' I 
 
 I II 
 
 II 
 
 
 I 
 
 I II I 
 
 I Hlill i: 
 
 I 
 ■I 
 
IS 
 
 THE MODE 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 PRESCRIBED 
 
 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? 
 
 BY 
 
 M /S T U A R T , 
 
 Professor of S.v.tj4 Liloiuturo in the Theological Seminary, Anclovcr. 
 
 FROM THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, VOL. Ill, NO. II. 
 
 NASHVILLE : 
 
 GRAVES AND MARKS 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 SHELDON, LAMPORT & CO. 
 
 1855. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/ismodeofchristia01stua 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW, 
 
 If the question is asked — and it will be, many scores of 
 times — " Why have the Baptists republished Mr. Stuart's 
 work on Baptism ?" we answer : — 
 
 As a work of authority upon the subject of the primitive 
 action of baptism, and the Scriptural warrant for infant bap- 
 tism. Prof. Stuart was in his day the brightest luminary in 
 the constellation of Presbyterian scholars. He was the 
 bright particular star of Andover, and shed over that semi- 
 nary a halo of intellectual light. The charm of his name, 
 his reputation for profound and varied scholarship, on both 
 sides of the water, attracted students from the remotest sec- 
 tions of our Union, and for nearly half a century, with his 
 students, as with Presbyterians, appeals to his authority have 
 been considered ultimate. It was not strange, then, that, 
 during the whole period of his established scholarship, he 
 should be frequently consulted with respect to the classical 
 import and use of the terms " bapta" and " baptizo" and 
 the Scriptural warrant for infant baptism, about which the 
 Christian world was so much divided and, in his day, so 
 violently agitated. 
 
 To answer all these interrogatories at once and finally, to 
 put upon record for an inquiring age, and to leave his testi- 
 mony behind him for all time to come, influenced him to 
 prepare the following treatise. 
 
 (3; 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 It originally appeared in the Biblical Repository, Vol. IIT. 
 No. 11, and was, in the year 1833, published separately, by 
 Flagg, Gould, and Newman, Andover. The edition was 
 eagerly sought for, and speedily exhausted ; and for many 
 years there has been an earnest demand for the work by 
 Christians of all denominations, and by. none more than by 
 Baptists. But only now and then a copy could be procured. 
 It has been a subject of inquiry why his own " Church," or 
 Pedobaptist Publication Societies, have not kept the work in 
 print, to meet the numerous demands for it, and even taken 
 measures to increase those demands. We leave the reader 
 to draw his own conclusion. 
 
 Our reasons for recovering it from its present obscurity, 
 and inviting all Christians, especially Baptists, to aid in its 
 extensive circulation, are several. 
 
 It is unquestionably a scholarly production ; and, being the 
 decision of one of the first Pedobaptist scholars and theolo- 
 gians of England or America, it can be appealed to with 
 confidence in discussions with Pedobaptists touching the 
 primitive action and subjects of Baptism. It is regarded as 
 a standard authority with Presbyterians, and an authority 
 that must be, as it deserves to be, respected by all classes 
 to whom the name of Mr. Stuart is familiar, or to whom his 
 character and position are made known. 
 
 This work is not republished by Baptists primai'ily for 
 the sake of Prof. Stuart's reasonings, but for the authorities 
 anl facts which he submits. It must be confessed that he 
 reasons like a Pedobaptist — as one whose prejudices and 
 feelings were all violently opposed to the facts which his 
 candor and character as a scholar forced him to admit. His 
 admissions, his facts and authorities, arc most clearly and 
 conclusively in favor of the Baptists; while his reasonings, 
 or rather inferences, are in favor of Pedobaptists, and charac- 
 teristically Pedobaptistic. The former we most cordially 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 5 
 
 receive ; the latter, with all due deference, reject. And yet, 
 the very reasonings or inferences of Prof. S. in this work, we 
 conceive, must prove powerful arguments in favor of our 
 positions as a denomination. 
 
 Will not all classes naturally look into this treatise for 
 the strongest argument and the fairest and most conclusive 
 reasonings that the Pedobaptists of either continent can 
 furnish 1 If not from the mature scholarship and resplendent 
 talents of Moses Stuart of Andover, from what source could 
 they reasonably look for or expect it 1 
 
 And will not the candid and impartial inquirer turn from 
 these pages with astonishment, and, however strong his pre- 
 vious prepossessions in favor of Mr. Stuart's reasonings, 
 with disappointment'? Will he not irresistibly conclude, 
 " If these are the arguments, and all the arguments, — if these 
 are the most conclusive and satisfactory reasonings that can be 
 produced in favor of affusion, — if these are the character of 
 inferences upon which sprinkling and infant baptism indeed 
 rest, — and, above all, if these are the astounding facts which 
 must be admitted, and which so potentially militate against 
 and rebuke both practices, — then should they be rejected 
 from the Protestant creed, and energetically repudiated in 
 Protestant practice. 
 
 We propose to make a brief summary of Prof. S.'s admis- 
 sions and facts touching the meaning of the term baptizo, in 
 the classics, the Septuagint, and the New Testament, and 
 mark how he seeks to avoid the logical and inevitable con- 
 clusions his premises force upon him. The whole question 
 of the import of the term baptizo, when applied to baptism, 
 evidently rests upon these two propositions, and these alone, 
 viz. : 
 
 What is the signification of baptizo in the Greek language 
 of the age in which the New Testament was written % 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 What is the evident signification of baptizo, in the Bible, 
 when baptism is not mentioned 1 
 
 If its classical use is to dip, to immerse, and if it is univer- 
 sally, or even more often, so used in the Bible, when it is not- 
 used with reference to the rite, then the conclusion follows 
 irresistibly that it signifies to dip or immerse, when used to 
 designate the rite ; for we cannot suppose that the Saviour 
 used the- term in an unnatural or unusual sense. 
 
 From an extensive examination of classical authorities and 
 lexicons, Prof. S. frankly asserts as follows : 
 
 "'Bapto,' and 'baptizo,' mean to dip, plunge, or immerse 
 into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note 
 are agreed in this." 
 
 "The verb bapto means to plunge or thrust into any thing 
 that is solid, but permeable : to plunge in, so as to cover or 
 inclose the thing plunged." 
 
