holy Ghost.” Such a force have prejudice and custom on the minds of men, that it puts them on doing what is contrary to the plain and manifest sense of words.
3. Why has he dropt his new.found name of Plungers, which he seemed to be so fond of in his former performance, and thought so exceeding proper for us, and revived the old name of Anabaptifts? which we cannot be, neither according to his principles, nor our own; not according to ours, because we deny pouring or sprinkling to be baptism; not according to his, because he denies dipping or plunging to be baptism.
4. Why are Dr Owen's arguments for Infants-baptism published at the end of his book ? How impertinent is this? When the controversy between us, is not about the subjects, but the mode of baptism: Perhaps his bookseller did this, seeing Mr M. says nothing of them himself, nor recommends them to others; but if he thinks fit to shew his talent in this part of the controversy, he may expect attendance thereto, if what he shall offer deserves it.
5. Why has he not defended his wife reasons for mixt communion, and made some learned strictures upon those arguments of mine, which he has been pleased to call frivolous, without making any further reply to them? He has very much disappointed many of his friends, who promised both me and themselves an answer, to that part of my book especially ; but perhaps a more elaborate performance may be expected from him, upon that subject, or some other learned hand. However, at present, I shall take my leave of him ; but not with Prov. xxvi. 4. which he has been alhamed to transcribe at length, left