« AnteriorContinuar »
faid of Baptism, That so many of us, as were beplized into Christ, were baptized into
ut, “ Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii, 12. he says, are not to be understood of water-bap" tilim, but of the baptilin of Christ's sufferings, in which his people were con", lidered in him, and with him, as their head and representative." 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 fense of those texts to be agreeable to the analogy of faith; on the account of which he triumphs, as if it shone with an unconquerable evidence, as his expreffion 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 falvation, 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 liccle consider the exposition of those texts, so much boasted of, and fee 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“ ted 10;” in which, how oddly things hang together, every judicious reader will observee. As to Col. ii. 12. though we are faid 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 f Matt. xxvi, 28.
Aas ii. 38.
• Rom. vi. 3.
mously interpret them of water baptism ; in which the death, burial, and refurrection of Christ are very evidently represented, when performed by immersion.
2diy, 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 baptisım that Peter speaks of was a figure, aritumu,“ an antitype” of Noah's ark, and of the deli. verance 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, reprefented 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 dificult, 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 texes are considered by him; and where he has sufficiently proved, from scripture, fathers, schoolmen, and modern interpreters, that the ordinance of baptifin is a true figure, and just representation of the resurrection of Christ, and of ours by him.
A confideration of the hignification of the Greek word Barli?, and parti
cularly the use of it in Mark vii. 4. Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. 10.
THAT the proper, primary, common, and natural sense of the Greek word
Barlism, 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 confequential 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 Why, if, he will exclude all the testimonies of the use of the word anong Greek authors uninspired, especially Heathens; which is unreasonable : If our translators had confined themselves to this rule, they would have made but poor work in their verfion of some part of the Bible, where a word is but once used, or ac least but very rarely in that sense in which it is to be taken. Now if a controversy concerning the use of a Greek word in scripture arifes, which cannot be determined by it, though I do not say this is the cale in hand, what methods must be taken? Will it not be very proper to consult Greek authors, either Christian or Heatlien, and produce their testimonies, especially the latter ? who cannot be luspected of perverring the use of a word, having never been concerned in our religious controverGies. But it feems, if we vill 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 unreatonable demand inade in this world before? Or was the inspiration of the holy Spirit ever thought neceflary to fix and determine the lense of a word? But I am willing to lay alide thole cestinonies in this controversy. And,
2dly, Be confined, as he would have me, to the use of the word in the New Tellainent; but then I must, it seems, be coniined co 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 ain willing to put it upon that issue ; but I know he will not Itand co it: Besides, why has he himiclf brought other texts of scripture into the controversy, where the ordinance ot baptism is not concerned ? as Mark vii. 4. Ileb. ix. 10. 1 Cor. x. 2
as alio the Septuagint version in Daniel iv. 33. why may not others take 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 they, that is, the Septuagint, understood no more by it than, www. No more than awa! Is not that enough? Is not as 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 Jewish bathings, which were always performed by immersion; and that Naaman undtrstood the prophet of such a kind of washing, is manifest fro.n his use of it; he dipped himtelf in Jordan, xsta to gufucs Excals, according to the word of Elisha.
