Page images
PDF
EPUB

Dr. A. Clarke :- "The repetition of Christian baptism I believe to be profane."

Let us all who have been solemnly dedicated in baptism to God, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, recollect that "we are debtors to keep the whole law." And may God, whose we are, "send us help from his sanctuary, and strengthen us out of Zion," that we may walk worthy of our high, holy, and heavenly calling.

ment.

MODE OF BAPTISM.

On this part of the subject I think Mr. Broaddus's motto or text a very unfortunate one, as he cannot show any analogy between the detailed directions given to Moses for building the tabernacle, and the casual or accidental manner in which baptism is mentioned in the New TestaFor if God had given as specific directions for baptizing as he did anciently for making the tabernacle, it would not have been necessary for Mr. B. to labour through forty-two pages to show the pattern given for baptism. He says, Sermon, p. 6, that he selected that motto as suggesting the necessity of a rigid adherence to the EXPRESSED will of God, especially in relation to institutions," &c.; and then proceeds to assert a fanciful distinction between what he calls "moral and positive requirements," and says, "The manner of performing a moral obligation may be perfectly indifferent;" but declares it is not so with "positive institutions." Unfortu

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

nately for Mr. B., he has not even attempted to furnish a single proof from God's word in support of this view of positive institutes and moral duties. To be sure he quotes Bishop Hoadley in proof. But I cannot perceive that the bishop's words sustain Mr. B.'s position. Mr. B. says "positive institutions;" the bishop says "positive duties." Now, positive duties may be institutions, or they may not. If Mr. B. had been so good as to tell where this saying of the bishop's is to be found, we should have been better able to tell whether the words will bear that kind of application. So far as we can perceive, the evidence is not to the point, but to be proved. Mr. B. says on the same page, "We may expect to find the word of God very explicit on the subject of positive institutions," and yet his distinction is unsupported by a single text of Scripture. I enter my dissent from his starting position relative to positive institutions, because it stands opposed to facts. 1. Circumcision was a positive institute; and can any man show any detailed explicit direction about the manner of performing the rite? 2. The sacrament of the Lord's supper is a positive institute. Do the Scriptures give specific directions about the manner of attending to that? It was first celebrated in the night, in a reclining posture, with unleavened bread, in an upper room, &c., &c.; and yet what intelligent Christian supposes that these things are any more than mere circumstances, or that they are necessary to the acceptable celebration of that supper? Do our Baptist

brethren celebrate it at night? or with unleavened bread? And would not Mr. B. himself as soon receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper on the Lord's day, in the house of God, as on Thursday night, in an upper room of a private house? I know there are superstitious people who regard a mere circumstance in a sacrament as a matter of great moment. And so there were those of old who thought more of “ "tithing mint" than they did of the "love of God."

Let our Baptist friends apply their own practice with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's supper to the principle which Mr. B. lays down with regard to "positive institutions," and they will see a great want of agreement between his principles and their practice. And say, candid reader, is the institution of baptism more important than that which represents "his broken body" and "his shed blood"-and shows forth the Lord's death till his coming again? Why, then, this insisting on a "pattern" for baptism, when no man can show in God's word a "pattern" for the sacrament of the Lord's supper? Bread and wine are spoken of for the one, and water as the element for the observance of the other. And although Mr. B. says, p. 27, “The word of God knows nothing for baptism but immersion," I as unhesitatingly declare, that the word of God speaks of baptism where immersion was utterly out of the question.

Now, candid reader, I have just placed my assertion alongside of Mr. B.'s, hoping that you will receive neither the one nor the other in this matter

without proof. The PROOF I hope to be able to give you in the following pages.

Mr. B. commences on the MODE, by finding fault with the translators for leaving the Greek terms untranslated; giving them an English termination, instead of translating them immerse, immersed, immersion, &c. And both in the Strictures and Sermon, King James, the bishops, and translators, are treated without ceremony.

The impartial reader will judge whether it is likely that the king, the bishops, and forty-seven translators would form a conspiracy against the truth; and give to the world a translation that did not express fully what they believed to be the sense of the original term baptizo. I would ask Mr. B., Who prevented the Latin and French translators from translating the original, so far as to favour immersion only? And why he did not furnish evidence that Dr. George Campbell, in his translation of the gospels--or the great Dutch reformer, Martin Luther, in his translation of the Bible-has translated the original differently from King James's translators? For he says, Sermon, p. 29, that both Dr. Campbell and Luther held the original term as meaning immersion or dipping only. To be sure, Mr. B. says that Luther calls John the Baptist "John the Dipper," and gives what he considers the German of Luther's Testament-" Johannes der Taufer"—which Mr. B. (the translator) renders "John the Dipper." Reader, I do not pretend to be able to translate German, but I

strongly suspect that this gentleman has hit as wide of the truth here, as in making baptizo mean immersion only. A friend of mine, who understands and speaks the German, informs me that the English of "Johannes der Taufer" is John the BAPTIST; and that the German for DIPPER or IMMERSER is not "Taufer," but "TUNCKER;" hence the name of that sect of Christians called "Tunckers," or vulgarly “Dunkards," who baptize candidates by dipping them three times.

The translators, in retaining the original word in the translation, only followed what had been the general practice; for, even as far back as the second century, the author of the Peshito, an old Syriac version of the New Testament, the oldest version extant, although the Syriac has a word which signifies to plunge, dip, immerse, has never used that word in the translation to denote baptism. Prof. Stewart, p. 78. Again: that the precise idea of immersion cannot apply to baptizing, or that it does not appear that the words baptize and baptism would be properly rendered by the words immerse, immersion, we may safely conclude from the following consideration:-The earliest Latin translators did not find the Greek words properly represented by mergo, immergo, immersio; although these words properly signified to immerse, immersion, and were commonly so used in the Latin language. They saw there was a meaning to the Greek word which their word denoting immersion did not fairly represent. And this was at a time, too, when there were no contro

« PreviousContinue »