Edward Williams.

Antipœdobaptism examined : or, A strict and impartial inquiry into the nature and design, subjects and mode of baptism. : Including, also, an investigation of the nature of positive institutions in general and occasional strictures on human ceremonies in matters of religion. : Containing, in particu online

. (page 5 of 27)
Online LibraryEdward WilliamsAntipœdobaptism examined : or, A strict and impartial inquiry into the nature and design, subjects and mode of baptism. : Including, also, an investigation of the nature of positive institutions in general and occasional strictures on human ceremonies in matters of religion. : Containing, in particu → online text (page 5 of 27)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Equally abfur4 is the conclufion, that the fre^
fuency of cne mode of tinging annihilates all others.
§ i6. Ik Expd. xii. 22. we read; k^i /9«>^»rV

4110 TV «i/«aV. Lev.' iv. 17. Ka» &9;\i^ # »ipiv(
r«» ISKxIvXex AIIO rtf mi/aoIo^. xiv. l6. Kai I^At}"'*
Tov ^xlirXov T0» ik{»«y AIIO TV iXoitf. Dan. iv. JO.
K.ai AnO Tig; ^jpotf*!! t9 tf^avat re att^m avIS i^af ti •

and the fame v^r^^/Zw, chap. v. 21. And in Pfalm
Lxviij. 23. we find: " That thy foot may b*
tinged in [pr, wt/A] the blood of thine enemies,
^d the tongue of thy dog$ [may be iinged\

Now let ' impartiality itfelf determine, whether
thcfe prepofitions, or the latin opes correfgond-
ipgj ^> ^^^ de^ or ex^ are any Way compatible*
wi^h that mode of tinging yjfhich our opponents^
jnake ^entifil to true, baptiftu? And whether
they do not den^onftr^te that tW PRiMARY fig^

d word is not to-
ftqihy or the like?
be found the mojl
Ty' and. doihmodioiis .
: things^ fucb as a
:h ^rf hjt^y or the.
feet are' faid to tje •
jAifp;*) oiF overflow-
well ^s tjie heady,
Ajr s^ ihro*

— >'*-'. "^ ^ . A '....••. vT ..... ^ ••

i^::T^ft5feW^ *»'»fl**»o'^ " v^ emphaticai: *• A fw^cifu o diae4.:

TT <&irMid/ oedd yn dwyn yr jurcb^ yogbwir y dyfcocdd*** Jtfi-

Si. IS. ' -/ -' T ^

Digitized by VjOOQIC



5* ^f '^^ Signification of tht Clu 4.

thro' the abundance of oil, are to .be anointed^
*— the tnode .oi application b^omes more ambir
guous as to the jaSi^ becaufe more difficult to
determine about, the natural fxopriety of the ac-*
tion. If again the queftion be put— WHat is-
the moft natural and the . moft common modi
whereby the garments of a warrior arc tingedf
We can be at no lofs for a reply. The mode^
therefore, of accomplilhing the primary thing
fignified, varies according to the nature of the
cafe. ' .

§ 17. One thing more dcfervcs particular no-
tice, refpedting the ufe of ^oLil\%i in the Septuagini
ztiA Apocrypha. There are, if I remember right,
but two pajjaga in all thefe vritings where a
HUMAN BODY or PERSON is faid to.be tinged
(/SftTlicrdai) and both refer to Nebuchadnezzar,
and are exprefled in the very fame words*. It
(hould feem, then, that this cafe is of confider*
able importance, being the only one in pointy i,%
to the fubjed baptized, within the limits .of our
prefcnt inquiry. Now the qu^on is, what is
the primary fignification of the word fCof n here
ufcd ? Is it any one Jpecific aft of immerfing ja
water, putting under water, fprinkling, or pour-
ing . water upon the fubje£): i Or does it not
rather refer to a Jlcat rf wetnefs in .which the
body of the meumorphofed monarch was ? Let
Dr. S. reply: ^ The word iCi^u is not ufed to
^ defcftbe the aSlim of the dew as di/lilUnig or
^/allifg;^ but to cxprcfs the STATE of Ncbu-

