Page images

baptize used alone and simply, as it is here used by Luke, has no inherent quality by which it should be thought to be limited in the action which it expresses to the hands alone. The word “hands” is imported through the channel of commentary; and commentary elaborated, as I think I have shown, by a process of bad criticism.



Our Baptist brethren claim that “ to them is committed the sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations of the oracles of God into the languages of the earth.I should like to know how their foreign translations of these two passages, Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, read. Do they make the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves as often as they come from the market? or do they make them simply dip their hands ? Which of these two acts do our Baptist brethrensole guardians of pure and faithful translations”-teach the heathen is the baptism which the Holy Ghost speaks of in Mark vii. 4? Do they teach the heathen to be lieve that the Pharisee marvelled that the Saviour had not immersed himself before dinner; or that he had not dipped his hands before dinner? Methinks the guardians of pure and faithful translations”† should agree in this matter. Infallibility should not be divided; and where it is so, the division shows that neither party is infallible. The truth may lie on neither side.

-66 the

* American and Foreign Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 79.

† Says Professor Eaton, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society at their anniversary (Report of American and Foreign Bible Society, p. 79), “ Never, sir, was there a chord struck that vibrated simultaneously through so many Baptist hearts, from one extremity of the land to the other, as when it was announced that the heathen world must look to THEM A LONE for an unveiled view of the glories of the gospel of Christ.A deep conviction seized the minds of almost the whole body, that they were DIVINELV AND PECU

With these coadjutors; Campbell and Woolsey on my right hand, and Carson and Judd on my left ; I should like to go and knock at the door of the Baptist Foreign Missionary establishments, and inquire-Brethren, how do you translate the word of God? If they answerWe make the Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves as often as they come from the market, then Campbell and Woolsey shall reply : Brethren, this is not right, you make the word of God speak falsehood. If the missionaries answer, we make the Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews dip their hands simply, when they come from the market; then the brethren on my left shall reply, Carson and Judd shall make answer ;_" Brethren, the word of God says that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves, before eating, as often as they come from the market;" and you have given no faithful translation. You have corrupted the word of God. You have 6 corrected and altered the diction of the Holy Ghost.” From the sword of the brethren-either of those on my right hand or of those on my left, the missionary translators cannot escape. And now having proved the missionary translation unfaithful—the brethren on my right and the

LIARLY SET for the defence and dissemination of the gospel, as delivered to men by its Heavenly Author. A new zeal in their Master's cause, and unwonted kindlings of fraternal love glowed in their hearts; and an attracting and concentrating movement, reaching to the utmost extremity of the mass, began, and has been going on and increasing in power ever since."

brethren on my left shall turn their arms against each other.* These shall demonstrate that those have made the Bible speak falsehood; those shall demonstrate that these have disguised and corrupted the word of God. Neither can resist the assault of the other; each scheme is certainly and totally destroyed. And when the battle is fought, in which I have nothing to do but to stand still and wait the issue—when the battle is fought, till each party is so beaten that he can fight no longer; I would take them by the hand, and say, Brethren, abandon the ground on which you must mutually destroy each other, or else fight on for ever. Do you not see that each is

[ocr errors]

Professor Eaton, of Hamilton Baptist Institute, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society, at their anniversary in 1840 [See Report of said Society, p. 74], says, “ The translation" of the Baptist Missionaries “is so undeniably correct,” that its incorrectness could not be “pretended," "without committing the objector's character for scholarship and candor." “ Who are they, sir," said he, 'who cavil upon the plain meaning of the original word whose translation is so offensive? Are they the Porsons, and the Campbells, and the Greenfields, and such like ?" No, sir,"_" But the cavillers, sir, are men who, whatever may be their standing in other respects, have no reputation as linguists and philologists to lose. There really can be no rational doubt in the mind of any sound and candid Greek scholar, about the evident meaning of the words in question. I venture to say, at the risk of the little reputation for Greek scholarship which I possess, that there are no words of plainer import in the Bible. The profane tampering which has been applied to these words,” &c. &c.

I shall not dispute here, that all this may be very modest and catholic. It is at least such matter as the American and Foreign Bible Society are willing to append to their report and publish to the world. But I should like to see which side Professor Eaton would take amid these combatants ; and in what plight he would stand when the battle is over, take which side he would.

defenceless in his own position; and irresistible when he attacks that of the other ? Between you both the truth comes out clear; that baptism is not necessarily immersion ; and that while you endeavor to make it so, you are on the one hand compelled to make the Bible speak falsehood, and on the other, to alter and corrupt the word of God.

And what shall they do? Shall they make peace on the only rational ground? Or shall one yield his judgment to the other, and vote that one opinion to be infallible ? Or, for the sake of saving the Baptist cause, shall they strike hands and be made friends : agreeing, on the one party, to allow the Bible to speak falsehood, provided it may only speak immersion; and agreeing, on the other party, provided immersion may be retained, to admit the word of God to be altered, and disguised, and corrupted, by "an ingenious conceit, without any authority from the practice of the language" in which the New Testament was written ?

I would respectfully ask our Baptist brethren to look nto this matter. I would respectfully call their attention :) the necessity laid upon thein in their present position, of falling upon one of the three points of the alternative, which here presents itself to them. With their present disagreement, in which a part of them side with Carson and Judd, and a part with Campbell and Woolsey, it is impossible for them to give a faithful translation, on the Baptist principle, without entering into a compromise, which shall either make the Bible speak falsehood, or else alter and pervert the sacred diction of the word of God. I would respectfully suggest to the brethren of each of these two parties, the necessity of looking into these foreign translations; and of taking heed, lest in their zeal to maintain immersion, they unconsciously fall into such a compromise as this. It surely becomes them to whom“ is committed the sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations of the oracles of God, into the languages of the earth,” to be careful and uncompromis-.

ing here.



For giving a definition to “baptize” which shall refer to the intent and the import, and omit all reference to the mode-a definition which shall express the substance of baptism with no reference to the circumstance,—we have the soundest warrant and the most explicit example in the word of God. Thus : Jesus, with his disciples, was baptizing in Judea ; John in Enon (John iïi 22-26). A question arose between some of John's disciples and the Jews “about PURIFYING.” To settle it, they come and refer it to John under the shape of a question about BAP

Their minds fastened on the substance, not on the circumstance. Their idea of baptism was not the modern Baptist idea. Baptism, with them, was not an immersing but a purifying. Their question is about baptizing; but it is not about dipping, or sprinkling, or pouring, or immersing, but about PURIFYING: and they state the question to John as a question about baptizing. In their view the words“ baptize" and "purify” are so far synonymous, that in a debate about purifying they may use either the word purify or the word baptize. But with them the word purify could not be synonymous with immerse: for their common purifications of persons were either in the general mode of washing, or in the

« PreviousContinue »