 " The verb bapto only (and its derivatives in point of 
 form) signifies to tinge, to dye, or calory 
 
 " No doubt then can remain, that the word bapto means 
 to tinge or color; and in this respect it seems plainly to differ 
 from baptizo. I find no instance in which the latter is em- 
 ployed in this way." 
 
 "The word baptizo means to overwhelm, literally and 
 figuratively, in a variety of ways." 
 
 Such are the conclusions to which a patient and extensive 
 examination of the Greek classics forced our author. He 
 finds not one solitary exception. The Voice of antiquity is 
 unbroken. Baptizo, both literally and figuratively, means to 
 immerse, to overwhelm. He finds no variableness or shadow 
 of deviation from this signification. 
 
 If the testimony of Prof. S. needed any support, that of 
 Alexander Carson, the most profound critic of his day, in 
 England, could be brought forward. He asserts that bap>- 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 7 
 
 tizo means to dip or immerse, and nothing else — i. e., that it 
 has but this one signification. 
 
 But with Pedobaptists, Dr. Charles Anthon, of Columbia 
 College, New York, the first of American scholars, and 
 author of a series of Greek and Latin classics for academies 
 and colleges, is certainly high authority. 
 
 Columbia College, March, 27, 1843. 
 Dr. Palmley, 
 
 Dear Sir : — There is no authority whatever for the singu- 
 lar remark made by the Rev. Dr. Spring, relative to the 
 force of baptizo. The primary meaning of the word is, to 
 dip or immerse, and its secondary meanings, if it ever had 
 any, all refer, in some way or other, to the same leading 
 idea ; sprinkling, <S,-c, are entirely out of the question. 
 
 Charles Anthon. 
 
 We might strengthen this by an array of the most emi- 
 nent scholarship of the past six centuries, but it needs no 
 more. 
 
 Having established the first premise, Prof. S. proceeds to 
 the second, which he thus states : 
 
 "Bapto and baptizo, in the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and 
 New Testament, when not applied to the rite of baptism, 
 mean to plunge, immerse, dip in, overwhelm." 
 
 From the Old Testament he produces every passage in 
 which bapto occurs — eighteen in all. In thirteen instances 
 he renders it to dip in, overwhelm. In three instances, Ex. 
 12 : 22 ; Lev. 4 : 17, and 14 : 15, 1-6 ; very strangely trans- 
 lates bapto, " to moisten or smear over by dipping in /" But 
 the reader can see here that he includes the consequence with 
 the action, for the moistening or smearing is the conse- 
 quence of the " dipping in," and is no part of the signification 
 of the verb bapto. He could as justly have claimed to red- 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 den as a part of the signification, — since the hyssop, or the 
 finger of the priest is made red by dipping in blood, as it is 
 moistened or smeared by the act. The signification of the 
 verb cannot be set aside without an undoubted necessity 
 for it, and there can be no necessity urged in this case. 
 And what reason does Prof. S. give for departing from the 
 version of the Seventy, and of King James' translators'? 
 He stumbles at the expression, " dipping" from the oil or 
 blood, and thinks it involves a solecism — a manifest incon- 
 sistency — and therefore forbids the idea of dipping only. 
 How " to moisten or smear over by dipping in" solves his 
 difficulty, we are unable to perceive, and he fails to explain. 
 Prof. S. forgets the scholar here, in his anxiety to attach the 
 meaning of " to moisten," to the verb bapto, for a future use 
 in summing up his argument. He strangely overlooks the 
 fact that this very expression is found in the classics, where 
 no one ever considered it solecistical. 
 
 Atheneus Deipnos, 3, 123, quotes an ancient dramatic 
 poet, who makes one of his characters say, " Dipping a 
 ladle from the midst of a cauldron of boiling water, I will 
 pour it over you." This is exactly the same phraseology 
 that is employed by the Seventy, in the passage in ques- 
 tion." Suppose we substitute Prof. S.'s peculiar rendering : 
 " Moistening or smearing over a ladle from the midst of a 
 cauldron of boiling water, I will pour it (what? the ladle!) 
 over you !" 
 
 The following occur in Hippocrates' Be Ratione Vic, p. 
 383 : " Dipping warm cakes from black wine and oil." 
 
 Plutarch, in his life of Alexander, says, — 
 
 " The soldiers, dipping from large casks and urns, drank 
 to each other."* 
 
 Would Prof. S.'s rendering make the sense more per- 
 
 * Judd's Rev. of Stuart, p. 144. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 9 
 
 spicuous here, or would it render it manifestly soleeisti- 
 cal? 
 
 One of the two remaining instances, our author renders, 
 to dye, which he has shown to be the secondary meaning of 
 bapto, since articles were dyed by being dipped. 
 
 The last of the eighteen, found in Dan. 4 : 30, he renders 
 " to wet or bedew." The passage reads, "And he was driven 
 from among men, and did eat grass as an ox, and his body 
 was dipped from the dew of heaven ;" " wet with" is the ver- 
 sion of the seventy ; but the phraseology is the same with 
 that of the passages noticed above, and it should be rendered, 
 like them, dipped from the dew, not simply slightly moist- 
 ened or smeared over with the dew. The idea evidently is 
 that the king was to be thoroughly drenched, bathed, or 
 immersed in the dew ; as thoroughly drenched as to his 
 body as though he had been immersed in water. To be 
 dipped in dew is a strong expression, but when looked upon 
 as spoken hyperbolically, it appears as easy as this declara- 
 tion of David : "All the night I make my bed to swim," i.e., 
 with his tears. This only in passing, for bapto has nothing 
 to do with the action of Christian baptism, since it is never 
 used to designate the rite, bnptizo alone being used. 
 
 Bapto is used in the Septuagint, therefore, as in the 
 classics, to signify to dip, to immerse, and, by consequence, 
 to dye. 
 