^ chadnezzar'is

Digitized by VjOOQIC



Ch. 4- Tfrm Baptize anJ Baptt/m. S9

^ chadnczzar*s bodyf.** This I verily bdicYt
is the proper, radical, primary meaning of the
controverted term; of which this paflage is m
Ariking proof. ** Not the action but the
STATE." If any a^oH at all, it would be the
diftilHng or falling of the dew, for there was no
other i but it " defcribes the ftatc Nebuchad*
nezzar was in,'* which has nothing to do im*
mediately with any aSii&n ; and con&quently the
word fia^ does not, cannot defcribe imnurjion^
which is as much an . a£HM as the falling of
the dew. It is in vain for Dr. S. to foift in
the falvo, ** as it were." '* Which was, as it
were^ dipped or plunged in dew." For this was
not » figurative baptifm : it was a real faH.
r His body was aStuaUy in a baftixed Jiate. It
was tingid or vutteiy and therefore as truly *^-
tilui as any tWng of which we read.

The queftion now returns: By wh^a means
came the degraded liionarcb's body into this
ftate? It muft be owned this i« tmly ^fecen^
dary confideradon 5 the primary i^ the Jiate^ u(^
matter how cffeacd. ' Yet it is neceffary that tbis^
ftatc fhould be introduced by fitme mode ef ap*
plicatiott. It muft needs be that either the tin-
gent liquid was applied $e bimy or he ta iu It
could not be the htterj for there is no motion
of his body hotA oo^ pofition to* another fup*.
pofed, as ii^ fclf-evictot i nor was the h^tifm
eflFeaed by ki& being put in a river^ a pool^ or
a l^atb yih^ is equally ckar^ no, oor yet W*



,y Google



#0 Of the Significah9H <f the Ch. 4,

\khng PUT IN ^e dew-y for the Jlati \fz,s cf-
feQed AHO T«j< ^fwm, from the dew^ (w by tbe
ft<S);ion of the dew upon him. Confequently^
f[yt tingetit liquid was applied to him\ and a
ifOUE of haptifm this, as oppofae and contrary to
dippings as the points of Eaftand Weft, or the
ideas of a£lion and re«a6tion, can be. Thus, I
think, it h " fitisfeaoiSly proved (if demonftra-
tidn will fitdsfy) ttiat in this one inftance (and
the onlf one whidi refers to a human ^fy^ix
complexly under the word pavlm in the Septua^
-gint verfi6n-or the Apocryphal writings) the idea
of dipping is excluded from, the word/*

But Dr. S. ftilf ofcjeds: ** N»w (iiys be) it
^ h very reiharkable, as Dr, GAte has . laif;^
" (hewn in his anfwer^ to Mr. Wall, that the
^ original Ch^deie word (itftaUar^)^ which is
** here rendered by Atufin, naeffarilj implies dip-
^ ping, as ^3^>pears by -the coaftrnt ufe o£ the
^ word ; and :diat h is by this- Chaldee word
«* the Jirufatem Targum rcndew - the Hebrew
^ (tabhal) ^v« iv. 6« which ^sAfor' miguefiionaUy'
** iigni^ to dip/' And, he mi^t luive added^
•*- which unqueftionaHy ^gnifies to tinge i v^bich
laft as unqi^ionahly differs from phmging^ as Dr.
^.^s mode of baptizing d^ers from *tb|tio£« Us
t)pponients.— 'I think it has been fuffickBtl]r»^ov*
cd already that the ^^/imi>7 mmi&t%M£ ii^t He^
hrew word is abt to* mmerfiy %\xv %m tp^t, to
Mng io ajlate tf tuetn^s^ ^ iol^tr^ ^. in Di^Ie
i)r in part; and be^ufe^tfais {nlhcqxd ^€nd was.
vtore commonly acctoi^iihed by the m^ of
• Mi- I . . . .... dipping



,y Google



Ch. 4. Tirms Baptize and Baptifm. ' 6x

dipping, hence that fecondary idea became more
prevalent than any other. But I may venture
to (ay, That it nevbr fi^fic$ to immerfe for
tbi fake of immerfion in all the (acred writings ;
but the immerfion is always for the fake $f
higher ettd-y and therefore is only a modey how-
ever common^ of effeaiag that primary purpofe.
Nay, I will venture a (lep further, and affirm
—That in fome of tbofe places where the word
occurs, immerfion appears a ufeleji wtode of an^
fwering the main intention, fince another would
anfwcr better^ as in the cafe oSjlaining Jofeph's
coat, &c. and that in ether places a mode di-
ametrically oppofite to immerfion is plainly fug«
gdSed by the prepofition annexed, as before
noticed; tho*, as to the nature of the thing,
intended, it might have been done either way.~
Therefore, that the Chaldee word in queftion
Ihould be rendered by the Hebrew tabbal^ is fa
far trom provii^g the point intended, that it \%,
evidently againfi it.

