ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Jews sent certain persons to pump him. If this baptism had been a new thing, these persons would have been sent to ask, and would have asked him, "what new thing is this you are introducing;" as well as "by what authority are you doing it." But instead of this, among other things, they asked him, if he was a prophet? and he answering in the negative, (though Christ afterwards contradicts him, and says he was the greatest of prophets, and Elias to boot) they then retort upon him: and ask, "by what authority then do you baptise?" thereby intimating, that were he a prophet, it would be lawful for him to baptise, in other words, that prophets did baptise.— We are told also, that Nicodemus, in his interview with Christ, confessed his ignorance of the new birth, to be effected by water and spirit. Christ is astonished that the expression "being born again," should be new or strange to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. But if this expression, "new birth," or "being born again," was something new, and then for the first time introduced by Christ, it is absurd to suppose, that he could have been surprised at the ignorance of Nicodemus, although he was a learned man among the the Jews.

Now, as we are here in doubt, and the whole matter wants explanation; it is proper to go out of the book for it, for the same reason that we go out of it to learn why it was, that old bottles would not, in that day, hold new wine. In the one case we learn, that bottles were made of leather, and in the other, that when a Gentile was admitted into the Jewish church, he was baptised, that is, immersed all over in water, every part of his body being touched with it. He was then said to be regenerated-to commence his existence anew--so that his children, born before this, did not inherit― in short, all things past, to him, were as nothing.

Nicodemus, no doubt, knew all this, but he could not understand how a Jew was to be born again; and Christ being very fond of little equivoques, would not help him out of the difficulty, but upbraided him with ignorance of the Jewish law. He did not tell him plainly, that as Gentiles were born or brought into the Jewish kingdom, so Jews were to be born or brought into his. But, by his answer, he lets us know, that Gentiles were in some form, born into the Jewish church by water. From other sources we learn, that this form was immersion into it.

Before I can introduce direct proof from the scriptures, to support my position, it will be necessary to settle the meaning of the Greek word baptism. The controversies among the christian sectarians, have created this necessity. A more definite word cannot be found in any language. Strange, indeed, that volumes sufficient to fill this room, have been written in the controversy as to the meaning of a word, representing some definite, sensible, bodily action. A strong case this, to prove, that any human language yet known

is too frail and imperfect a medium for the communication of God's will to man. Your most learned Doctors agree, that the English word immersion, though of Latin derivation, best expresses the meaning of the Greek word baptism. As in our language, so in the Greek, there are certain words that may be said to have a definite meaning; that is, always used to express one and the same idea. In truth, every word in every language had originally a primary and definite meaning. Some are converted into, or become, what we call general terms, others not. Of the first class is the word wash-of the last, is the word immerse, or baptise, though in one or two instances this word is used figuratively in the scriptures.

To explain. The primary meaning of the verb to wash, is to cleanse, by the application of water, assisted by rubbing or friction. Thus, if I tell a servant girl to wash my towel, she understands me as commanding her to apply water to it, and rub it, until all the filth and dirt be out of it. Still we use the word wash to signify any cleansing, no matter by what means effected; and sometimes to signify a mere wetting, and sometimes the great force of water. Thus we say, "the shower has washed the mown grass," "the flood washed the mill-dam away;" so we can say, "wash yourself by being sprinkled, or by having water poured upon you, or by being immersed in water;" but we do not say, "sprinkle yourself by being washed," or immerse yourself by being washed," or "arise, and be washed, and thus baptise, or immerse, or sprinkle away your sins."

We have thus shown, that to baptise, as well as to sprinkle, is a definite term. The question now is, what is its meaning? No honest man can look me in the face, and say, it means any thing else than to immerse, or dip or plunge. And if the translators of the bible had been honest men, there would have been no difficulty at this day, on this subject."

There is a Greek word nipto, a definite term also; its meaning is the same as the primary meaning of our verb to wash, though applicable to the hands only. So it would be contrary to all rule to say, "arise, be baptised (baptistheti) and nipto away your sins," as much so as to say, "be immersed and scour away your sins."

All this is introductory to the seventh chapter of Mark, in which the question now under discussion, is settled in express terms, in the original. But because our translators have taken the liberty to translate the definite verb baptiso, by the general and indefinite English verb to wash; I have been drawn into this very tedious philological disquisition. I am well aware also, that unless I can shew, that the present translators make the evangelists speak nonsense, all my disquisitions will pass unheeded, by those who choose to call themselves unlearned. The passage, in this 7th Mark, to which I allude, is in these words, in our translation-"For the Pharisees

and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not."