 Baptizo he finds twice only in the Old Testament, once 
 in its literal, and once in its figurative sense, and in both he 
 concedes it signifies to dip, to overwhelm. 
 ■ 2 Kings 5:4: "And Naaman went down and ebaptizeto 
 en to Jordane putamo y dipped himself into the river Jor- 
 dan." Let it be noticed that this is Prof. S.'s own render- 
 ing, and the phraseology is precisely similar to that used in 
 describing the baptism of our Saviour. Will Prof. S. as 
 frankly render that " was plunged or dipped" by John into 
 ' 1* 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 the river Jordan" 1 or will he allow his creed to warp his 
 scholarship 1 
 
 The second instance is in Isa. 21:4, which Prof. S. renders, 
 "My iniquity overwhelms me" We care not to dispute his 
 rendering of baptizo here, it answers our purpose very well. 
 By the strangest oversight imaginable, he makes it the ini- 
 quity of the prophet himself that overwhelms him, instead 
 of the iniquity, the inexpressible barbarity, practiced by the 
 enemies of Israel, which he foresaw, and which caused his 
 heart to pant and to be overwhelmed with consternation ! 
 But even Jove sometimes nodded, and so does Mr. S. Here 
 closes the testimony of the Old Testament, and Prof. Stuart 
 admits that baptizo is used in no other sense than to dip, 
 to plunge, or overwhelm — not a shade of meaning like "to 
 sprinkle or to pour upon." Let this be distinctly borne in 
 mind, as it will be needed in the concluding argument. 
 
 In the usage of the Apocrypha, baptizo means only to 
 dip, to immerse. 
 
 Judith 12 : 7 : Speaking of Judith, that " she abode in the 
 camp three days, and at night went out into the valley of 
 Bethulia, and washed herself (ebaptizeto) at the fountain in 
 the camp." Prof. S. renders baptizo in this place, to wash, 
 a signification which he has labored through a score of pages 
 to prove that it has not in any Greek author, or in the 
 Greek of the Septuagint ! In the principles of interpreta- 
 tion which he has given to us in his translation of Ernesti 
 and Morus, he lays down the rule that the primary meaning 
 of a word must not be departed from without absolute ne- 
 cessity ; and to his own rule we hold him. It must be a law 
 unto him, as well as unto another. Is there an obvious ne- 
 cessity laid upon him to depart from the primary significa- 
 tion of baptizo 1 Wherein consists the necessity ? 
 
 1. That she did not bathe in the fountain itself from which 
 water was used ? It docs not say that she did, nor Is it nee- 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 11 
 
 essary to suppose that she did. She bathed — immersed her 
 body — at the fountain in the camp. The expression is com- 
 mon, " We bathed while at the Sulphur Spring in Nashville ;" 
 meaning, not that the bath was taken in the spring from 
 which the water is drunk, but in the baths connected with 
 the spring — appendages with which all our watering-places 
 are supplied. 
 
 Is it urged that it was not the custom of the Jews to bathe 
 their bodies frequently ? So far from it, it was characteristic 
 of them, and dipping, or total ablution, was the invariable 
 manner of their bodily washings. 
 
 Is it urged that the idea that Judith bathed in a bath at the 
 fountain, involves an indelicate exposure, since the fountain 
 was " in the camp" ? This fountain was evidently not in 
 the thoroughfares of the camp, but only within its guarded 
 limits. 
 
 She was certainly not exposed to the view of the camp, 
 for she went out at night, shielded from observation by its 
 darkness, to the fountain, as to a retired spot, and there per- 
 formed her ablutions. But does not Prof. S.'s supposition 
 involve as great sacrifice of decorum as the declaration of 
 the text ? His washing certainly involves a total washing 
 of the body, which, if she was in the view of the soldiers, 
 would have been quite as indecorous as an immersion. That 
 she should leave her tent, and seek the fountain, under cover 
 of night, only to moisten her hands and face, is the most im- 
 probable supposition that could well be imagined. Let us 
 candidly interpret by the light of our past investigations. The 
 prophet commanded Naaman to wash himself in the Jordan, 
 and he obeyed by plunging or immersing himself (ebaptisa- 
 to) in the river. Here we read that Judith (ebaptizeto) im- 
 mersed or bathed herself at the fountain ; and where is the 
 necessity compelling us to give the term an unusual meaning 
 here ? It certainly is not obvious. 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 The second instance is in Sirach 31 : 25. " If any one 
 who is immersed (baptizomenos) from a dead body toucheth 
 it again, what is he profited by his bath ?" Prof S. renders 
 this, " cleansed from a dead body," a signification similar to 
 that of " smear by dipping," noticed a little back. Ceremo- 
 nial cleansing was the result of an ablution of the body in 
 water ; but to cleanse is not therefore a part of the verb. 
 Whether the body is cleansed or defiled, cooled or warmed, 
 by an immersion, depends upon circumstances, but are these 
 circumstances ever a part of the signification of the verb 
 baptizo? And would a scholar incorporate them in the 
 signification, unless he had an ultimate cause to serve that 
 was unusually dear to him 1 
 
 But this case can be disposed of summarily by a simple 
 reference to the act enjoined upon one who is defiled by 
 contact with a. dead body. We find the law in Numbers 
 19 : 18 : "And on the seventh day he shall purify himself 
 and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water" &c. To 
 bathe, every one who reads English knows, or can easily 
 make himself to know, by consulting his dictionary, is " to 
 dip in a bath," artificial or natural — an ablution of the whole 
 body. 
 
 Here we dismiss the Apocrypha, having seen that its tes- 
 timony perfectly harmonizes with that of previous witnesses. 
 We now enter the New Testament with our author. Bapto, 
 he concedes, is never used to designate the rite of baptism. 
 He produces only three passages in which it occurs ; in two 
 of which, Luke 16:4, and John 13 : 26, he renders it to dip; 
 and once, in Rev. 19 : 13, to dye. This term is henceforth 
 dismissed from this discussion. 
 
 Prof. S. now inquires for the signification of baptizo and 
 its derivatives, when not applied to the rite of bap>tism. Be- 
 fore a step is taken, let the rule which Prof. S. declares must 
 govern us be repeated : " The primary or literal signification 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 13 
 
 of a word must always be taken, unless the context obviously 
 demands a secondary signification." 
 
 We find baptizo used in five passages, disconnected from 
 the rite of Christian baptism, and in every instance Prof. S. 
 renders it by wash and its cognates ! and this without offer- 
 ing a solitary reason, and in palpable violation of his own 
 rule ! ! ! for the context, the common sense of the passages, 
 as well as the well-known custom of the Jews at the time 
 this was written, prove that baptizo should, and must, have 
 its primary and natural signification — to immerse. Here 
 are two instances : 
 
 Mark 7 : 3, 4 : " The Pharisees [returning] from the mar- 
 ket eat not except they (baptisontai) immerse themselves." 
 Mid. voice. 
 
 Luke 11 : 38 : '' But the Pharisees, seeing him, wondered 
 that he had not first (ebaptisthe) immersed himself before 
 dinner." 
 