§ 18. Rbspbc'tiko the Qhaldee word— "that
it veceJI^rily implies dipping, as appears by \\%.
coaftant ufe"— -we deny the fa£t Nor has Dr-

, GAir, or any one elfc, proved the pofition npyv.
mentioned* The geiveral ,if not the umverf^L
jfioffrage of leyic^rapbers of the (irft note, aj)d
Criticks of the higheil reputation, is againft him;
the verdifl of the mqft eminent verfions is a-

* gainft him j and the nature of the fubjeSfs whq^e
the word occurs is againft him.

Amloii#



,y Google



62 Of the Signification of the - Ck 4.

Among others, do not Castellus, whofr
eulogy was that of literary greatnefs, pronounced
by an able judge*; N, Fuller, fo renowned
for his critical refearches; Pagnxnus, ftilcd by
one not inferior to himfcif, ** A man moft fkil-
ful in the eaftem languages f 5" Buxtorf,
whofe very name refledb honour on Jewiih li-^
terature; to which we may add, Leigh, Stock-»
lus, &c« do not thefe, I fay, concur to pro-
nounce and prove the word in queftipn, both
in the Hebrew and Chaldee form, to be a en-
VERIC TSRM» by rendering it tingere and coh^
rare f Is not tinxit the primary meaning ? And
is not this as different from immerfion as g^
mus from ^cies^ or ejfence from mode ?

Mn Parkhurst in his Lexicon under the
word, fuppofes, indeed, the primary fenfe of the
Hehrew root to be—" To form hngijh linesy or
^ fireahy or fuch as 2xz^ longer than they arc
'•• broad, (q. d. obtongare) or to be of an ob^

* hng jhttpe** Hence he fuppofes that ** as at*
«* noun (e/lahbang) it fignifies a finger or toe^
^ fix)m its Imgi/h or oblong form." That " as
•• a noun or participle paffive it denotes zjlripe
♦* ocjlripedy Jndg. v. 30/* As a participial noun^
^ The Hjana^ to called from the ia^k flripes

• orjlreaks with which his colour is variegated/'

When

• Bp, Walton* Ia bit picf* to the Polyglots «' Virom i%
^ quo enditio fiunna mignaqoe tniml modcftia coBvcncn^**'

' t J* BozTour is Zpift* Ded. to liit lltbt L«c« ** VSc Li**



.d by Google



Ch. 4» Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 63

When he confiders the word in the Chaldee
form he obfcrves: " In Aph. To xvety mnften^
imbue^ Dan. iv. 22. In Ith. — To he wetted.
Dan. iv. 12. v. 21 • So the Vulg, render it by
tingiy tnfundi^ injiciy and tlic LXX. in the laft
paflage by •€«9'»-"

The Assembly's Annotator on Jer. xii. 9.
obferves : " The word here ufcd, and not elfe-
" where found, cometh from a root, which tho*
^* no where ufcd in the Hebrew text of Scrip*
*• ture, yet is found in the Syriack of Daniel,
•* Dan» iv, 15, 23, 33. and v. 21. as alfo in
" the Syriack and Arabick verfions of the New
«^ Teftament. Matt. xx. 23. Luke vii- 38.**
Now this laft pafTage abfolutely excludes immcr«
fion from the nature of the a6tion ; and as to
the text in Matthew, the literal interpretation of
the Arabick verfion is — " tinSiurat mea tingemni.^
While the Syriack Interpreter keeps to the
Greek terms latinized : ^ Baptlfmate quo efgo
haptizovy hapttzabimini.'*'^ As to Dan. iv. 15.
MoNTANUs's interlineary verfion and the Vuj;-
OATE, render it by tingo', the Syriack verfion
is interpreted by intlngo. ver. 23. is rendered
by MoNTANUs^: " Ex rore ecelorum te tingen-
tes.*' The Vulgate : " £t rore cadi infuiv-
d«ris." The Syriack, as before, by inting^^.
•* Rore coeli intingeris.*' ver. 33. Mont. " De
rore ecelorum corpus ejus tingebatur." Vulo:
*' Rore coeli corpus ejus infe<aum eft.** Syr.
Intcrp. " Rore cceli ititingendum.'* Sept. lite*
rgl Tranflation: " De rore coeli corpus ejus in-

