« AnteriorContinuar »
what I can yet fee to the contrary, I shall abide by it. Again, he says, that I think there is something wancing in the original. With what face can he say so? Or have I attempted a supplement to any part of it? How unfair is this ? Yet this is the man that complains of rank injustice, wresting of words and wracking of sentences in polemical writings. He says, he fears God; I hope he does; but he has given but very little evidence of it, in his management of this controversy.
2. He next falls foul upon Erasmus, calling him old Erasmus; and represents him as disapproved of by the learned; when almost every body knows how much the learned world owes to that great man, and what deference is always paid to him ; but why old Erasmus, and great Beza ? Not that I would go about to diminish the praife ofJBeza, yet I cannot but be of opinion, that to set Erasmus upon a level with him, in respect of learning, can be no lessening of him ; but it seems to me, that the reason of those different epithets which Mr M. has given to those excellent men, is only because the version of the one removes the foundation of his impertinent cavil, and the note of the other, as he imagines, secures it to him,
3. He proceeds, in the next place, to find fault with my translation of Erasmus's version; but if he had had that candour which he would have the world believe he News in the management of this controversy, he would have easily overlooked this, which he thinks is so much blame-worthy; especially when he could not but observe, that in the very fame page, this text is rendered according to the transposition of Erasmus, without the negative particle, which hurts the fense : so that he might ealily have perceived that this did not arise from a want of knowledge. in transacing, but from an inadvertency in writing.
4. As to what Beza says of this trajection, that it is dura ac plane infolens ; I shall only say cum pace tanti viri, that the trajections in scripture, which he himself approves of, for which see his notes on John viii, 25. and Asts i. 2. are not more easy or more usual.
5. The sense of the text requires such a transposition of the words ; for the meaning is not, as if Peter thought that any person would go about to hinder them of water convenient for the administration of the ordinance of baptifm ; for such a sense of the words would be trilling and jejune, and yet this our verfion seems to incline to; but that there might be some who would be displeased with, and to their utmost oppose, the baptizing of those Gentiles. Hence Peter says, Who can forbid that these fould be baptized in water? Therefore, and what will further confirm this sense and reading of the words, he commands them in the next verse to be baptized : he does not order water to be brought unto them, but that they be baptized in the name of the Lord. To all which,
6. Might 6. Might be added, that this transposition of the words has not its confirma. tion only from the authority, judgment and learning of Erasmus, which is not inconsiderable, but also from others; for, as Cornelius à Lapide has obferved, boch the Tigurine version, and that of Pagnine's, read the words the same way: so that however Erasmus may be disapproved of by the learned, as our author alleres, yet it seems this version is regarded by them.
The end of the institution of the ordinance of Baptifin, considered.
S the ordinance of water-baptism derives its authority from Christ, so it
was instituted by him for some end or other, which may make for his own glory, as well as for the comfort, edification, and increase of faith in his people; and what that end is, we fhall now inquire.
Mr M. p. 33. says, “the manifest end of it is a representation of the dona« tion of the Spirit to us in the new covenant." As for the former of these proofs, I need only say, that an Old-Testament-text can never be a proof or evidence of what is the end of the institution of a New Testament-ordinance : Besides, if it could be thought to have any reference to the affair of Baptism, it would only regard the mode, and not the end of this ordinance, for which he has cited it already, and to what purpose has been also shown. As for the two latter texts here produced by him, they only inform us, that the Spirit's grace is called a Baptism, and so are the sufferings of Christ, Luke xii. 50. the reprelentation of which he will not own to be the end of baptism, though every body will see that this may be as strongly concluded from hence, as what he contends for ; besides, the martyrdom of the saints is called a Baptifm, Matt. XX. 23. as also the passage of the Israelites through the Red sea, 1 Cor. x. 2. yet no body ever thought that the design of baptism was to represent either of these. Now these are what he calls the plain proofs of the manifest end of baptism, without any force upon scripture. What sort of readers does Mr M. expect to have, that will be imposed upon by such proofs as these? But there are manifest proofs which fully discover to us, that the end of this ordinance is to represent the sufferings, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Christ has particularly instituted two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord'sSupper, to be observed by his people; and the end of the one is no less evident than that of the other. It is said of the Lord's-Supper, As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's deasb till be come". It is also
į Isai xliv. 3.
att, jïi. 11.
1 Cor. xii 13.
di Cor. xi. 26.
siid of Baptism, That so many of us, as were beptized into Christ, were baptized into his death, Did Christ say in the celebration of the Ordinance of the Supper? This is my blood of the New Testament, which is fned for many for the remision of fins'. His disciples in his name have also said, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remillion of sins ? : that is, that their faith in that ordinance might be led to the blood of Christ, by which remillion of sins was procured; to the grave of Christ, where they were left; and to a riten Saviour, where they have a full discharge from them; all which, in a very lively manner, is represented in this ordinance of baptilin. There are many, other texts, besides these, which would lead any truly serious and inquiring mind to observe this to be the true end of baptism, as Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. i Peter iii. 21. 1 Cor. xv. 29. but because those texts are excepted against by Mr M. it will be proper more particularly to consider them, and what he is pleased to advance against the commonly received sense of them.