 Why does not Prof. S. deign' to offer some reason for 
 dragging in an unusual signification here — for so violent an 
 infraction of, and contempt for, his own rules of interpreta- 
 tion. Does he claim that his term wash implies less in 
 this case than to immerse 1 Not a word of it. Does he 
 intimate that the Pharisees did not dip the part they washed, 
 whether it may be understood of the hands merely, or of 
 the whole body (for it affects not the conclusion whether it 
 was the whole body immersed, or only the hands, for the 
 definition remains) ? Not by one word. He openly begs 
 the question — takes for granted the very thing he is bound 
 •to prove, i. e., that wash is an admissible signification here. 
 He must not be allowed to avail himself of this sophistry in 
 his conclusion. 
 
 Though it is not incumbent upon us to prove that baptizo 
 and its cognates have their usual meaning here, yet it can 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 be proven to the conversion of the most obdurate unbeliever, 
 if he is only a candid and reasonable man. 
 
 Mark informs us, 7 : 3, 4, that the Pharisees, and all the 
 Jews, unless they wash their hands (jmgme) oft, i.e., thor- 
 oughly, they eat not ; but when they come from the mar- 
 ket, they eat not except they immerse themselves, and that 
 this was according to the tradition of the elders. By con- 
 tact, accidental or otherwise, with the crowd in the market- 
 place they regarded themselves possibly as denied, and there- 
 fore ate not until they had immersed themselves ; but when 
 they had not thus mingled with the multitude, they only 
 washed their hands thoroughly. The Saviour (Luke 11 : 38) 
 had been thus mingling with the people, and therefore they 
 marvelled that he ate without first immersing himself, ac- 
 cording to the inviolable rule of the elders. The " washing 
 of themselves" after coming from market, certainly implies 
 more than the ordinary washing of their hands, " for if they 
 on no occasion eat without washing, of course they did not 
 do it after coming from market ; what, then, is the necessity 
 of adding that particular] And even if we interpret it of 
 dipping the hands, it will seem to involve what is worse 
 than mere tautology ; viz., a degradation of ideas, and that 
 in an inverse ratio to the importance of the occasion." Jn 
 all cases of positive defilement, purification was accomplished 
 by bathing the body in water, and these traditions of the 
 elders were concerning possible defilement, and would they 
 have enjoined less 1 " Who," asks Mr. Judd, " that fears he 
 has been exposed to the small-pox, though he is not certain 
 of the fact, would inoculate himself with any thing but the 
 genuine vaccine matter? Certainly he could be none the 
 better for using any thing less efficacious, nor any worse for 
 omitting it. 
 
 Baptismas in its inflections occurs three times, which Prof. 
 S. also translates washings, without deigning to suggest a 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 15 
 
 reason, and therefore without reason, which compels us, 
 according to his rule, to adhere to the natural and universal _ 
 signification. The instances are, 
 
 Mark 7:4: "The (baptimus) immersion of cups, and 
 brazen vessels, and couches," i. e., cushions on which the 
 guests reclined. The same in Mark 7 : 8. 
 
 If it was incumbent upon us, we could prove from Mai- 
 monides,* that these purifications were invariably by im- 
 mersion ; but since Prof. S. does not deny, why should we 
 take the pains to prove % 
 
 Heb. 9 : 10 : " Only in meats and drinks, and divers 
 (baptismois) immersions." In this passage, also, with the 
 utmost coolness, and in supreme contempt of his own law of 
 interpretation, Mr. S. translates baptismois, " washings." 
 That they allude to the immersions under the law, for the 
 divers instances in which immersion was enjoined, admits of 
 no doubt ; nor does Prof. S. himself claim that bap>tismois 
 refers to sprinkling or pouring upon. The ceremonial wash- 
 ings under the law were by immersion — " bathing the body 
 in water." The Greek fathers understood these " divers 
 baptisms" to refer to the diverse occasions, not modes, of 
 immersions required by the law. Theophylact, on this 
 passage, says, " And there were ' diverse baptisms' among 
 them. For if any one had touched the dead, or the leprous, 
 or was unclean, he baptized himself, and so was considered 
 to be cleansed." 
 
 Prof. S. next examines the sense of baptizo and its cog- 
 nates, when used figuratively. 
 
 The Saviour speaks of his suffering as a baptism — Luke 12 : 
 50 ; Mark 12 : 38, 39 ; which our author concedes implies an 
 overwhelming. Baptism for the dead — 1 Cor. 15 : 29, he 
 also thinks refers to the overwhelming sorrows to which 
 
 * See Appendix, Note 3. 
 
16 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 their baptism exposed them, and he labors to prove this. 
 •• He says, " Inasmuch, now, as the more usual idea of Baptizo 
 is that of overwhelming immerging, it was very natural to 
 employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings." 
 
 Every step taken thus far has tended directly to strengthen 
 the signification of baptizo given by Prof. S. at first, i. e., to 
 dip, to plunge, overwhel m. The universal Verdict of all Greek 
 authors, of the Septuagint, of the Apochrypha, and of the New 
 Testsment, sustain it. Prof. S. makes a slight effort to find the 
 shadow of an idea of copious affusion, in the expression, " He 
 shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire ;" also the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, in 1 Cor. 12 : 13, and whenever it 
 occurs. While he admits the basis of the expression, " Bap- 
 tize you with Holy Ghost," &c, is very plainly to be found 
 in the designation, by baptizo, of the idea of overwhelming — 
 i. e., of surrounding on all sides with fluid — he thinks that co- 
 pious affusion is kindred to this. We do not concern our- 
 self with our author's opinion of what may answer as well ; 
 the point is, is there any necessity to depart from the natural 
 and usual signification of baptizo in these passages ] There 
 is none. Prof. S. does not claim that there is any, but 
 simply suggests it as possibly answering the idea. But what 
 right has he to substitute the meaning of " copious affusion," 
 or " effusion," for baptizo ? Does he claim that it is the 
 usual signification of the term 1 He has proven and de- 
 clared that it is not. Does he claim that it is even a second- 
 ary or an occasional meaning 1 He does not. All his ex- 
 amples, gathered from whatever source, prove that it will not 
 admit of the idea of affusion or effusion in either literal or 
 figurative usage. 
 