fedum



,y Google



(>4 Of ihi Signifi^atm of ti^ Ch^ 4,

foaum eft/' A^AM^ Intcfp. ** Perfuiuin fuk cor-
pus ejus rore coeli.** And aa ta Dan. v. 2i»
Mont. ^' E rorc (^lorunok corpus ejus tindum
fuit." Vux.G. as ia the paflage laft mentioned-
Syr. " Rorc coel* c^rpu^ gus intin(ftum."
Sept. Verbatiitt as in the laft paflage. Arab.
^ P^rfufum eft corpus gus rore cceli." — tet the
reader now judge, whether the ^ Chaldee word
neceffarily im^Yits dippingj as appears by its con^
Jtmt ufit

It is wdl Ip^own that from this root is der
nved, as before ob^rved, the participle, qr par-f
ticipial noun (ifi^u^ng) which is rendered in oijr
prefent verfion ^^ fiecUed^* And perhaps - theye
is. not a word wijthin tl^ compafs )c^ £^ed \\r
terature, abput the meaning of which th^e havO:
l}ecsi more cr<itical cpnje6hires ^mong the l^ajrnr
*ed. And yet among thefe ^ndlels conjedures I
do not recoU$£b (uie that conveys the ide^ aC
ncceflary immerfioa^..

•^ SoM»9 as kttforc hintsd> tftl forticulfflx. Bocii4«t C P"
^nimalikus &«. Scr^» I^b. UL n.) wottld» a^ the S^^^i^,.
peodet the phrafis which yrereai ** J^k&d i*r4,''^^ " by^na,**'
•r variegtited wild hu»fim But of thefs there were two kindt^.
•ne a quadruped very invcfa like- a wolf» only Jjftttmly and the
•thcr a Us^^vHt fj^ecUed under the belly; tefnArts, Vf J^rP^ f!9f*
Tnmf* Others coAfi^er the word (tu^) mth, f hich it j« con*
^aedf ajpu! yvhich is agreeable tp our verfioiy ay meaning Ari^y^
a hirdi and ^Gcordin|Iy they expitia the force of the paitiaple
ak agreeing with miii in ibme foeh. tefflu as thefe « HMQii nk*
Mtfif, ^Qa, moKt^ata^diJcu^f v^folor, vtifi^, MeffbBtLf £«|gaiAe
fffiaa, ainwtaf criunt^a I infoUtas J^lw/lri* ^ ^£*f<f$f P''^^^\ <«<•*
f^iut fmdita^ ^r0td«tn»^ rMfaXy^rfi,. efrmvora, {cc. ^^d nfrere



l^



,y Google



Ch. 4. Ttrm Bitptize and Bapsifm. ^5

Once mor^; it may be remarked, that the
uf? (rf the Hebrew derivative, Judg, v. 30. which
is rendered by the Sept, by a derivative fron»
^<t'K\»i is not at all favourable to our opponei\t$'
hypothefis ; — "To Sifera a prey of divtrs C9t
lours (tfekiim ^»^f*«l«i',) a prey of divers colours
(as before) of needle-work, a prey of dher^
colours (tjebsy ffctiAt^M) of needle-work on both
fides." But how would this paffage read on the
plunging plan? " To Sifera a prey of plung - .
ings^ a prey of plungings of needle-work, a
prey -oS plungings of needle- work on both fides
(or, more literally, a plunging of double em-
broidery !)'•—— And here it is obfervable that
while Mot^T. and the Vulg. render the wor4
by color and diverfus color j and the tranflation^
of the Sjbpt. and SyR. by tinSluray the Ch^lf
dee .Paraphraftj regaining tU Tiir-C \":c:rd, ir. tl::;
Chaldee form, (tfibionin) is rendered by the latin
verfion ^ color.** *' Praedam polymitarum colorum.**
That is, if the Dodors Stennett and Gale
are right in faying, that the word " neceffarify
implies dip^g,'*— ^ ^ ^r^ of the cmbroiderief ^

DIPPINGS !'* .

