Page images

Heaven-to God. He thinks of redemption, of faith, of holiness. His thoughts, his hopes, his intellect, his heart,- all are wonderfully transformed. “Old things pass away: all things become new." Are his lips sealed? Is he dumb ? Are African converts never to speak to each other of the kingdom of God? The words of their language remaining the same, and applied to these new and wonderful ideas, is their meaning the same? Is the whole change expressed by referring to the brogue of an Irishman whose mother tongue was Irish-English, and whose ideas have never changed from pagan to Christian ?

That such was the effect of adapting the pagan Greek language to the Christian religion, any one may see, who will sit down patiently and turn over the leaves of a Lexicon of the New Testament, which adequately discriminates and marks the transition.

The sole intent of all this discussion about the classic use and the New Testament use, is to show that the word baptize in the New Testament may have left its primary classic signification, and have received a GENERIC, SACRED use, equivalent to WASHING OF PURIFYING, without the least reference to the mode in which that washing of water" is performed. Whether this be the fact or not, is to be learned not from the Greek classics, but from the New Testament itself. As to this matter of fact, Mark and Luke and Paul are better witnesses concerning what they themselves understood by the word baptize,

han Xenophon, Aristotle, or than even that Hebrew of Hebrews, the Jewish Josephus, when he is using the word in the sense of the Greek classics, with no reference to its use as applied to a religious ordinance.

Will any Baptist make an issue on this point, and maintain that Apostles and Evangelists are not to be heard in evidence? Will any Baptist maintain that Evangelists and Apostles may not explain their own meaning in just the same way that heathen Greeks may explain theirs ? Will any Baptist maintain, that where the testimony of the New Testament writers differs from that of the heathen Greeks, the New Testament witness is not to be heard before any heathen, and before all the heathen classics together? In fine, the question here is, Is the Holy Ghost a competent and credible witness as to the sense in which the Holy Ghost uses the word baptize?


Mr. Judd, in his reply to Stuart, p. 25, translates the passage, “ And when they come from the market, except they βαπτισωνται, BAPTIZE THEMSELVES.”

In the same manner he makes the Pharisee, in Luke xi. 38, wonder that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. As Mr. Judd maintains that baptize must and shall mean inmerse, he maintains that baptize not only may have its usual meaning here, but that “that meaning is absolutely required by the scope and harmony of the passage :" i. e., he will make the Scripture here testify that the Pharisees and all the Jews immersed their whole bodies before eating, as often as they came from the market. “Surely,” says he, p. 37, “the Jews could have immersed themselves after coming from the market.” Surely they could, if they never went from the market, and took their meals where they could not. But Mr. Judd mistakes the question. The inquiry should be, not whether they surely could immerse themselves, but whether they surely did. It is not necessary to show that the act of immersion was physically impossible: the proper inquiry is, not whether it was impossible to be done, but whether it can possibly be true that it was actually done. Surely the Jews could have eaten Stephen like cannibals after they had stoned him ; for the thing was not impossible to be done : but it is impossible that it should be true that it was done. Of such a custom of immersing the whole body as often as they came from the market, there is not a scrap of evidence in the wide world, except in this assumed meaning of the word baptize. The manners and customs of the Jews have been well known; and no such custom was ever known or heard of, till invented as a historical fact necessary to help the Baptists out of this difficulty.


The learned George Campbell, whom our Baptist brethren are so fond of quoting on these passages, in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, finds it impossible to carry out his theory. He is about the work of translating the New Testament; and he is determined beforehand that baptize must mean exclusively immerse.

Mark says, that the “ Pharisees and all the Jews, when they come from the market, except they baptize themselves, eat not." Mr. Campbell does not believe that they immersed themselves as often as they came from the market. What does he do? Does he give a grammatical and faithful translation of the word baptize ? He dares not. He gives no translation : he makes a gloss : he gives a commentary, and “ corrects and alters the diction" of the Scriptures by substituting his comment in the place of the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And this is his comment-for no scholar, I trust, will ever venture to call it translation.

" For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have washed their hands by POURING A LITTLE WATER UPON THEM!” The words,by pouring a little water upon them,” are not in the original; they are inserted by Mr. Campbell. And, in the name of wonder, I would demand, does the word Nintw (Nipto) necessarily limit the mode of washing to “pouring a little water on the hands ? " Does it not mean to wash ; and simply " wash ;" without referring in the least to the mode; whether by pouring the water on the hands, or by dipping them? But let us go on with Mr. Campbell's translation :“For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have washed their hands by pouring a little water upon them : and when they come from the market, BY DIPPING THEM.” Does he call this a translation of the words un BantigaVTAL? Does the verb baptizo then mean, TO DIP THE HANDS ? I repeat it; a comment this may be; but it is no simple nor faithful translation of the word of God. Nor can a faithful translation of the passage be made, giving to“ baptize" the meaning of immerse,” without making the passage speak that which Mr. Campbell held as not true. Carson is right, and must have the judgment of every unbiassed scholar in his favor, that Campbell's notion of making this baptism refer to the hands by dipping them, is “an ingenious device, without any authority from the genius and practice of the language.”

[ocr errors]

Campbell's translation of Luke xi. 38 is still more remarkable. Luke, inspired by the Holy Ghost, says, « The Pharisees marvelled that Jesus had not first been baptized before dinner" (eBatttioon). Which Campbell thus translates : “But the Pharisee was surprised to observe that he USED NO WASHING before dinner." Here the distinction between washing and dipping cannot be pretended: and what becomes of Campbell's argument about “ immerse” as being the only proper meaning of the word “ baptize ?” Here the scripture says, The Pharisee marvelled that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. Campbell dares not translate the word“ baptize” here by the word “immerse :" nor does he find it possible to introduce the word “hands ?" The first would make the Bible speak falsehood, and the latter would be too gross an

« alteration of the diction of the Holy Ghost.” He therefore gives up all talk about immersing or dipping—and says, “ He used NO WASHING before dinner;" and so is, after all, driven on to the very ground adopted in our common English translation.


The remarks of Professor Ripley on these two passages, in his examination of Professor Stuart, are, it seems to me, as curious a piece of non-committal, and of tripping lightly over ground on which one dares not tread firmly, as can be found in the whole compass of Biblical criticism.

He thinks the passage in Mark may be rendered, “without the least violence to its language," so as to make it read that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse their whole bodies as often as they come from the

« PreviousContinue »