 Prof. S. cannot be allowed his new signification ; he has 
 brought it in too late, and it is at open conflict with the con- 
 struction. Copious affusion or effusion is denoted by " to 
 pour." Translate the passage with this signification : " He 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 17 
 
 shall pour you with the Holy Ghost and fire;" and Prof. S. 
 himself will reject it at once, because " to pour with" is an 
 unheard-of and incongruous expression. Mr. W. Judd, in 
 noticing this, says: " The Greeks very rarely used in to denote 
 instrumentality, and never in connection with a verb signify- 
 ing to pour. I affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the 
 phrase ' to pour in,' in the sense ' to pour with,' cannot be 
 found in the compass of the language. If the verb baptizo 
 could be proved to signify ' to pour,' the phi'ase, as it is 
 constructed, must signify ' to pour in ;' and then it will 
 follow that the apostles were poured in the Holy Spirit, 
 which still would involve immersion ; for whether they were 
 plunged or poured in the Spirit, they would be immersed. 
 But the idea of pouring a person into the element is absurd 
 in itself, and wholly unauthorized." The Greek fathers, who 
 understood the construction of their own language, were not 
 troubled to understand this baptism in the Spirit. They all 
 understood it an immersion in the Holy Spirit — implying 
 that the subjects were thoroughly imbued with the influences 
 of the Holy Spirit — immersed in the spiritual light. 
 
 Theophylact, Commentary on Mat. 3 : 11, says, "That 
 is, he shall inundate you abundantly with the gifts of the 
 Spirit." 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem explains it thus : " For as he that 
 goes down into the water and is baptized, is surrounded 
 on all sides by the water, so the apostles were totally im- 
 mersed by the Spirit. The water surrounds the body ex- 
 ternally, but the Spirit incomprehensibly immerses the soul 
 within. 
 
 This closes the proof of the second premise. We now 
 have two, established with the clearness of demonstration. 
 
 1. The term baptizo, in classical usage, universally signi- 
 fies to dip, to immerse, to plunge. 
 
 2. That baptizo In the usage of the Septuagint and Apocra 
 
18 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 pha, and in the New Testament, both literally and figurative- 
 ly, when nut applied to the rile of baptism, signifies to dip, to 
 plunge, to overwhelm. 
 
 What, then, must be the unavoidable conclusion of every 
 conscientious person 1 That it is used contrary to its univer- 
 sal classical and scriptural sense, when, and only tohen ap- 
 plied to baptism ? Will any one say that the Saviour de- 
 signed to obscure his command to baptize — conceal the action 
 of baptism, and thus distract and divide his followers into 
 contending factions as they are now, touching the rite ? Will 
 any one say from the above premises that he specified no 
 definite act, but left it for his followers to perform what act 
 they might think best 1 
 
 The conclusion from the above premises, in all candor and 
 honesty, we think unavoidably this : 
 
 Therefore, The word baptizo when used with reference to 
 baptism is, to dip, to immerse. 
 
 In support of this conclusion we submit the authority of 
 the most distinguished Pedobaptist scholars of the Refor- 
 mation. 
 
 Lutiiek. "The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered 
 a dipping, when we dip something in water, that it may be entirely 
 covered with water. And though that custom be quite abolished 
 among the generality (for neither do they entirely dip children, but 
 only sprinkle them with a little water), nevertheless they ought to be 
 wholly immersed, and presently to be drawn out again ; for the ety- 
 mology of the word seems to require it. The Germans call baptism 
 tau(f, from depth, which they call tiejf, in their language ; as if it were 
 proper those should be deeply immersed, who arc baptized. And, 
 truly, if you consider what baptism signifies, you shall see the same 
 thing required : for it signifies, that the old man and our nativity, 
 that is full of sins, which is entirely of flesh and blood, may be over- 
 whelmed by divine grace. The manner of baptism, therefore, should 
 correspond to the signification of baptism, that it may show a certain 
 and plain sign of it." In Dr. Du Veil, on Acts 8 : 38. 
 
 Calvin. " The word baptize signifies to immerse ; and the rite of 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. \ ^19 
 
 immersion was observed by the ancient Church." — Inst. Chnr. Rcl. 
 1. iv. 
 
 " From these words (John 3 :23) it may be inferred that baptism 
 was administered by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body 
 under water. * * * Here we perceive how baptism was admin- 
 istered among the ancients ; for they immersed the whole body in 
 water. Now it is the prevailing practice for a minister only to 
 sprinkle the body or the head."— Com. on John 3 : and Acts 7 : 33. 
 
 Beza. " Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is 
 certain immersion is signified." 
 
 Buddeus. " The words bcptistin and baptismos are not to be inter- 
 preted of aspersion, but always of innnersion.'' 1 
 
 Vexema. " The word baptizo is nowhere used in Scripture for 
 sprinkling. 
 
 Altixoius. " Baptism is immersion, when the whole body is im- 
 merged ; but the term baptism is never used concerning aspersion." 
 
 Casaubon. " This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were 
 plunged into the water, which the very word baptizo sufficiently de- 
 clares." 
 
 But from this legitimate conclusion, Prof. Stuart adroitly 
 attempts to lead his reader away, by asserting that the con- 
 clusion may be enlightened by the five following consider- 
 ations : 
 
 I. " We may contemplate the proper force and signification 
 of the word itself as determined by the usus loquendi in gen- 
 eral." 
 
 And what does Prof. Stuart declare this is 1 "A review 
 of the preceding examples must lead any one, I think, to the 
 conclusion, that the predominant usage of the ivords bapto 
 and baptizo is, to designate the idea of dippiny, plunging, and 
 overwhelming? This strengthens our conclusion. 
 
 But now, mark his manifest unfairness. He claims his 
 suppositions, which we noticed a few pages back, for estab- 
 lished facts. He says : " We have seen that the word baptizo 
 sometimes means to wash." The reader knows he has seen 
 
 (5) 
 
20 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 no such thing. Mr. S. gratuitously substituted wash for dip 
 or immerse in those instances without authority, and con- 
 trary to his own established rule of interpreting language. 
 He says : " It may mean washing ;" and this is only his baro 
 assertion. He has not produced so much as one instance 
 where washing is the necessary meaning of baptizo. Bald and 
 unsupported suppositions will not avail here. He also says, 
 "possibly (but not probably) it may mean copiously moist- 
 ening or bedewing." If there is no probability of it, why 
 does Prof. S. suppose such a meaning, unless to familiarize 
 his readers with the sounds of washing and copious affusion, in 
 connection with baptism. 
 
