« ZurückWeiter »
true that the Prophet uses louo, (to bathe, or wash,) and SECT. Naaman dips himself; it is clear, therefore, that baptizo
III. in certain circumstances, does signify that a dipping is to be performed, which shall effect a washing or cleansing; but in other circumstances a dipping may occur by which the object plunged shall be defiled, as in the case of the sword of Ajax, which was plunged up to the hilt Homer, 11. in the throat of Cleobulus; and which Dionysius ob- xxi. 339. serves that the poet (Homer) expresses himself with great emphasis, representing the sword to be so baptized (baptisthentos) as to become warm with blood: we presume in this case baptizo does not mean to wash. The same may be said respecting the swords and helmets baptized in the marshes after the battle of Orchomenus: where it is surely quite as clear that baptizo means, to cause to need washing, as that it signifies to wash.
The fact is, that the strict meaning of a word is one which is peculiar to it; to IMMERSE suits ALL the cases in which baptizo is used literally; it is the ONLY meaning which does so; and is therefore the true meaning.“
judice to the call of an opponent; but surely those who are taking a delusive repose, will hear the voice of President Beecher assure them, that, however sound their slumbers, they are occasioned by the opiates of error, and not by arguments “ adapted to give satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind.”
• The observations of Mr. Carson on this important point are so full and satisfactory, that for the benefit of those who have not that able work I extract them.
“To explain this point more clearly, I shall lay down a canon, and by this I mean a first principle in criticism. That which does not contain its own evidence is not entitled to the name of a criti. cal canon. I do not request my readers to admit my canon; I insist on their submission-let them deny it if they can. My canon is, that in certain situations two words, OR EVEN SEVERAL WORDS MAY WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH
CH A P.
The term is used Isa. xxi. 4, “ Iniquity sinks me;" in our translation, “ fearfulness affrighted me.” Professor
Isa. xxi. 4.
THEY ARE ALL ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS. The physician, for instance, may with equal propriety and perspicuity, say either dip the brcad in the wine,' or, moisten the bread in the wine.' Yet this does not import that dip signifies to moisten, or that moisten signifies to dip. Each of these words has its own peculiar meaning, which the other does not possess. Dip the bread does not say moisten the bread, yet it is known that the object of dipping is to moisten. Now it is from ignorance of this principle that lexicographers have given meanings to words which they do not possess; and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive criticism on controverted subjects, with respect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be said with equal propriety deusai en oino, or bapsai en oino, moisten in wine, or dip in wine;' and from this circumstance it is rashly and unphilosophically concluded that one of the meanings of bapto is to moisten.
“ The word occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. (2 Kings v. 14.) • Naaman went down and dipped himself (ebaptisato) seven times in Jordan.' Here bathing in a river is called baptism. What more do we want, then, to teach us the mode of this ordinance of Christ? If there was not another passage of Scripture to throw light on the institution, as far as respects mode, is not this, to every teachable mind, perfectly sufficient? But, it seems, we are crying victory before the field is won. This passage, which we think so decisive, has a far different aspect to others. On the contrary, it is made to afford evidence against us. Well, this is strange indeed; but ingenuity has many shifts. Let us see how artifice can involve the passage in a cloud. Nothing is more easy. Does not the prophet command Naaman to wash; if, then, he obeyed this command by baptising himself, baptizing must signify washing. For the sake of argument, I will grant this reasoning, for a moment. If, then, this is so, go, my brethren, and wash the person to be baptized, as you think Naaman washed himself from head to foot. This will show that you respect the example. In what manner socver the water was applied to Naaman, he was bathed all over. If the word signifies to wash the whole body, who
Stuart seems to have misunderstood this passage; as Mr. SECT.
III. Judd observes, it is the iniquity of others. presses down
but the Pope himself, would take on him to substitute the sprinkling of a few drops in the place of this universal washing ?