ust, “ Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. he says, are not to be understood of water-bap“ tism, but of the baptifin of Christ's sufferings, in which his people were con“ fidered in him, and with hiin, as their head and reprefentative." I firmly believe the doctrine of Christ's being a common head, representative, and furety of all the elect of God; for which reason, in my reply, I acknowledged his sense of those texts to be agreeable co the analogy of faith ; on the account of which he triumphs, as if it shone with an unconquerable evidence, as his expresfion is, p. 34. when I never owned it to be the true sense of the words; for a fente may be given of a text that is agreeable to the analogy of faith, which is foreign enough to the mind of the holy Ghoit therein ; as for instance, if of Gen. i 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; a man should give such a sense as this, that God chose a certain number of men in Christ unto fàlvation, before he created the heaven and the earth: This is a sense that is agreeable enough to the analogy of faith, but none will say that it is the sense of the
But let us a little consider the exposition of those texts, so much boasted of, and see how well it will bear. As for Rom. vi. 4. it does not say, that we are buried with him in baptism, but by baptism into death: So that according to Mr M's exposition, it runs thus, “We are buried with Christ representatively in “ the grave, by his sufferings on the cross, into that death he there submit“ ced to;" in which, how oddly things hang togecher, every judicious reader will observee. As to Col. ii. 12. though we are said to be buried with him in baptism, yet it is added, Wherein also you are risen with him ; but how we can be said to be risen with him in the baptism of his sufferings, will, I believe, not be very easy to account for. It is better therefore to understand those texts, in the more generally received sense both of ancient and modern divines, who unaniVol. II.
mously • Rom. vi. 3.
Aals ii. 38.
f Matt. xxvi. 28.
mouly interpret them of water baptism ; in which the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are very evidently represented, when performed by immersion.
2dly, He says, 1 Pet. iii. 21. is not meant of water-baptism, but of the blood of Christ sprinkled upon the conscience. That the blood of Christ, as sprinkled upon a believer's conscience, is ever called a Baptism, I never yet met with; and, I will venture to say, can never be proved. Besides, the baptison that Peter speaks of was a figure, arutuny," an antitype” of Noah's ark, and of the deliverance of him and his family by water; which was a kind of resurrection from the dead, and did well prefigure our salvation by the resurrection of Christ, represented to us in the ordinance of water baptism.
3dly, The sense of 1 Cor. xv. 29. given by me, is also objected against by Mr M. p. 32. and another substituted in its room. Let the readers of the controversy between us judge which is most agreeable. The text is difficult, and has employed the thoughts and pens of the most able and learned men in all ages : Both the senses have their defenders. I shall only refer the reader to the learned notes of Sir Norton Knatchbull, on i Peter iii. 21. where both those texts are considered by him; and where he has sufficiently proved, from scripture, fathers, schoolmen, and modern interpreters, that the ordinance of baptisın is a true figure, and just representation of the resurrection of Christ, and of ours by him.
A consideration of the hgnification of the Greek word Barleifa, and parti
cularly the use of it in Mark vii. 4. Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. 10.
HAT the proper, primary, common, and natural sense of the Greek word
Barlow, is to dip or plunge, has been acknowledged by the greatest masters of that language ; and it is a rule which should be carefully attended to, that the first, natural, and common sense of a word ought to be used in the interpretation of fcripture, unless some very good reason can be given why it should be used in a remote, improper, and consequential one. Now though the nature, end, and circumstances of the ordinance of Baptism, manifestly shew that immersion is the right mode of administering it, and do abundantly confirm the sense of the Greek word, directing us to the proper and primary use thereof; yet
some have endeavoured to confine it to a more low and remote sense, but none have attempted to do it with more positiveness and confidence than our author. But what method does he take to effect it, and how does he succeed therein ?
Why, 11, he will exclude all the testimonies of the use of the word anong Greck authors uninspired, especially Heathens; which is unreasonable : If our transicors had confined themselves to this rule, they would have made but poor work in their verGion of some part of the Bible, where a word is but once used, or at least but very rarely in chat sense in which it is to be taken. Now if a controversy concerning the use of a Greek word in fcripture arises, which cannot be determined by it, though I do not say this is the case in hand, what methods must be taken? Will it not be very proper to consult Greek authors, either Christian or Heathen, and produce their testimonies, especially the latter ? who cannot be suspected of pervercing the use of a word, having never been concerned in our religious controversies. But it feems, if we will make use of them, we muit be laid under an obligation to prove that
they were delivered under the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost:" was ever such an unrealonable demand made in this world before? Or was the infpiration of the holy Spirit ever thought neceflary to fix and determine the Jense of a word ? But I am willing to lay aside thole testuinonies in this controversy. And,
2dly, Be confined, as he would have me, to the use of the word in the New Tetament; but then I must, it seems, be confined to the use of it, as applied to the ordinance of baptism, which is also unreasonable: He says the word, whenever applied to the ordinance, signifies pouring or sprinkling only; which is a shameful begging of the question; and if I should lay it only signifies dipping or plunging, whenever applied to it, how must the controverly be decided ? Must we not refer the decision of it to other texts of fcripture ? It is true, the circumstances, which attend the administration of the ordinance are fufficient to determine the true sente of the word, and I am willing to put ic upon that illue; but I know he will not stand to it: Besides, why has he himiclf brought other texts of scripture into the controversy, where the ordinance of bapuism is not concerned ? as Mark vii. 4. Heb. ix. 10. 1 Cor. x. 2 che Septuagint version in Daniel iv. 33. why may not others cake the same liberty? And what miserable replies has he made to my instances out of the latter? that in 2 Kings v. 14. he says, discovers that chey, that is, the Septuagint, understood no more by it than, www. No more than awa! Is not that enough? Is not aww a word that includes in it all kinds of washing, especially baching of the whole body; and is always used by the Septuagint to express the Jewith bathings, which were always performed by immersion; and that Naaman understood the prophet of such a kind of washing, is manifest froin his use of it; he dipped himself in Jordan, kita to gngus Excals, according to the word of Elisha.