« ZurückWeiter »
As for the other in Isai. xxi. 4. he says, “ it is no wonder they made use of “ the word, for they knew very well that sin procures showers of divine dif
pleasure to be poured upon a person, people, and nation.” I desire the next time he pretends to baptize an infant, that he would pour showers of water upon it, if he thinks proper, according to this sense of the word B277136, which he allows of. But however, though those teftimonies must be laid aside, yet,
3dly, I hope Lexicons may be made use of to direct us in the sense of the word, if it is only as it is used in the New Testament. Yes, that will be allowed of; for Mr M. himself consults Lexicons, though he does well to let us know fo; for one would have thought, by his positiveness, that he had never looked into one in all his life. Well, but what do the Lexicons say? How do they render the word Be7713 w? Why by mergo, immergo, to dip or plunge into; and this they give, as the first, and primary sense of the word; but do they make use of no other words to express it by ? Yes, they also use abluo, lavo, to wash; and they mean such a washing as is by dipping, but Mr M.p. 38. asks, where do they tell us so? I answer in their Lexicons. Let Scapula be consulted, who thus renders the word B477.30, mergo feu immergo : Ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aque immergimus. But,
4thly, Let us now consider those texts where the word is used in the New Testament; I am willing to be confined to those which Mr M. himself has fixed upon, and we will begin,
First, With Mark vii. 4. and when they come from the market, except they woh or baptize (themselves) they eat not; which may be understood either,
1. Of the things they bought in the market, which they did not eat until they were washed: Thus the Syriac version reads the words; and what they buy in the market, unless it be washed, they eat not : The same way read all the oriental versions, the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Perfic. Now this must be understood of those things that may be, and are proper to be washed, as herbs, &c. And nobody will question, but that the manner of the washing these was by putting them into
Bur, 2. If the words design the washing of persons, they must be understood, either of the washing of their whole bodies, or else of some part only; as their hands or feet: It seems most likely, that the washing of the whole body is intended, as Grotius", Vatablus, Drufius', and others think; because washing of hands is mentioned in the preceding verse. Besides, to understand it thus, better expresses the outward, affected fanctity of the more superstitious part of the people. All the Jews washed their hands and feet before eating; but those who pretended to a greater degree of holiness, washed their whole bodies, ef
pecially In loc.
1 De tribus Sea. Jud. lib. 2. C. 15.
pecially when they came from a market; and of this total ablution of the body is Luke xi. 38. to be understood. And here I cannot forbear mentioning a passage of the great Scaligerk to this purpose. “The more superstitious part of the Jews,
says he, not only washed their feet, but their whole body. Hence they were “ called Hemerobaptists, who every day washed their bodies before they sat down “ to food; wherefore, the Pharisee, which had invited Jesus to dine with him, “ wondered that he sat down to meat before he had walhed his whole body, “ Luke xi. But those that were more free from superstition, were contented “ with washing of their feet, instead of that universal immersion. Witness the " Lord himself, who being entertained at dinner by another Pharisee, objected “ to him, when he was fac down to meat, that he had given him no water for “ his feet, Luke vii."
3. If, by this washing, we understand only the washing of their hands when they came from market; then it will be proper to inquire in what manner this was performed: And it must be observed, that whatever was the manner which they used, it was not used as a national custom, or as it was according to the word of God; but what was most agreeable to the traditions of the elders, as is manifest from the text itself. Now this tradition is delivered in their Misna in these words ; “ They washed their hands before they eat common food, by an “ elevation of them; but before they eat the tithes, the offering, and the holy
Aesh, they washed by immersion!.” It is reported in the same tract, that Johanan Ben Gud-Gada, who, they say, was one of the most religious in the priesthood, “always eat his common food after the manner of purification for eating “ of the holy Acih ;" that is, he always used immersion before eating; and it is highly reasonable to suppose, that the Pharisees, especially the more superftitious part, who pretended to a greater strictness in religion than others, used the same method. I deserves also to be remarked, that this tradition, which some of the Jews have been so tenacious of, that they would rather die than break it, is by them said to be founded on Lev. xv. 11. and hath not rinsed bis. bands in water ; where the Hebrew word guw is used, which signifies a washing by immersion: and so Buxtorf renders it. Moreover, in the abovesaid Misna
k Judæi vero fuperftitiofiores non pedes tantum, fed & corpus totum intingebant. Hinc muse96a7Tisa di&ti, qui quotidie, ante discubitum, corpus intingebant. Quare Pharifæus ille, qui sesum ad cænam invitaverat, mirabatur eum, antequam totum corpus abluisset, discubuisse : 051 8 W EWTON εξαπλιδη προ τα αρισα, Luc. xi. Pariores vero a superstitione, pro universali illa Battise, contenti erant rodonalem, hoc est, pedilavio. Teftis dominus ipfe, qui alii Pharisæo, a quo cæna exceptus fuerat, objicit, fibi discubituro aquam ad pedes datam non fuisse. Luc. vii. vowe ETS TES. Trodas Meyx idwxas. Scaliger de Emend. Temp. lib. vi. p. 571.