“But I do not admit the reasoning, that, from this passage, con. cludes that baptizo signifies to wash, although no instance can be produced more plausible in favour of that opinion. This passage is a complete illustration of my canon. The two words, louo and baptizo are here used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same signification. Not of the same signification! it may be asked, with surprise. Elisha commands bim to wash; he obeys by baptizing himself; must not baptizing, then, be washing ? I think none of my opponents will wish a stronger statement of their objection than I have made for them. But my doctrine remains uninjured by the assault. The true philologist will not find the smallest difficulty in reconciling this passage to it. The words louo and baptizo have their own peculiar meanings even here, as well as every where else, without the smallest confusion. To baptize is not to wash ; but to baptize in a river or in any pure water, implies washing, and may be used for it in certain situations. If Naaman dipped himself in Jordan he was washed. It comes to the same thing, whether a physician says, bathe yourself every morning in the sea, or dip yourself every morning in the sea, yet the words bathe and dip do not signify the same thing. We see, then, that we can make the very same use of our modal word dip, that the Greeks made of their baptizo. No man who understands English, will say that the word dip and the word bathe signify the same thing, yet, in certain situations, they may be used indifferently. Persons at a bath may ask each other, Did you dip this morning ? or did you bathe this morning? To dip may apply to the defiling of any thing, as well as to washing. It expresses no more than the mode. It is the situation in which it stands, and the word with which it is construed, that determine the object of the application of the mode. To dip in pure water, is to wash ; to dip in colouring matter, is to dye; to dip into mire, is to defile. None of these ideas, however, are in the word dip itself. No word could determine mode, according to the principles of criticism em. ployed by writers on this subject.”—Carson, pp. 81, 2, 6.8.
CHAP. the prophet, not as Mr. S. would have it, that the pro1.
phet's own iniquity overwhelmed him. But I see no objection to admitting “overwhelm” as a figurative
meaning of baptizo in this and other passages. Apocrypha.
Two passages may be referred to in the Apocrypha ; Judith,
“ and at night she (Judith) went out into the valley of xii. 7.
Bethulia and immersed herself at the fountain in the Eccles. camp;” and, “ if one who is immersed from a dead [carxxxi. 25.
cass] toucheth it again what is he profited by his bath ?”
In neither case is there any difficulty or impropriety in translating the term there used (baptizo) immerse, which the plainest English reader can see as well as the most learned. “Of these passages I observe," says Professor Ripley, “it is by no means clear that the radi. cal meaning of baptizo ought to be left out of sight, so that the word should be translated by the general term wash, or cleanse, without any allusion made to the specified kind, or extent of the washing. Are there any circumstances which entirely forbid us to believe that bathing the whole person is here intended? If there be no necessity for departing from the radical and ordi. nary meaning, then we are not at liberty to put another construction upon the word.” The learned reviewer then most justly observes, “ that it is nowhere in the book of Judith intimated that the action was performed in the midst of the camp;' all parts of a camp are not equally exposed, and the place to which she resorted seems to have been chosen, because among other reasons it was somewhat retired; she went to that place habitually for special prayer and purification. Besides this religious ceremony was performed in the night; and Holofernes, the general of the army, had given express orders that no one should interfere with her movements." The vindication of the meaning of baptizo in Eccl. xxxi. 25, SECT. is equally easy; but as the arguments are essentially
d Ripley's Reply to Stuari, p. 28.
III. the same as those which relate to Luke xi. 5-8, the reader is referred to the next section.
LITERAL IMPORT OF BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THERE are upwards of a hundred instances in which New Testathe verb baptizo, or the noun baptisma, occur in the books of which the New Testament is composed. Those which relate to the ordinance itself will be investigated in subsequent chapters. There are thirteen instances in which this term is applied to other objects; of these five only are in its literal, and eight in a figurative sense. The plain meaning of the term has been assailed through these passages; with how much success the reader will be able to determine for himself. The position maintained is, that there is no instance in which the term baptizo, when used in reference to a bodily act, ought not to be translated immerse. It will now be seen whether in either of the five cases alluded to this position is in the slightest degree shaken."
a The “modern position" of baptists is thus boldly stated by Dr. Miller :-" I am aware, indeed, that our baptist brethren, as before intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legitimate and authorized meaning of this word, is to immerse; and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other manner. I can ven. ture, my friends, to assure you, with the utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incorrect. I can assure you, that the word which we render baptize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can