« PreviousContinue »
have a word for each of these things. But certainly it will not be contended that all heathen nations are in the habit of performing such a thing as a Christian baptism, in the Christian sense. The Baptists do not consider every immersion a baptism, in the Christian sense. they do, then, so far as baptism is concerned, they musi hold communion with every man who accidentally falls overboard; if they do not, then they do not consider immersion as equivalent to baptism; and it is idle to pretend that the word baptism is equivalent to the word im merse, or that immerse is an adequate or faithful translation of the word baptize. On our part we do not hold every man baptized who has been accidentally sprinkled in a shower. We cannot therefore claim that the word baptize is equivalent to the word sprinkle and do not consider the word sprinkle or the word pour as a proper translation of the word baptize.* No word which ex
*Our Baptist brethren are fond of making a representation touching this matter, which is very plausible and captivating to ignorant and unreflecting minds; but nothing can be more disingenuous in the estimation of those who understand the subject. Thus, Mr. Woolsey, p. 211, endeavors to show what "effort" we make "to get around the plain instruction of the apostle" in Rom vi. 4, by insinuating that we would have it read,—or take ground which requires us to read-"Buried with him by sprinkling." The Baptist Bible Society is equally disingenuous and injurious -not only with regard to us, but with regard to the truth in this matter. Thus, in the Appendix to the Report for 1840, p. 52, they say, “If a Pedo-baptist translator conscientiously believes that sprinkling or pouring is the meaning of baptizo, let him thus render the word." The reader cannot fail, I think, to see the fallacy and disingenuousness of such an argument, and such a mode of representing Pedo-baptist views. Our brethren represent us as holding what I think they must know we do
presses simply a MODE of applying water can fill up the idea of the word baptizo; and any word which limits the application to any one mode is an arrant perversion of the Scriptures which expressly speak of baptism under two modes, sprinkling and pouring; and refer to it again and again under the more general idea of a purifying, or a washing. The mode immerse is the very one which finds the least countenance in the word of God: if, indeed, there is any unquestionable authority for that mode, aside from its being one of the modes of washing or purifying.
In translating the word baptize, therefore, we must have a word which possesses two qualities: 1st, It must denote a sacred application of water in a ritual purifying: 2d, It must not limit the application to any one mode. To wash or to purify, comes nearer the true idea, than either of the words, sprinkle or immerse ; and they are the only words which can be employed with exclusive reference to a mode of baptizing, consistently with the truth of the Bible. Yet neither wash, nor purify, has the exact and full signification, by the common acceptation of these terms. To wash did not originally, in our language, mean a ritual purification, much less did immerse have that meaning; and to purify does not in the common use of our language signify necessarily ⚫ an application of water. We may use them, with a not hold; viz. that baptize in the New Testament signifies a mode of applying water; is synonymous with the word sprinkle; and can be adequately and truly translated by the term sprinkle. Assuming that we maintain this, and so representing us, they endeavor to show the absurdity of such ground; and then,——“ coverng up and concealing" our real views, they endeavor to transfer" that absurdity to our account.
modification of their common meaning; and the connection will show in what sense they are used. But after all, when the new idea of baptism came into the minds of the old Britons, they needed either a new word, or a new adaptation of an old word to express that idea. They wanted a term which should express a ritual purifying by some manner of sacred application of water : and it mattered not what word they employed, nor from what source it was derived, provided they might agree respecting what word should express the idea. To illustrate this, in the South Sea Islands, they had no knowledge of such a thing as a horse; and of course no word for horse. But in translating the Bible for them, it was necessary to find something to substitute for the word horse. The animal might have been described by a long circumlocution, by the use of words already existing in their language; but this would not do; the word must be translated. How could this be done, as the natives had no word for horse? The Missionaries made a word for them. The Greek word for horse is Hippos; and by leaving off the last letter, the word would conform in shape and sound to the structure of native words much better than the English word horse, and quite as well as any other combination of sounds that might be invented. So the Missionaries translated the word horse by the word "Hippo." But this word would need explana
*The Missionaries at the Sandwich Islands found the Hawaiian language so copious that they were not under the necessity of introducing a great number of foreign words, except proper names. "We have, however," say they, "adopted Ekalesia for church, bapetiso for baptize, bapetiso for baptism, bapetite for baptist, lepero for leper, aeto for eagle, alopeke for fox, berena for bread,
tion. Grant it. And so has the word baptizo to be explained by Baptist translators, and they explain it to mean,-most erroneously as we believe,-immersion.
NO NEW THING TO TRANSFER PECULIAR WORDS FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER.
This transferring of words from one language to another is not so uncommon a process as many of our brethren seem to suppose it. What English word shall be substituted for the Greek word "Tetrarch," in Luke iii. 1? What for the Greek word "Pentecost," in Acts ii. 1? What for the Greek words "Christ" and "Christians?" "Christ" signifies anointed; and so does the Hebrew "Messiah." But to translate the word, in all cases, on the principle contended for by our Baptist brethren, would confound and destroy the meaning of many passages of Scripture. The word is applied by way of eminence, as an APPELLATION, to the promised Redeemer. In Matt. i. 1, 18, and Mark i., as often elsewhere, our Lord is called, not "Jesus THE Christ," but "Jesus Christ" As George Campbell well says (D. V., Part 4), "Though the word Anointed expresses the primitive import of the Hebrew name, it does not convey the idea in which it was then universally understood. It was considered solely as the well-known title of an extraordinary office, to which there was nothing similar among the people." That the word Christ has this peculiar mean
enemi for enemy, himeni for hymn, halelu for psalm, and a few other foreign words, most of which are well established and familiar to common readers."-(Report of the American Bible Society, 1837.) The classical and Biblical scholar will at once recognize the origin of most of these words.
ing when applied to the Saviour, may be seen at once, by applying the word, in its English sense, to other personages, who are often spoken of by the same original words, both in Hebrew and Greek. How would it sound to hear David speaking of Saul, as in 1 Sam. xxiv. 6, repeatedly call that wicked king the "Christ of the Lord?" How would it sound in Isa. xlv.1, to hear the Lord speaking to Cyrus, as to his "Christ?" or, in Psalm CV., "Touch not my Christs?" Here the sense as imperatively demands that the word be translated according to its original import, as other passages do that it should not be translated but transferred.
I suppose it would be lawful to talk to the Hindoos, or the Burmans, about the Jewish "Synagogues; though that too is a word of Greek origin. If any heathen have no term for such beings as devils, I suppose it would be lawful to introduce to them such words as the Greek Diabolos, or the English word devil. It would be a matter of indifference whether you introduce to them our Hebraic English word " Sabbath," and teach them its meaning; or teach them how to use one of their own old words with a new meaning. The volume of God's word might retain its Greek-English name Bible, or it might be turned into the words vernacular among the heathen, for "writings," or for "The Book ;" only teaching them to give a new idea to their common words. Such words as "Jubilee," "homer," "ephah," "shekel," "cherubim," might be transferred, or old words selected, and taught to bear a meaning not originally their own, as should be found most convenient. A scholar, dealing in profane literature only, in translating from the ancient Greek writers, or from Cicero or Tacitus, might find