СНАР.

I.

"Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some Mark vii. 1, of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with un2, 3 washen) hands, they found fault, for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradi4 tion of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen 5 vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, 6 but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far 7 from me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doc8 trines the commandments of men. For, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

The word used in the phrase "wash their hands" is nipsontai; that in "except they wash," is baptizontai;

assure you, if the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not only may, but manifestly must signify sprinkling, perfusion or washing in any way."

Again:-"Now, we contend, that this word does not necessarily, nor even commonly, signify to immerse; but also implies to wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with any liquid; and, therefore, accords very well with the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion."

After taking this bold ground, the Doctor very wisely declines entering into the details of Greek criticism, as not "suitable to our purpose." The Doctor is right there. I have simply to ask, whether Dr. Miller believes Calvin, Luther, Johnson, Porson, Neander, to be mature and competent Greek scholars? and knowing their sentiments as he must be presumed to do, to be in concurrence with many other great English scholars and divines, and the great majority of the German critics, I am filled with deep regret, that a Christian man, in such a position, should dare to risk his moral character, by printing a statement so very remote from the truth.

the washing of cups is baptismous; and the same in SECT. the eighth verse.

The other two instances are so nearly referring to the same customs, that they will be introduced here; the same explanation making all equally plain.

IV.

“And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with Luke, xi. 37, him and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the 38. Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not washed first before dinner."

The term mistranslated "washed," is "immersed himself," (ebaptisthe.)

"Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and diverse washings Heb. ix. 10. and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

The term rendered "washings" is immersions, (baptismous.)

on coming ܖܖ܂

Mark vii. 4

First, respecting the declaration that the Jews "when Immersion they come from market except they wash eat not;" from and the fact that the Pharisee wondered that Christ did market. not "wash" before dinner. I claim not only that in Luke xi. 38. both cases the term may be translated immerse, but that it ought so to have been translated: rendering the word otherwise is contrary to the plain rule that the ordinary meaning of a word being established, it is not to be changed without absolute necessity requires it; and where is any kind of necessity in these cases? Suppose it was not known that it was customary for the Jews to immerse themselves in the bath, after coming from market, or from a crowd, (which is the true meaning of agora,) before they ate their dinner; because we may aŋopa. be ignorant of a custom alluded to, does that affect the meaning of a plain word? "Let it be observed," says Mr. Carson, "and never let it be forgotten, that with p. respect to the meaning of a word in any passage, the

105.

I.

CHAP. proof that it has such a meaning always lies upon him who uses it in that meaning as an argument or objection; for this obvious reason, that if it is not proved, it is neither argument nor objection."

A Jewish custom.

There is every reasonable probability, however, (independently of these passages, which render it yet more probable,) that it was the custom among the Jews to immerse themselves in the cases alluded. "Why should it be thought incredible," observes Mr. Carson, “that the Pharisees immersed themselves after market? If an Egyptian, on touching a swine, would run to the river, and plunge in with his clothes, is it strange that superstitious Pharisees should immerse themselves after the pollution of the market?" It may be added, that the tradition of the elders, or as the Jews call them, "the words of the Scribes, the commands of the wise men," expressly require dipping. In general they say, "wheresoever in the law, washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else but the dipping of the whole body in water; for if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." 996

e Dr. Gale observes, that "all the versions in the Polyglot, except those of Montanus, and the vulgar Latin, to wit, the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic and Persic, unanimously understand the words in a sense quite different from what has been hitherto mentioned, that is, they all take the meaning to be, not that the Jews washed themselves, or their hands, when they came from the market, but that the herbs, for instance, and other things they bought there, were first to be washed, before they could be eaten. Thus they translate the place, And what they buy in the market, unless it be washed, they eat not. It must be owned, the Greek is capable of this sense."-It may be presumed that things coming from the market are very apt to be immersed before they come on the table, I do not apprehend, however, this to be the meaning of the passage. f Robinson's History of Baptism, London, 4to. 1790, p. 32.

IV.

hands; two

Many of the most learned pœdobaptist writers, and SECT. their best biblical critics, are of opinion that two sorts of washing of hands are referred to, one by pouring Washing of water on them, (nipsontai,) the other by dipping, (bap- kinds. tizontai.) Professor Ripley, in his Reply, quotes Jahn's Biblical Archæology, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Spencer, Lightfoot, and Dr. G. Campbell, to that effect. I give the testimony of the latter;

"For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, first, that the two verbs rendered wash, in the English translation, are different in the original. The first is nipsontai, properly translated wash; the second is baptizontai, which limits us to a particular mode of washing; for baptizo denotes to plunge, or dip." Accordingly Dr. Campbell translates the passage, " For the Pharisees eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them; and if they be come from market, by dipping them."

of pots, &c.

Secondly, the baptism of pots, brazen vessels and beds Immersion (not tables). How pots and other vessels are cleansed, is well known to all except podobaptist literati; with respect to beds, there is something strange till the Jewish customs on this point are understood. Maimonides, the well known Jewish writer, is surely sufficient authority on this point. He observes, "in a laver which holds forty seahs of water, they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure. If he dips the bed in the pool, although the feet are plunged in the thick clay, at the bottom of the pool, it is clean. What shall he do with a pillow or a bolster of skin? He must dip them and lift them up by the fringes." And yet Dr. Wardlaw says, with respect to the immersion of beds, “he who can receive it, let him receive it." Mr. Carson justly, though perhaps severely,

CHAP. replies, " he who dares reject it, rejects the testimony of God."s

I.

Divers bap

tisms.

The remaining case, is that of "divers baptisms." Heb. ix. 10. Now having already shown that the Jews used divers immersions, although it be perfectly true they used divers sprinklings also, we need only add, for what possible reason should the word appropriate to immersion, here be referred to sprinklings? We never claim a word appropriated to sprinkling, (rantizo, for instance,) to mean immersion. There were divers immersions, and they are referred to in the passage.

ραντιζο.

Dr. Miller.

It is really amusing to observe how the blind zeal of Dr. Miller plunges him into difficulty in this passage:"But happily, the inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt what those divers baptisms' were, of which he speaks. He singles out and presents sprinkling as his chosen and only specimen. For,' says he, in the 13th, 19th, and 21st verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by divers baptisms,' if the blood of

If immersion is the meaning of the word, it is not optional to receive or reject it. Whether or not this is its meaning, must be learned from its history, not from the abstract probability or improbability of the immersion of beds. If the history of the word declares its meaning to be immersion, the mere difficulty of immersing beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, cannot imply that it has another meaning here. The principle, then, of this objection, and the language in which these writers state it, cannot be too strongly reprobated. If adopted on other questions respecting the will of God, it tends to set us loose from the authority of his word."-Carson, p. 108.

h The Doctor forgets that the Apostle mentions "carnal ordinances," as well as "washings;" can he expect his reader will forget too? A child could correct the President by telling him that the "sprinkling of blood" referred to the "carnal ordinances," not the "washings." Sprinkling with blood," a washing !" Even the Doctor's "I can assure you," will fail here.