 II. 4l We may examine the circumstances which attended the 
 administration of this rite, and see tvhether they cast any light 
 upon the manner of the rite itself." 
 
 We commend this advice to every inquirer. Let him 
 take his New Testament, and Concordance, and refer to the 
 j)assages in which baptism occur, and impartially consider 
 the circumstances for himself; and we are satisfied what his 
 conclusion will be. 
 
 Prof. Stuart now forgets the scholar in the theologian. He 
 invariably adopts the views and interpretations of the pas- 
 sages, which the overwhelming mass of Pedobaptist scholars 
 and commentators repudiate : That Jesus may not have 
 gone down into the water, or " went up out of the water," 
 but only from the banks of the river ! That John baptized 
 in Enon because he wanted many "little streams" of water 
 for the accommodation of the multitude! That Philip and 
 thee unuch may have only gone down to the water and come 
 up from it ! That possibly there might not have been suffi- 
 cient time to baptize the three thousand on the same day they 
 believed, and possibly, but not probably, there might not have 
 been a sufficiency of water at hand. Yet Prof. S. does not 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 21 
 
 urge that immersion was impossible in this ease, but only in- 
 convenient ! Does he claim the shadow of an impossibility 
 in the case of Cornelius ? None ; but admits " that another 
 meaning [than the one he suggests] is not necessarily ex- 
 cluded, which would accord with the practice of immersion." 
 Does he claim any in the case of the jailer ? None ; he 
 only thinks the jails and prisons of those eastern countries 
 might not have been accommodated with baths, &c, which 
 is directly contrary to the universal testimony of all travel- 
 lers. " Still," he admits, " the jiossibility of this cannot be 
 denied." Does he claim any thing militating against the im- 
 mersion of Paul — Acts 22 : 16 1 He thinks that " washing, 
 or washing off, was the manner of the baptism on this occa- 
 sion !" And pray, what does the critic mean by a washing 
 off? That Paul was divested of his clothes, and washed and 
 rubbed, as we wash off a horse? Still, our author has the 
 candor to confess, " I acknowledge that this is not a neces- 
 sary conclusion : for bathing, or immersion, would produce 
 the effect of washing off" And we may add, that sprink- 
 ling could not convey the idea of " washing off." In oppo- 
 sition to a host of modern Pedobaptist authors and preach- 
 ers, Prof. S. proves that the metaphorical baptism of the 
 Israelites in the Red Sea was not a sprinkling, or a pouring, 
 but, as Baptists contend, a surrounding upon all sides, which 
 was an immersion in the cloud and in the sea. He says, 
 " but the cloud, on this occasion, was not a cloud of rain ; nor 
 do we find any intimation that the waters of the Red Sea 
 sprinkled the children of Israel at this time." Prof. S.'s 
 theory on Romans 6 : 4, and Col. 2 : 12, we pass without 
 comment. All Pedobaptist commentators of note, from 
 Luther until now, are against him, and thuir united testi- 
 mony proves his theory untenable and preposterous. Cer- 
 tainly, the cause of sprinkling needs no such far-fetched 
 
22 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 expositions — no such violent wrestings of God's word to 
 sustain it ! ! 
 
 Here closes the examination of the circumstances of bap- 
 'tism in the New Testament, and Prof. S. shows that not the 
 slightest ground can be found for either sprinkling or pour- 
 ing — for he can find no obvious impossibility, or improbabil- 
 ity, forbidding us to translate baptizo by its natural and usual 
 signification, and therefore we are bound so to translate it. 
 
 Prof. Stuart's third " way" to cast light upon the ground 
 of inquiry, is an examination of the history of Jewish pros- 
 elyte baptism. He was aware that Mr. Wall builds a 
 strong argument in favor of immersion, as the only act of 
 Christian baptism, from proselyte baptism, which he (Mr. 
 W.) claimed to have been practiced prior to the days of 
 John, the immerser, but we are not aware that this was 
 ever an argument with Baptists. Prof. S. has written elabo- 
 rately upon this subject, and we think conclusively proved 
 that proselyte baptism had its rise about the year 200, or 
 perhaps later, thus completely demolishing Mr. Wall's 
 strongest argument in favor of infant baptism in the apos- 
 tolic age of the Church, as well as that in favor of immer- 
 sion, which was far-fetched. Our author, in thus conclusively 
 answering Wall's strongest and most plausible argument in 
 favor of infant baptism, has performed an important service. 
 The argument in favor of immersion loses nothing, while in- 
 fant baptism is effectually ruined by the operation. 
 
 Our author's fifth way to aid us in deciding whether bap- 
 tizo was probably used in its natural signification by Christ 
 and his apostles, is to " investigate the subsequent history 
 of the rite, in the early ages of the Christian church, and sec 
 what mode of baptizing was practiced by the churches in 
 general." Here he finds the most abundant and conclusive 
 evidence upon every page of history, for thirteen centuries, 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 23 
 
 that immersion was the universal practice of all professed 
 Christians, until after the dogma of baptismal regeneration, 
 when, in extreme cases, a copious affusion — not sprinkling — 
 was authorized, first by councils, and afterwards ratified 
 by the Popes of Rome. Our space allows us only to sub- 
 mit his conclusions. 
 
 " But enough. ' It is,' says Augusti (Denkw. VIII. p. 216), 
 ' a thing made out,' viz., the ancient practice of immersion. 
 1 So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated 
 this subject conclude. 1 know of no one usage of ancient 
 times, which seems to be more clearly and certainly made 
 out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who 
 examines the subject, to deny this.' 
 
 " The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental church 
 has always continued to preserve, even down to the present 
 time." 
 
 "The members of this church are accustomed to call the 
 members of the western churches sprinkled Christians, by 
 way of ridicule and contempt ; Walch's Einleit. in die relig. 
 Streitigkeiten, Th. V. pp. 476 — 481. They maintain, that 
 (3afTi%u can mean nothing but immerge ; and that baptism 
 by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by asper- 
 sion ; and they claim to themselves the honour of having 
 preserved the ancient sacred rite of the church free from 
 change and from corruption, which would destroy its signifi- 
 cancy ; see Alex, de Stourdza, Considerations sur la Doc- 
 trine et 1' Esprit de 1' Eglise Orthodox©, Stuttg. 1816, pp. 
 83—89. 
 