| Trad. Chagigah, c. 2. §. 5.
we are told many things concerning this tradition, as the quantity and quality of the water they used, the vesels they washed in, as well as how far chis waihing reached, which was pro ty, by which they meant, either the back of the band or the wrist, or else the elbow, as Theophylałt obferves on Mark vii. 3. who in this is followed by Capellus". Now some one of these, the word puguem, intends, which we transate oft. As to their manner of washing, it was either by taking water in one hand and pouring it upon the other, and then lifting it up, thac the water might run down to the aforesaid parts, that to it might not return and defile them; or else it was performed by an immersion of them into water; which latier was accounted the most effectual way, and uled by the more fuperftitious part of the Jews. Now those who contend the most for a washing of hands, and not the whole body, as Pocock P and Lightfoot, yet frankly acknowledge that it must be understood of washing of them by immersion. Lightfool's words are these, “The Jews used, says he, o't obowy“ a waihing of hands ?;” that is, by
lifting them up in the inanner before described; and "ban an immersion “ of the hands; and the word vol.wotally used by our Evangelist, seems to answer “ to the former, and Barlil war tall, to the latter.” So that from the whole, tuppose washing of hands is here intended; yet the sense of the Greek word, B27T15W contended for, is nevertheless effectually secured : Nor need we be much concerned at 2 Kings ii. 11. being thrown in our way by Mr M. p. 41. For,
1. The text does not say that Elisha poured water upon the hands of Elijah, to wash his hands withal : and if he asks what did he then do it for ; fuppose I should answer, I cannot tell, how will he help himself? it lies upon him to prove that he did it for that end, which he will not find very ealy to do.
2. Some of the Jewish writers' think, that washing of hands, is not intended, but fonie very great miracle, which followed upon Elisa's pouring water on Elijab's hands, and is therefore mentioned as a thing known, and winat would Terve to recommend hiin to the kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom. But taken in the other sense, the recommendation would be but very inconsiderable ; besides, they were now in a very great strait for water, ver. 9. and they might expect, from his former performance, some miracle would be now wrought by him for their relief, as was ver. 17, 20. But,
immerfionein manuum טבילת ידיס & ,lotionem manuum נטילת ידים ויAdhibuerunt Juda 4
Spicileg. in Mar. vii. 3. o Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. 8. & Lex. Talm. p. 1335. Pocock not. misc. p. 375, 376, 393. Scaliger. Elenchus Trinæres. Serrar, c. 7.
p Pocock. not. misc. p. 397, 398. 9 & & videtur vocabulum vfwrian, apud Evangeliltam noftram, priori respondere, & Bantil witho pofterori. Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. in Mar. vii. 4.
s Vid. R. David Kimchi & R. Sol. Jarchi in loc.
3. Suppose washing of hands is intended, and that this phrase is expressive of Elisa's being Elijab's ministering servant, and that it was his usual method to wash his master's hands by pouring water upon them; it makes nothing aginst the sense of the word in Mark vii. 4. since that regards the superstitious washing of hands, as has been observed, which was performed by an immersion of them, and is there juftly reprehended by our Lord.
Secondly, The other text produced by Mr M. in p. 41. is Heb. ix. 10. where the apostle fpeaks of divers washings or baptisms, which I have asserted to be performed always by bathing or dipping, and never by pouring or sprinkling. And I still abide by my assertion, the instances produced by him being insufficient to disprove it.
