SECTION XI. ON EVIDENCE FROM INVARIABLE ADAPTATION TO TEXT AND CONTEXT. Dr. WARDLAW.-"My present remarks shall be for the unlearned; being designed to shew that there is no occasion to go beyond the plain intimations of the Bible itself for a satisfactory settlement of the point in dispute."-Inf. Bap., p. 140. C. TAYLOR.-"This test is a sort of experimentum crucis to false propositions; it has detected many."-Facts and Eri., p. 7. Dr. JOHN BROWN.-"Unless the context absolutely requires it, we are never to depart from the literal signification of words and phrases, when they afford a true and consistent meaning."Dise, and Say, of our Lord, vol. i., p. 82. -- Dr. S. DAVIDSON. -"The Bible is, to a great extent, a self-interpreting volume. The Christian takes it by itself, and uses his best judgment in discovering its meaning."-Cong. Lec., p. 2. Dr. ANGUS."The things most misunderstood are the things which are revealed most clearly." -Bi. Hand-Book, p. 148. Bish. HORSLEY.-"The most illiterate Christian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take pains to read it in this manner, will not only attain to all practical knowledge which is essential to salvation, but, by God's blessing, he will become learned in everything relating to his religion in such a degree that he will not be liable to be misled, either by the refuted arguments or the false assertions of those who endeavour to engraft their own opinions upon the oracles of God."-In Bi. Hand-Book, p. 150. Dr. J. WILLIAMS.-"To understand Scripture, we ought to take the same method as we do to understand other writings: we must examine them with care; compare difficult passages with others more clear and plain; and attend to the sense and connexion."-Ser. on Isaiah vii. 13-16. THAT the classical import of baptism is immersion, we conceive to have been already demonstrated by adducing the passages in the classics where it occurs. In regard to Dr. Halley, and some other scholars who admit that the usage of the Greek language in regard to this word is strictly harmonious, this has been a gratuitous and unnecessary work; and had we been writing only for such persons, it would have been omitted, because of their admissions, which are, in substance, that until the word baptizo was adopted by the Spirit of inspiration, it invariably contained the idea of immersion. But we have written, and are writing, for Independent, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian brethren, and those who, as we think, err with them, as well as for Dr. Halley and those who, as we think, err with him. Having endeavoured to demonstrate the import of baptizo in the classics, not by any means for the sake of the classics, but for the sake of Divine truth, our present endeavour is similarly to demonstrate that the Divine Spirit has used the word in the same sense, the sense in which it then was and invariably had been understood. The import of baptizo in the classics we regard as proved to be, to immerse, without respect to mode of effecting this. We also believe that it would be as contrary to fact and reason to say that, because of variety in the mode of immersion, baptizo means to pour or to sprinkle, as it would be to say that the English word immerse, which is sometimes used for submerging an object by the element rather than putting the object into the element, means also to pour and to sprinkle. Before proceeding further, and without begging the question, of which we have no need and no desire, we may confidently assert that all unnecessary using of words by the Divine Spirit in another sense than that which they were well known to have, could lead to nothing but obscurity and confusion, and that, therefore, evidence of a changed meaning is absolutely necessary previous to its admission. Hence, says Dr. Halley, "that a living language is ever varying, both parties ought surely to admit; that no variation ought to be assumed or pleaded without evidence, appears as incontrovertible a proposition" (p. 269). I And, further, "I cannot conceive how the Greek Testament is to be translated, if its words are not to be understood in their classical import, unless there are reasons to believe that a new signification has been adopted" (p. 271). That no new signification has been adopted, but that baptism is immersion, we believe that the New Testament itself proves, even to the merely English reader who will carefully and candidly examine its contents. Thus, in reading every instance of the occurrence of baptize and baptism in the New Testament, let the words immerse and immersion be substituted for the Anglicized Greek words; and read also all the passages, using the words sprinkle and sprinkling as the supposed import of the Greek terms; and thus read all the passages, substituting the words pour and pouring, the words purify and purifying, and the words wash and washing. Sprinkling is the general practice of our opponents; pouring is also strongly advocated by them as the import of baptism in the sacred Scriptures. That the word baptize has in Holy Writ the sense of purify, has been strenuously maintained by Dr. Beecher and others; whilst Dr. Watts has affirmed that "the Greek word signifies washing a thing in general by water coming over it, and not always dipping." Others have strongly advocated the generic sense of wash. Dr. Halley says: "We must maintain that baptism