It

I to throw my mite of conje£hire ifito the heap^ i( ihoald be
** avii NOT AT A,** which, in my appreheofien» exhibits the moft
feafible and eafy ccmne^^ion between the very diflimilar deriratiyes;
the one importing '* Coior^** or « tinffura^** and the other <« </«-
£ituu** — Who knows but in this age of dircoveries it may be
** largely ihewn** and demon(lrated» that the htrd in queftion %
neither a hawk, a kite, an c?gje or a peacock, ( as fome hare
cQ^eaured) fcut avji immsrsa — a ** duck,^* which is literally
fbc dtfpittg (•r difftd) krdg (torn the Dutch ** duckcn'* ^ dip k



,y Google



66 Of the Signification rf the Ch. 4.

It is. not denied that the Chaddee word an-
fwers to /SflwAi*; but what we infift is that the
primary meaning of neither is to immerfe. —
Sir £dward Leigh, after giving the import
ot'-^C word thus : " Tinxity intinxity cold^e vel
humore imhuit feu infecit^ coloravit, lavitj made"
fecity rigavity haftizavitj immer/it" ^ohkry^s from
Fuller: ** The word among the Syrians^
^ primarily and properly fignifies ^mieiufi that
•* is, cither immergere or tingere ; and becaufe what
•* is ftained with any colour is made fuch /«-
•* fmrgendo five tingendo^ hence alfo it denotes
^ coUrare; juft as ffaiHnt and tingere among the
*^ Greeks and Latins, comprize htb meanings*.'*
Now if a word fignifies to tinge and to iV»-
merfej it is demonftrable from the cafe itfclf,
that the former is the leading and primary
fenfet for to immerfe h a mode of tinging, but
tinging cannot be called a mode of immerfmg.
To deny this, is to deny that the genus cpmpre*
licnds the fpecies, or that the whole compre-
hends the parts.— What Fuller fuggefts, that to
colour is a confequent meaning, because effe£ted
BY plunging or tinging^ docs not afFeA the
queftion ; otherwife the idea itfelf is controver-
tible. For, if fome better reafon. be not af-
figned, lie might as well have faid j ^* Travel-
ling is a confideration confequent to walking or
ridings because that is effected BY thefe'^ That
is, The thing itfelf is a confideration confequent
to the fpecific mode or manner pf efFefting it \

Bur

• Cjrit Sacr,



,y Google



Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm.' 6^

But before I leave this branch of the fub-
je<a, I would obferve, That the above remarki
and reafonings on the controverted words, in
proof that they are generic termSy muft be in
all reafon confidered in reference to the time,
place and occafion of ufing them. For there is
a great deal of difference between the accepta-
tion of words at one time, place or occafion,
and others. Therefore, no objeftion tjiat may
be formed againft what I have faid will affeft
it, tho' it were proved (what yet remains to be
dcme) that the fpecific notion of dipping was
of more early date^ as conveyed by thefe terms,
than the generic one of tinging; except it be
alfo proved that the more general (ignification
did not exift at the time and place of ufmg the
words. Whatever is done fhort of this will
be juftly deemed inconcluiive, and mere logo*^
machy.

§ 19. Having tak^n notice already of all
thofe paffages in the New Teftament, where
the word /?«w1»Ji» occurs, it will be needlefs as
well as tedious to enter into a minute exa-
mination of them all. Inftead of this it will
be fufficient, and perhaps more proper, to make
the following obfervations upon them, in con-
nexion with what has been already faid.

J. Tho' I have, according to our opponents'
cpnftant wifh, made /S^ttIw, as well as ffttv%(v,
the fubjeft of inquiry; yet as the former is
never, but tonftantly the latter is ufed in , the
New Teftament when the facred rite is in

queftion,



yGoogk



$3 Of the Signification of th <2h. .4*

queftipn^ it is but reafonable to fupjjofe t^at
this uniformity is owipg not to acddet^t %ut
defignj ^n^ if to ^^f«, if^ is "equally ireafoi^l©
to conclude that both terms, at^ leaft in tHe
legijlative fenie, are not fynonymouu .