 " F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, has recently pub- 
 lished a learned work, which contains a copious history of 
 usages in respect to the baptismal rite ; viz., Geschichtliche 
 Darstellung der Verrichtung der Taufe, etc. 1818. I have 
 not seen the work ; but it is spoken of highly, on account of 
 the diligence and learning which the author has exhibited in 
 
24 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 his historical details. The result of them respecting the point 
 before us, I present, as given by Augusti, Denkwurd. VII. 
 p. 68. 
 
 " 'Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and or- 
 dinarily performed by the immersion of a man underwater; 
 and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion 
 permitted. These latter methods of baptism were called in 
 question, and even prohibited.' 
 
 " In the work of John Floyer on Cold Bathing, p. 50, it is 
 mentioned, that the English church practiced immersion down 
 to the beginning of the seventeenth century ;. when a change 
 to the method of sprinkling gradually took place. As a con- 
 firmation of this, it may be mentioned, that the first Liturgy, 
 in 1547, enjoins a trine immersion, in case the child is not 
 sickly ; Augusti, ut sup. p. 229. 
 
 " We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to 
 come to the following general conclusion, respecting the prac- 
 tice of the Christian church in general, with regard to the 
 mode of baptism, viz., that from the earliest ages of which 
 we have any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and 
 downward for several centuries, the churches did generally 
 practice baptism by immersion ; perhaps by immersion of the 
 whole person; and that the only exceptions to this mode 
 which were usually allowed, were in cases of urgent sick- 
 ness, or other cases of immediate and imminent danger, 
 where immersion could not be practiced. 
 
 " It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion and affu- 
 sion, which had, in particular cases, been now and then prac- 
 tized in primitive times, were gradually introduced. These 
 became at length, as we shall see hereafter, quite common, 
 and in the western church almost universal, some time before 
 the Reformation. 
 
 " In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ, from a 
 very early period, to say the least, understand the word 
 
INTKODl'CTOJIY KEYIEW 
 
 2% a 
 
 jSaWTi'^w in the New Testament 1 Plainly they construed it 
 as meaning immersion. They sometimes even went so for as 
 to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, 
 cases of necessity and mercy only excepted. 
 
 " If, then, we are left in doubt, after a philological investiga- 
 tion of (3a<ifri.%u, how much it necessarily implies; if the cir- 
 cumstances which are related as accompanying this rite, so 
 far as the New Testament has given them, leave us still iu 
 doubt ; if we cannot trace with any certainty the Jewish pros- 
 elyte baptism to a period as early as the baptism of John 
 and Jesus, so as to draw any inferences with probability 
 from this ; still we are left in no doubt as to the more gene- 
 rally received usage of the Christian church, down .to a pe- 
 riod several centuries after the apostolic age. 
 
 "That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were 
 familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of the 
 word /3atf<r££w, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial. 
 That they might be confirmed in their view of the import of 
 this word, by common usage among the Greek classic au- 
 thors, we have seen in the first part of this dissertation." 
 
 Prof. S. finds evidence so early as the third and fourth 
 centuries, of the rise of true immersion, the candidates being 
 divested of their garments ; but instead of using this as some 
 of his brethren do, to prove that the act of immersion itself, 
 as well as repeating it three times, and that mode was of tra- 
 ditionary origin, he candidly declares that this fact strength- 
 ens the argument for immersion. 
 
 " Still, say what we may concerning it in a moral point of 
 view, the argument to be deduced from it in respect to im- 
 mei-sion, is not at all diminished. Nay, it is strengthened. 
 For if such a violation of decency was submitted to, in order 
 that baptism might be performed as the church thought it 
 should be, it argues that baptizing by immersion was consid- 
 ered as a rite not to be dispensed with." 
 2 
 
26 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 We are now prepared to hear Prof. S.'s conclusion in view 
 of all the premises he has so satisfactorily established, viz. : 
 1st. That in classic usage baptizo means to dip, to immerse, 
 &c. 2d. That in the Septuagint and Apocraphait means the 
 same. 3d. That throughout the New Testament, when not 
 applied to the rite of baptism, its meaning, both literal and 
 figurative, is to dip, to plunge, to overwhelm — no instance 
 occurring where it is undeniably used to denote sprinkling 
 or pouring upon. Fourthly, and finally, that it is a thing 
 clearly and certainly made out, that immersion was the uni- 
 versal practice of the primitive churches, and for thirteen 
 hundred years after the apostles, except in extreme cases. We 
 say by all this light to guide him to a conclusion, what does 
 Prof. S. decide? We must make some allowance for him — 
 he was a Pedobaptist, a professor in a Presbyterian Theo- 
 logical School ; he had himself only been sprinkled. Should 
 he take the uttermost sand from under effusion, he would 
 confess himself unbaptized ; and not only so, but that all 
 Presbyterians were equally so ; and doubtless such a. position 
 would have cost him his professorship. He must leave 
 sprinkling a shadow of support ; and to his credit be it said, 
 he leaves it only the faintest shadow imaginable. Hear him : 
 
 "For myself, then, I cheerfully admit, that /3a<rr<£w, in the 
 New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in 
 all probability involve the idea, that this rite was usually 
 performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually, 
 and not always ; for to say more than this, the tenor of some 
 of the narrations, particularly in Acts 10: 47, 48 ; 16 : 32, 
 33, and 2 : 41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these 
 examples, without the distinct conviction that immersion was 
 not practiced on these occasions, but washing or affusion." 
 
 We conceive that this admission from Prof. S. must operate 
 with a thousand-fold more power upon the minds of Pedo- 
 baptists, to convince them that immersion, and immersion 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 27 
 
 alone, was the primitive act, than the ablest volume from 
 the pen of a Baptist. If the stubborn, irresistible, unbend- 
 ing facts of the case are sufficient to force such an admission 
 from an author publicly committed to, and the avowed ad- 
 vocate of, an opposite practice, what would be the conclusion 
 of an uncommitted and impartial man ? 
 
 But Prof. S. nor any other man is entitled to his doubts, 
 unless he can show a reasonable ground to doubt. It irre- 
 sistibly follows, as a logical consequence, that, if to dip, or to 
 immerse, is the natural signification of bajrtizo, and the rite 
 of baptism was usuully performed by immersion in the days 
 of Christ and his apostles, that it was invariably so per- 
 formed, unless in those peculiar instances where an obvious 
 impossibility can be shown. Now Prof. S. does not pretend 
 that he can find one such instance, but candidly confesses 
 there is not one such. He only claims that in the three 
 passages he mentions, affusion would have been more con- 
 venient. 
 