As for the other in Isai. xxi. 4. he says, “ it is no wonder they made use of “ the word, for they knew very well that sin procures showers of divine dif
pleasure to be poured upon a person, people, and nation.” I desire the next time he pretends to baptize an infant, that he would pour showers of water upon it, if he thinks proper, according to this sense of the word B277136, which he allows of. But however, though those teftimonies must be laid aside, yet,
3dly, I hope Lexicons may be made use of to direct us in the sense of the word, if it is only as it is used in the New Testament. Yes, that will be allowed of; for Mr M. himself consults Lexicons, though he does well to let us know fo; for one would have thought, by his positiveness, that he had never looked into one in all his life. Well, but what do the Lexicons say? How do they render the word Be7713 w? Why by mergo, immergo, to dip or plunge into; and this they give, as the first, and primary sense of the word; but do they make use of no other words to express it by ? Yes, they also use abluo, lavo, to wash; and they mean such a washing as is by dipping, but Mr M.p. 38. asks, where do they tell us so? I answer in their Lexicons. Let Scapula be consulted, who thus renders the word B477.30, mergo feu immergo : Ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aque immergimus. But,
4thly, Let us now consider those texts where the word is used in the New Testament; I am willing to be confined to those which Mr M. himself has fixed upon, and we will begin,
First, With Mark vii. 4. and when they come from the market, except they woh or baptize (themselves) they eat not; which may be understood either,
1. Of the things they bought in the market, which they did not eat until they were washed: Thus the Syriac version reads the words; and what they buy in the market, unless it be washed, they eat not : The same way read all the oriental versions, the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Perfic. Now this must be understood of those things that may be, and are proper to be washed, as herbs, &c. And nobody will question, but that the manner of the washing these was by putting them into
Bur, 2. If the words design the washing of persons, they must be understood, either of the washing of their whole bodies, or else of some part only; as their hands or feet: It seems most likely, that the washing of the whole body is intended, as Grotius", Vatablus, Drufius', and others think; because washing of hands is mentioned in the preceding verse. Besides, to understand it thus, better expresses the outward, affected fanctity of the more superstitious part of the people. All the Jews washed their hands and feet before eating; but those who pretended to a greater degree of holiness, washed their whole bodies, ef
pecially In loc.
1 De tribus Sea. Jud. lib. 2. C. 15.
pecially when they came from a market; and of this total ablution of the body is Luke xi. 38. to be understood. And here I cannot forbear mentioning a passage of the great Scaligerk to this purpose. “The more superstitious part of the Jews,
says he, not only washed their feet, but their whole body. Hence they were “ called Hemerobaptists, who every day washed their bodies before they sat down “ to food; wherefore, the Pharisee, which had invited Jesus to dine with him, “ wondered that he sat down to meat before he had walhed his whole body, “ Luke xi. But those that were more free from superstition, were contented “ with washing of their feet, instead of that universal immersion. Witness the " Lord himself, who being entertained at dinner by another Pharisee, objected “ to him, when he was fac down to meat, that he had given him no water for “ his feet, Luke vii."
3. If, by this washing, we understand only the washing of their hands when they came from market; then it will be proper to inquire in what manner this was performed: And it must be observed, that whatever was the manner which they used, it was not used as a national custom, or as it was according to the word of God; but what was most agreeable to the traditions of the elders, as is manifest from the text itself. Now this tradition is delivered in their Misna in these words ; “ They washed their hands before they eat common food, by an “ elevation of them; but before they eat the tithes, the offering, and the holy
Aesh, they washed by immersion!.” It is reported in the same tract, that Johanan Ben Gud-Gada, who, they say, was one of the most religious in the priesthood, “always eat his common food after the manner of purification for eating “ of the holy Acih ;" that is, he always used immersion before eating; and it is highly reasonable to suppose, that the Pharisees, especially the more superftitious part, who pretended to a greater strictness in religion than others, used the same method. I deserves also to be remarked, that this tradition, which some of the Jews have been so tenacious of, that they would rather die than break it, is by them said to be founded on Lev. xv. 11. and hath not rinsed bis. bands in water ; where the Hebrew word guw is used, which signifies a washing by immersion: and so Buxtorf renders it. Moreover, in the abovesaid Misna
k Judæi vero fuperftitiofiores non pedes tantum, fed & corpus totum intingebant. Hinc muse96a7Tisa di&ti, qui quotidie, ante discubitum, corpus intingebant. Quare Pharifæus ille, qui sesum ad cænam invitaverat, mirabatur eum, antequam totum corpus abluisset, discubuisse : 051 8 W EWTON εξαπλιδη προ τα αρισα, Luc. xi. Pariores vero a superstitione, pro universali illa Battise, contenti erant rodonalem, hoc est, pedilavio. Teftis dominus ipfe, qui alii Pharisæo, a quo cæna exceptus fuerat, objicit, fibi discubituro aquam ad pedes datam non fuisse. Luc. vii. vowe ETS TES. Trodas Meyx idwxas. Scaliger de Emend. Temp. lib. vi. p. 571.
| Trad. Chagigah, c. 2. §. 5.