Was there

In the first place, let us inquire, what is meant by the word oft? Does the evangelist mean to say, that they washed their hands several times, before each meal? Grant that he does. Let us now read the passage with this substitution. "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands several times, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, they eat not, except they wash! Wash what? Their hands? Their face? How oft? or how many times? less to be done, when coming from the market, where a superstitious Jew imagined that he might be defiled by the contact of thousands of unclean persons or things, than when he had been exposed to no such defilements? You must agree that something more was to be done, by way of purification, after returning from the market, than usual. But they washed oft, or several times, as a general rule, before eating; and yet, according to our present translators, they merely washed before they ate, after returning from the market. Why state an extra case, unless something extra the general rule by way of purification, was to be performed? It is at present translated, as if I should say: "as a general rule, I wash my mouth with my finger after every meal (I never did this, but have seen it done) but when I eat onions, I wash my mouth." Would you not be disappointed? Should I not raise expectations in you, by stating the extra case of the onions, that after eating them, I scoured my mouth out with a stiff brush, dipped in pounded charcoal?

It must be apparent to every one, that here is a false translation. I will now quote the passage using the Greek verbs. "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they nipsoantai their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they return from the market, except they baptisoantai, they eat not." As Mark has used different words here, he intended to convey different ideas. Baptisoantai (a form of the verb baptiso) must have meant something more than nipsoantai, (a form of the verb nipto.) The Greek word rendered oft, is pugme, which means, like a pugilist, or up to the elbows. So the real meaning of Mark would be expressed in English thus: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands like a pugilist, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, they eat not, except they immerse themselves, or are immersed, or have themselves immersed."

Your own learned Grotius, learned in the customs and antiquities of the Jews, tells you, that on coming from the market, (a foro) they purified themselves (purgabant se) by immersing their bodies (a mersando corpus.) See

Bishop Horne's work for this quotation from Grotius. See also the same work, for a quotation from Manonides, in which that learned Jew, particularly describes the immersion of beds and tables, by his countrymen—such as holding the bed by the fringe, and dipping first one end, and then the other, of the table, until every part should be once under water.

It having been thus shown, that the Jews, before, and at the time of Christs appearing, were as run mad on the subject of immersion, as the Catholics ever were on the subject of sprinkling; the conclusion I drew from the colloquy between John the Baptist, and the scribes and pharisees sent to pump him, will not be considered far-fetched, viz: that prophets were in the habit of baptising Jews, for the purpose of effecting a moral cleansing. This was one of those institutions, that sprung up during the interregnum of four or five nundred years, immediately preceding Christ. The reply of John to Christ, "I have need to be baptisad of thee," indicates clearly, that this baptism was no new ceremony; and also, that the greater the prophet or teacher, the greater the propriety of his being the administrator; and lastly, the fact, that Christ baptised, (for John states the fact twice positively, which is but once denied, and that in a parenthesis; a mark of spuriousness is proof positive, that all reformers, or teachers, or prophets, at that day baptised—that baptiser and prophet, or reformer, were convertible terms-in other words, that the administration of baptism was an office or duty, without which, no one could aspire to the character of a reformer or teacher of a new doctrine. It was the ceremony by which a Gentile was initiated into the Jewish congregation or church. It was also the ceremony of initiation into the respective parties of John and Jesus. See John III. 22-29, and IV. 1, also, Acts XIX. 3. From which it is plain, that it was the ceremony of initiation, at that day, into any and every new sect or party.

John was not then the first baptist or immerser. After him Christ or his disciples immersed. They could not have done so, in commemoration of his burial and resurrection, which had not yet happened. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, did not say, "be baptised for the remission of sins, and also, in commemoration of Christ's burial and resurrection. No Apostle has ever hinted at such an idea. (It will be recollected that I do not include Paul among the Apostles.) Baptism is not, therefore, a commemorative institution. But admitting, that it was instituted by Peter, for the purpose contended for, on the day of Pentecost: for the reasons before given, it prove nothing.

Having bid Mr. Leslie farewell, we will pay our particular respects to John the Baptist. We are told by Luke that he was second cousin to Jesus-about six months the elder-that their mothers met while pregnant,

both having full and particular information as to the parts their sons were to enact—that they talked all these things over-that John while in the womb, leaped for joy, at the salutatlon of her who was then carrying his future Lord. Now John may have forgotten all these things, but did his mother and his cousin Mary forget them? If they did not, is it to be supposed, they wholly concealed them from their sons? Had John never seen his cousin Jesus, till he saw him at Bethabara? Was he inspired to proclaim himself the harbinger of a Messiah, not having had the least intimation who the Messiah was to be. This is not probable. Yet, the evangelists, John in particular, wish to make us believe, that John the baptist, was wholly unknown to Jesus, and that the God of the universe, acted as master of ceremonies at their introduction.

« 前へ次へ »