1. He mentions Heb. ix. 19. where the apostle speaks of Moses's sprinkling the book and people with blood; but does he say that they were washed therewith ? or was ever this instance of sprinkling reckoned among the ceremonial ablutions ? When only a few drops of blood or water are sprinkled upon persons or things, can they be said, in any just propriety of speech, to be washed therewith?
2. He instances in Exodus xxix. 4. which speaks of the washing of Aaron and his fons, but not a word either of sprinkling or pouring, so that it makes nothing for his purpose : Besides, the Septuagint here use the word awa, by which they always express the Jewish bathings, which were performed by a total immersion of the body in water.
3. His next instance is Numbers viii. 6, 7. Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus Malt thou do unto them to cleanse them; Sprinkle vater of purifying upon them. But why did not he read on? and let them Mave all their flesh, and wah their clothes, and so make themselves clean ; that is, by bathing their whole bodies, which was done, as the Targum of Jonathan upon the place says, in forty measures of water. Now, it was thus the Levites were washed. Sprinkling the water of purification, was indeed a ceremony used preparatory to this bathing, but was itself no part of it, as will more fully appear from,
4. His other instance in Numbers xix. 18. where it is said, that tents, vessels, or persons, that touched a bone, or one sain, or one dead, or a grave, were to be Sprinkled; but why did not he transcribe the 19th verse? where his readers would have been informed, that as this sprinkling was to be done on the third and seventh days, so after that, on the seventh day, the unclean person was to purify bimself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water : So that all those asperfions before, were but so many preparations to the general washing or bathing himself all over in water, on the seventh day. I shall therefore still abide by it, that none of the ceremonial washings were performed by sprinkling; and indeed, to talk of washing by sprinkling, deserves rather to be laughed at, than to have a serious answer; it being no more reconcilable to good sense, than it is to the just propriety of language, or universal customs of nations. Froin the whole it appears, that Maimonides was not mistaken in his observation; and that the word in Hebrews ix. 10. properly signifies bathings or dippings. And now,
Thirdly, We are come, as he says, to that great text, i Cor. x. 2. which he directs to, as the poor man and woman's Lexicon; and it is pity but that they should know how to make use of it. Here the children of Israel are said to be baptized in the cloud, and in the sea. But since the word is here used in a figurative sense, it is not very fair in our antagonilts to urge us with it, nor, indeed, any other place where it is so used; yet we are not afraid of engaging with them in the consideration of those places, and particularly this; wherein there is enough to justify the apostle in the use of the word, and at the same time fecure its fenfe on our side. When we consider, that the cloud in which they are said to be baptized, passed over them, so that they were covered therewith; and if it let down, at the same time, a shower of rain upon thein, it makes it still look more like a baptism; which also is aptly resembled by their partage through the sea, the waters itanding up on both sides, so that they seemed to be buried in them. Which things being considered, justifies the apostle, I say, in the use of the word, which strietly and properly signifies dipping or plunging, Words, when used in a figurative sense, though what is expressed by them is not literally true ; yet the literal sense is not lost thereby: For instance, in the word dip. When a person has been in a large shower of rain, fo that his clothes and body are exceeding wet, we often say of such an one, he is finely dipt; the meaning of which is, that he is as wet as if he had been dipe all over in a brook or river. So likewife of a person that has just looked into a book, controversy, art, or science; we say, that he has just dipt into it; whereby we mean, that he has arrived but to a small acquaintance with, or knowledge in those things. Now would it not be a vain thing for a man, from hence, to attempe to prove, that the word dip is not to be understood in its native, common, and literal sense, in which we mostly use it. This observation will serve to vindicate my way of accounting for the use of the word in the present text, as well as for Barlow, in Dan. iv. 33. In fine, fron the whole, we may well conclude that Baptilm ought to be performed by immersion, plunging, or dipping in water, according to the practice of John, Christ, and his apostles, the nature and end of the ordinance, and the true and native signification of the word; which mode of baptizing has been used in all ages of the world, and I doubt not but will be, notwithstanding all opposition made against it.