is nothing else than the use of water (use it how you please) as the sign of the sanctification of the soul, because we believe that to represent it in any other view leads to lamentable perversion or gross caricature of evangelical truth” (p. 268). To which party belongs the "lamentable perversion or gross caricature of evangelical truth," we shall leave the reader to form his opinion. We believe it a strange circumstance if baptizo, which, according to the Dr.'s testimony, had till this time so explicitly and definitely meant to merge, immediately changed its import so as to mean the use of water "how you please." We believe many learned Pædobaptists to be deluded by "mode of baptism," and hence to be fighting with a shadow, or pulling down a castle in the air erected by themselves, whilst pretending and believing that they are contending for or against a mode of baptism. Hence the repetitions of the substance of the following: "We have maintained that in a symbolical service only the symbol is imposed upon the church, and the mode of exhibiting it is of no importance; and, further, that in the baptismal service only the use of water, and not the immersion, is symbolical of Christian truth" (Dr. Halley, p. 268). We do not maintain that anything more than immersion is enjoined. We contend not for the mode of immersion, but for immersion; and we maintain, too, that nothing for which our opponents plead, else than immersion, is equally symbolical of the Christian truths admitted by them and ourselves to be represented in baptism. Mr. Stacey says: "One class of Christians contends that dipping, the immersion of the whole person, is required; another, and a much larger, asserts, that the application of water by pouring or sprinkling is at least equally valid with immersion. This, the common, though not universal judgment of the church, is the position we shall endeavour briefly to establish" (p. 173). How far his representation of numbers is correct or erroneous, it is to us of little consequence. He clearly undertakes the defence of pouring or sprinkling, in opposition to the necessity of immersion. Elsewhere, notwithstanding his acknowledgment respecting the classic import of baptizo, he says, respecting the verb to baptize: "The term is not specific, as to dip, or to sprinkle; but generic, as to cleanse, or to wash (p. 179). We are willing by any equitable means to test its import, whether it be specific in the sense of to immerse, to pour, or to sprinkle, or generic, in the sense of to cleanse, or to wash. For the present we shall employ the test of use in the inspired writings. We do not maintain that the occurrence of baptize will in every single instance enable the mere English reader to know its import. Most words occur in many instances in which they might be rendered with undoubted inaccuracy, and yet this inaccurate rendering would not be discordant with the connexion in that particular instance. Thus, when we read, "John did baptize in the wilderness" (Mark i. 4); "Repent and be baptized every one of you" (Acts ii. 38); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (ver. 42); there is nothing in these simple assertions that proves to an English reader whether baptize is synonymous with one or other of many words of greatly different import that might be used for trial in place of it. So it is in regard to other words: but let any word similar to baptism, of frequent occurrence, be tested by the application of various pretended meanings to EVERY instance of its occurrence; and if one meaning invariably suits all instances of its occurrence and all connexions in which the word is found, and every other meaning involves the clearest absurdity, there is, then, no ordinary evidence that all the meanings save one are false; we say, no ordinary evidence, because it is not many words that, thus tested, will be proved to have one unvarying import. If baptizo has in God's Word the unvarying sense of immerse, the candid reader may ascertain it. We are aware that some of our opponents may say, We do not maintain that it has always the sense of sprinkle, pour, &c.; but what else than a begging of the question would it be to make the unproved assertion that it means here to immerse, and there to sprinkle; here to pour, and there to purify? What should we think of the candour or honesty of those who made these assertions, not merely without proof, but in opposition to proof of its import from lexicons and classic use, from ancient versions, Greek practice, Jewish proselyte baptism, &c.; yea, in opposition to evidence, we had almost said, that immerse is, from the connexion, the required import in the very places to which objections to such a rendering are the most violent; but though we believe, and shall endeavour hereafter to evidence this, we would rather now say, in opposition to evidence, that immerse, the acknowledged primary import of the word, is not unsuitable even in those places where another rendering is the most earnestly contended for? Were we to suppose, in regard to any word, that in some places it is used laxly, and with an acceptation different from that which is its native, obvious, and ordinary import, it would not follow that we are at liberty to adopt at pleasure the occasional and extraordinary import in unnecessary preference to that which is ordinary and obvious. For the further