Images de page
PDF
ePub

So the Baptist Bible Society in their report for 1840, p. 89, say, "Other translators may do as they please; Baptize may be twisted into all sorts of meanings except immersion-unless indeed in the case of old versions. Luther may say that it means to immerse, and his version shall continue be circulated; but wo be to the Baptists if they say so; and what is the reason?"

Mr. Woolsey compliments Luther, as "this bold defender of the inalienable right of every man to become personally acquainted with the truths of the Bible FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED into his own vernacular tongue."

We all agree with Mr. Woolsey in venerating the courage, the honesty, and the piety of Martin Luther. But is Mr. Woolsey ignorant that the Germans and all Lutherans who use his translation baptize by sprinkling, as Luther practised and as Luther taught them? When a German minister takes water in his hand and sprinkles or pours it on the person baptized, saying, "ICH TAUFE DICH," does he mean I immerse you? Do the people so understand him? Most certainly not. When Martin Luther took water in his hand, and poured or sprinkled it on the head of a person, saying, “Ich taufe dich,” did he mean 66 I immerse you?" Would the people so understand him? It is impossible. Luther could never have used that word in connection with such an action, had it in his day been equivalent to immerse. The words Taufen and Taufer, which Mr. Woolsey and the Baptist Bible Society translate "immerse” and “dipper,” mean no such thing. They are used in German with specific and exclusive reference to the rite of baptism, which the Germans perform by sprinkling or affusion.

Thus, the English and German Dictionary by F. A.

Weber, of acknowledged and unquestionable authority, gives the following definitions of the words in question. I copy from the Leipzic Edition of 1833, by Tauchnitz: "Taufe, baptism, christening.

Taufen, to baptize, to christen.
Taufer, baptizer, baptist.
Toufling, person baptized.

Taufname, Christian name.

Taufclein, certificate from the church register."

The same dictionary gives the following German words for the English words, immerge, immerse, and immersion. It will be seen that Taufen is not among them. "Immerge, eintauchen, versunken, vertiefen. Immerse, eintauchen, untertauchen, vertiefen. Immersion, untertauchung, versunkung."

BURCKHARDT, in his German and English Lexicon (ed. Berlin, 1823), gives the same definitions, both in the English and in the German.

From this it is manifest, that whatever might have been the etymology of the words Taufen and Taufer, they do not in German mean immerse or immerser. To gve a German an idea of immersion you must use other words, different both in their origin, their meaning, and their form.

The world will doubtless concur with Mr. Woolsey in his encomium upon Luther as "this bold defender of the inalienable right of every man," to have the Bible" faithully translated into his vernacular tongue." Doubtless Luther meant to give "the Bible translated to the Germans, that they might read in their own language the wonderful works of God." But the reader may judge whether Mr. Woolsey would not have spared his enco

mium upon Luther, had he not, in talking about Luther's translation, undertaken to talk about a matter concerning which he was not well informed. Because our English translators render the word baptize by the word wash in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, Mr. Woolsey declares that they have been guilty of a "glaring perversion of this Scripture, by suppressing the word baptize, and substituting the word wash," p. 152. He contends, p. 153, that "the translators of our English Bible, for the sake of suppressing the true import of the words baptize and baptism," "have not only concealed" the "instructions of the Holy Ghost," but "represented the Holy Ghost as using the most stupid tautology." But how does that "great reformer," and "bold defender," translate these passages? Mr. Woolsey declares that he has given to the Germans a Bible translated. How does Luther translate these passages? He translates them by the word แ WASH," the pure old Saxon word, the identical mother of our good old English word "wash.” "Und wenn sie vom Markte kommen, essen sie nicht, sie WASCHEN SICH denn;"-they WASH THEMSELVES. So in Luke xi. 38. "Da das der Pharisaer sah verwunderte er sich, dass er sich nicht vor den essen GEWASCHEN HATTE," that he had not WASHED himself."

THE PESHITO-SYRIAC VERSION.

Our Baptist brethren claim this version as evidence in favor of immersion. Thus, Mr. Woolsey affirms, p. 71, that "the venerable Peshito-Syriac version," which he thinks was (6 evidently executed by the last of the first century," has baptize translated by immerse.

If this were so, I think we have shown from higher authority, even from the Scriptures themselves, that such

a translation is wrong. and Apostles is as good against the mere opinion of all translators, as it is against testimony adduced from the heathen Greeks.

The testimony of Evangelists

DREN."*

But will Mr. Woolsey admit this translation to be good authority on the subject of baptism? Will Mr. Woolsey after affirming, p. 252, that " not a word is said about Infant Baptism" "till the third century ;" will he, after all that he has said about "Mistress Lydia," p. 305, and its being "quite certain that she was a maiden lady," p. 306; will Mr. Woolsey, after this, admit the "venerable Peshito-Syriac version," this "Protoplastic yersion," (( the very best that has ever been made," as good authority on the subject of baptism? This Syriac version reads, that "when she (Lydia) was baptized WITH HER CHILWill Mr. Woolsey, after affirming that this version was made by the last of the first century, and maintaining that it "cannot be determined" whether it “be the work of an inspired apostle or not," will he now admit that he is wrong in declaring so positively that there is nowhere any mention of Infant Baptism till the third century? Will he admit, that he and all the Baptists are wrong in denying that Infant Baptism existed before the close of the second century, and acknowledge that the practice can be traced clearly and indubitably to the apostles or will he for ever after be silent about the "immersion" of the venerable " Peshito-Syriac version ?"

But it is not admitted that the Syriac version renders the word baptize by a word signifying immerse. The best scholars deny it. Professor Stuart shows that while the Syriac has a word, which means to plunge, dip, or

*Kurtz, p. 99. The Coptic version gives the same reading.

immerse, the Syriac version does not employ that word, but another which signifies "to confirm―to establish,” so that "Baptism, then, in the language of the Peshito, is the rite of confirmation simply, while the manner of this is apparently left without being at all expressed."* An English Baptist, who is, as says a competent judge, "evidently a master in Israel," has recently written against the "Baptist Translation Society. This writer accords with Professor Stuart with regard to the meaning of the Syriac word by which baptize is translated in the version in question." "I confess," says he, "I can derive no countenance to my practice as a Baptist from this version." Concerning the Ethiopic and Coptic versions, he admits that "they must be set aside, if they are not used against us ('the Baptists') in the baptismal controversy."†

The ancient Syriac version is the present Bible of the Nestorian Christians. Their modern word for baptize is radically the word employed in the ancient version, and like the German taufen, and the English baptize, it is exclusively appropriated to the ordinance of baptism. They baptize either by immersion or affusion, and make no objection when they see our missionaries baptize by sprinkling, but consider it as good and valid baptism. Mr. Woolsey is, therefore, as much mistaken here, as he is in the case of Martin Luther's version.

DUTCH, DANISH AND SWEDISH VERSIONS.

Our Baptist brethren affirm, that the "Dutch, Danish

*From Judd's Reply to Professor Stuart, p. 164.

† See New York Evangelist, Jan. 23, 1841.

« PrécédentContinuer »