2. This being the cafe, it is liut reafonable
to infer, tl>at the \^fe of the word gaw-ltjy in
the Sept. and Apocrypha, rather than, j^a^lau
ijiould, be regarded in afcertaining th,e f^nfe
of the former in thje New Teftamerit., '

3. Ii^ASMUCH as .iv^ery injlance where th$
Word occurs in thefe writings (Ifa. xxi. 4. ex-
cepted, which is evidently figurative,) is a fpecies
of ceremonial purification, as before obfer-
ved i and feeing to purijy and to baptize arc
ufed fynonymoufly, Mai. iji. 3. and Mark u ^.
w-and when we add to this, the nature and
^figPi of luc initiqjHon ; tnp greater C6nljften(^
of the rendering, of which let the impartial
judge ;-^ I think it natural to infer. That the
real legiflativc and facramental force of the term
is of a general nature^ and by no means con-
fined to one fpecific a£tion ; ?in4 that the
words purification and purify^ tho' not perfedlly
adequate, have a better claim on adequat^neft
to exprefs 4he meaning of the original thafi /m-
merfion and immerfe^ or »ny tha;t convey the fame
id«i.

§ 20. If we iaquire by v^hat nu^e this pu-
rification by water is bejl efFeiled? I beg leave
to reply in gcnersi.l — By the application of water ^
to U^e body, rather tlia^i by ^pp^yfng the hodj

of



,y Google



<fti. 4. Terms baptize and Bdptifm* 6^

of thc-Tubjeft to the water. My feafons are
as follows:

I. Because, o jSawlifofxiwc, the purified perfon^
all along from Mofes to Chrijl *, was ceremo-
nially deanfed or purified^ at leaft principally^
by that mode. Numb. xix. 12. " He (hall pu*
^'rtfy himfeif With it."— vcr. 13. « Becaufe the
water of feparatioh was not /prinkled upon him^
he fliall be unclean.^* vcr. 20. *<The water of
feparatior> hath not been prinkled upon hiniy
'he is unclean.^* Nor is there any evidence,
that the bathing^ or vtxdjhing the body 'with
water, referred to any but the adftiiniftra-
tor of the rite ; and the rather becaufe he
had no otl^er mode of purification left but this,
whei-eas the other was clean by fprinkling. It is
■confeffedly clear, that he who fprinkted or even
touched the water of feparation, wais thereby
rendered unclean; now if Iprinkling was necef-
fary for i&;j clca'nfing, it muft be equally fo for
bU iprinklef, and fo on, which is abfurd. There-

*jfore, the ablution was necejfary for him, biit not
neceffary for the other, any more than the tent^
&c. after being fprinkled* And indeed fuppoliUg
(without granting) that both bathed thertifelves,
it ftili' fallows that the application of water to

. the ftibjbdt. for clcanfing, conftitdted the leading
and principal part of the acSHon.

2« Because the hafof<^i gaTlKryLot, the divers

puri^

' * Bb it obfervedy that wery per/on who was fegally purified
Arom the touch of a dead body» See. during that long fien'<tdt
was ^b^itudn How eotmntit a tbingy then, muft ka^tifm be axnoo;
the Jew% u a (acred fitei

Digitized by VjOOQIC



y^ Of th€ Stgntficatian tf tin Ch. 4.