instruction of some, whilst adducing occurrences of the disputed word in Scripture (although this is not necessary except in reply to certain opponents for whom now or afterwards it may be advantageous), we shall give within parentheses the Greek prepositions, with their literal and primary meaning, in every instance of their association with the Greek baptizo. In defence of giving only the acknowledged primary import of the prepositions, excepting the few instances wherein they are clearly used in a secondary sense, we shall, if necessary, speak subsequently. It will be seen that in some instances baptizo is used figuratively. So is the English word immerse. Let not any one mistake us by believing that we maintain that the English word baptism is synonymous with immersion. The English word is now used in application to sprinkling, to christening, and to immersing; but we maintain that this is not the case with the Greek word. We only at present further say that, if the varied renderings, when read, do all, with one exception, appear to burlesque the sacred writings, our design is not to burlesque Divine truth, but to prevent its being misunderstood or perverted; nor is it our design to hold up to ridicule our Pædobaptist brethren, whilst we are feeling it a duty to expose their error: we intend never to forget the power of prejudice, although we will not justify its existence and prevalence. VERSION, IMMERSE AND AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED, AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED BAPTIZE AND And were come to his Iindeed immerse 1 WITH AND FOR BAPTIZE AND And were sprinkled of him in Jordan. come to his I indeed sprinkle you with water AND AND And were come to his I indeed . . He shall... He shall. sprinkle you pour you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. to be sprinkled of him.. I have need to be sprinkled of Thee. with the Holy Ghost and with fire, to be poured of him.... I have need to be poured of Thee. I indeed I indeed wash you with water He shall wash you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. to be washed of him. . . . I have need to be washed of Thee. By this exhibition and classification every readler is at liberty to try immerse in every passage by the prepositions used in our authorized version, or to read sprinkle, pour, cleanse, or wash, along with a more literal, and, as we maintain, a more correct, translation of the prepositions. No alteration of the prepositions as rendered in the authorized English version is necessary to prove that New Testament baptism is immersion. We admit that sprinkle, pour, cleanse, and wash, would appear still more absurd as the meaning of baptizo, were the prepositions with which these words are connected correctly rendered. The reader may examine this. That epi is used in the sense of to, here and elsewhere, and pros in the sense of unto, is undeniably evident. WASH, when SPRINKLE, POUR, when when when He was sprinkled, went up He was poured, went up He was cleansed, went up He was washed, went up straightway straightway straightway straightway out of the Are ye able The sprinkling out of the water. Are ye able . to be poured with the . pouring that I am poured with? Ye shall... be poured with the pouring that I am poured with. The pouring out of the water. Are ye able ... to be cleansed with the cleansing that I am cleansed with? Ye shall... be cleansed with the cleansing than I am cleansed with. The cleansing of John, ... cleansing them in the name. John did cleanse in the wilderness, were all with the out of the water. Are ye able ... to be washed with the washing that I am washed with? Ye shall... be washed with the washing that I am washed with. The washing of John,... washing them in the name. John did wash in the wilderness, and preach the washing, &c. were all washed of him in the river of Jordan. I indeed have washed you with water: but He shall wash you with the * Or, "Are ye able... to be immersed as to the immersion as to which I am immersed? Ye shall. be immersed as to the immersion as to which I am immersed." Dr. G. Campbell gives the true sense in a less literal rendering of the original, in these words: "Can ye drink such a cup as I must drink, or undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo? They said unto Him, We can. He answered, Ye shall indeed drink such a cup, and undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo" (Matt. xx. 22, 23). In the original the noun is in the accusative case, governed by a preposition understood, which we presume will be admitted to be kata, or para, answering to the Latin secundum, and meaning according to, in regard to, as to. The preposition is similarly understood in Mark x. 38, 39; Luke vii. 29, xii. 50; and Acts xix. 4. Kata, in the sense of as to, according to, like the Latin secundum, is often understood. The common version is the same in import. † On Christ's being baptized by John into the Jordan, Dr. Halley acknowledges himself a better Baptist than Dr. Carson, as Dr. C. maintains that the passage does not require that John went into the water for the immersion of Jesus; but Prof. J. H. Godwin dares to say: "Nor in any one of all the passages which mention Christian baptism, is the word construed with any word that accords with the sense of dipping" (p. 100). A most flagrant, however unintentional, falsehood! |