purifications^ which were \n ^forct from Mofes.t$
Ch/t/i^ were performed at Icaft primipally by this
mode. On this phrafe (Heb. ix« lo.) Dr. S,
has the following very Angular obfervation :
•* As prophecy, teaching, ruling, &c. arc the dif-
" ferent Jpecies of the genus gifts j fo the vart^
^ eus plungings of priefts, Levites, and peqple^
•* for confecration, defilement, &c. are the dif-^
** fennt Jpecies of the genus dippings or batlw
" ings.*' In fupport of this remark, fo un-
worthy of Dn S. we are referred to Spencer,
Grotius, and Whitby. But the . fentimcnt
muft be untenayc indeed if it has no better de-
.fence than what thefe authors afford* Nay, the
very references arc plump againfi it. For not
only do they imply that the priefts, Levites, apd
Ifraelites were different fuhjeRs^ but alfo that the
wajhings (^«AVfte») were different (>»«!pofiw) j and,
indeed, elfc they could not poflibly be excul-
pated from palming on the Apoftlc a contradic-
tion in terms, as wc (hall prcfently fee. The
priefts \aii one mode of purification by water,
Exod. xxix. 4.^ " And Aaron and his fons thou
(halt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation, and thou Jhalt wash them
with waterJ* The Levites had another mode^
Numb. viii. 5—7* " And the Lord fpakc unto
Mofes, faying, Take the Levites from among the
children of Ifrael, and cleanfe them. And tfius
(halt thoU do unto them to cleanfe them:
Sprinkle yuater of purif^finf upon them** And

the



,y Google.



Ck. 4* Terms Bapiixi and Bafttfm. fi

the people when defiled had another tnode^ Lev«
XV. 5 — 8, i6. Here the unclean is commanded
to ^^ bathe bimfe^ in water,'* or fo tvajb bimfe^*.
The words of,SpBNCB^ are: " Jtia enim erat
Pontificis et facerdotum hiio^ alia Levitaruni|
Ifraelitarum alia^ GTr." (De Leg. Hcb. Lib.
ill. DifTert. 3.) And thofe of Grot i us: '« Va*
riai ktiones nominat, (Heb. ix. lo.) quia htz$
^liaenx lacerdotum, ir/rV? Levitarum, &c." And
Dr. Whitby upon the place refers to the
riboVe texts in proof of the wajhings being di^
vers. But how can thefe authorities or thefe
facred texts contribute in the leaft degree to
eftablifii Dr. S.*s unaccountably ftrange notion
of genus and fpedes ; when he fays that ^ the
▼arious plungings of priei^s, Levites, &c. are the
eUfferent fpecies of the genus dippings or bath«
ings.*' As this dodrine, peculiar to a tottering
hypothefis, (lands already confuted and ju(Uy ex«
pofed in a publication which Mr. B. has eau^
iinujly overlooked (perhaps out of tendernefs ioc
himfelf and his cauje)\ zn^ to which Dr. S.
has thought proper to make no reply (we fup-
pofe for a ^try fubftantial reafon); I b^ leave
to prefent the reader with the following ftriifaircs
from that unanfwered performance: *' Accord-
ing to the Dr. dippings are the -different fpecies
of the genus dippings. — Small as my acquaint-

V ance

* ** They bad ntfafnttfi alfo— ^f the mwardt»Bt. ctir. 17. aii4.
'* of the burnt-oficr iiifs peculwly* Etek. vl. 3S. of the iun4a an4
«< ^t of the pneAs £x. xix. it. a«d of the Uper* xiv. 9.—

•* B«irVf*a«



,y Google



fl 'Of ihi "Siintfitmim of the Ch.^4.

** ancc is' 'With the dbfhine t>i geiHis anci>J>-
** ciesj yet I kfiow there is between the feverri
^ fpeci^ contained in the genus, what logiciafls
** call differentia. Thus a man and a brute arc
^ different j^^^/Vj of (he genus animal ^ ahd
" Jthat which conftitutes the differemt between
** thefe fpecies is rationality^ But where is the
•* logfcal differentia between plungings and- rf/^*
" pings? unlefs the Dr. will contend that a va-
" riation in terms makes it. Indeed he feemcd
^ aware, that to affirm, dipt>ing5 afe the fpecfcs
** of dippings^ yrould incur tnaniffeft abfurdity^
'** and therefore he artfully vaVifed his ^hrafca-
'*' logy. "But fuch little artifices as thefe ait
'^ eafily feen through, and help to deteft thfe
'^ fallacy and evafion which frequently Jurk Un-



Online LibraryEdward WilliamsAntipœdobaptism examined : or, A strict and impartial inquiry into the nature and design, subjects and mode of baptism. : Including, also, an investigation of the nature of positive institutions in general and occasional strictures on human ceremonies in matters of religion. : Containing, in particu → online text (page 5 of 27)