 But one passage, which Prof. S. fully warrants us to trans- 
 late, closes this discussion for ever. " There is one Lord, one 
 faith, one immersion." 
 
 Prof. Stuart, fully convinced that he has entirely surren- 
 dered the action of baptism to the Baptists, and as though 
 concerned for the result to leave it so, raises the singular 
 question, " Is the rite essential ?" We say it is a most 
 astonishing question for a Protestant to ask, " Is it necessary 
 to observe the particular rite which Christ commanded V 
 For a man or a church to assume the right to change the 
 laws and ordinances of Christ, by amendment, substitution, 
 addition, or diminution, is to claim the exercise of Popish 
 assumptions, and to convict himself of the blasphemy and 
 impiety of Antichrist. And do Protestants confess them- 
 selves dissatisfied with the ordinances as Christ instituted 
 them, and plead to be allowed to change them to suit their 
 
28 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 tastes and conveniences 1 And can a Christian find it in his 
 heart to find out some other path than the one his Saviour 
 marked out for his disciples, and consecrated by his own foot- 
 steps, or to climb up some other way 1 Is not the language of 
 every regenerated heart, " I esteem all thy precepts concern- 
 ing all things to be right, and I hate every false way V and 
 does he not regard the solemn injunctions of God, "Ye shall 
 not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye 
 diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments 
 of the Lord your God which I now command you" ? And 
 will he not respect the approbation of the Apostle, " Now I 
 praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, 
 and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" 1 But, 
 above all, will he not cheerfully acquiesce in the last com- 
 mand of his Saviour, teaching them to observe " all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you" 1 Now, immersion was 
 one of the "all things ;" for when Christ commanded his 
 ministers to baptize, and his disciples to be baptized, he, 
 according to Prof. S.'s own proving, undoubtedly com- 
 manded the former to immerse, and the latter to be im- 
 mersed. How can a Christian, a friend and lover of Christ, 
 find it in his heart to desire to change this rite by substituting 
 something else in its place? 
 
 We are grieved to say that Prof. S. substantially raises 
 the question, " Will not some other action do as well as the 
 one Christ appointed V and he pleads that it will ! But, still 
 more astounding for a Protestant, he argues through a score 
 of pages, to support the doctrine of the " Man of Sin" and 
 "Son of Perdition," that the Church has the right to change 
 the rites and ordinances of Christ ! He declares that he most 
 heartily subscribes to this opinion of John Calvin : " It is of 
 no consequence at all whether the person baptized is totally 
 immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion 
 of water. This should be a matter of choice to the churches 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW 29 
 
 in different regions, although the word baptize signifies to im- 
 merse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient 
 Church.'''' 
 
 This, we say, is the baldest feature of Antichrist : " and lie 
 shall think to change times and laws." It is a remarkable 
 fact that all Protestant societies claim the same power. The 
 following article in the Methodist Discipline was copied from 
 the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Hierarchy, — 
 for we cannot call it Church. 
 
 " Every particular Church may ordain, change, or abolish, 
 rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edi- 
 fication." 
 
 The whole question at issue between Baptists and Pres- 
 byterians and Protestants, touching the action of baptism, is 
 now out in broad daylight. It is this : " Have we — has the 
 Church, a right to change an ordinance of Christ? If not, 
 then we have no right to change the action of baptism. If 
 so, then we have a right to change every ordinance he 
 instituted. And more, since the power to change implies 
 the power to enact or abolish, then we have the right to 
 abolish every positive institution of Christ, and enact others 
 to suit our tastes and convenience. These conclusions are- 
 inevitable. It was the assumption of this impious right that 
 emboldened the Church of Rome to 'change and ordain 
 rites and ceremonies.' " 
 
 The simple question, made personal, is this : Since Christ 
 commands me to be immersed, do I obey him if I am sprin- 
 kled or poured upon? No two acts are more unlike than 
 an immersion in water, and a few drops of water sprinkled 
 upon the forehead, or, as Presbyterians now sprinkle, having 
 the moistened fingers of the minister laid upon the forehead 
 (which, by the way, is not sprinkling). To walk, to ride, to 
 fly, are as diverse acts as to immerse, to pour, to sprinkle. 
 By what criterion shall we decide this question 1 ? Baptists 
 
30 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 answer, " By the Scriptures, and common sense." We open 
 the Scriptures and read, " What things soever I command 
 you, observe to do it: thou shalt not? add thereto, nor 
 diminish from it." Can any one suppose that God was so 
 particular that the minutest direction concerning the admin- 
 istration of the rites and ordinances of the tabernacle should 
 be scrupulously followed, and yet we be left with impunity 
 to alter or amend, change or abolish, the ordinances of the 
 Church of Christ, to accommodate them to" our tastes or 
 conveniences'? When God commands one thing, may 
 we obey him by doing something altogether different? 
 God commanded Noah to make an ark of Gopher-wood : 
 would he have obeyed the command had he made it of 
 cypress or pine ? Prof. S. talks about the " essence" — the 
 " circumstance' 1 '' of religion, and says that an external rite, to 
 all intents and purposes of any possible consequence, is essen- 
 tially preserved or performed when its significance is essen- 
 tially kept up. But who is to sit upon God's commands, and 
 decide the essence or peculiar significance of each, so that 
 we may be infallibly certain, in every case, that we are 
 "essentially" obeying the command, when we violate its 
 letter? The principle laid down by Prof. S. would compel 
 him to answer with the Catholic, " The Church, sir." But 
 who, or what, or where is the Church ? And he must again 
 reply, "Why, sir, the Church is the — the Church;" and here 
 the circle closes. God commanded Abraham to offer up 
 Isaac. Would he have obeyed God had he taken Ishmael ? 
 Might not Abraham have reasoned, "The essence of this 
 command is, that I offer up one of my sons, and he leaves 
 me my choice. Ishmael is one of my sons, and it is my 
 choice, for several reasons, to offer him, rather than Isaac !" 
 Noah might have reasoned, " The essence of this command 
 is to build an ark : the particular wood commanded to be 
 used is an external circumstance, and belongs not to the 
 
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 31 
 
 essence ; and therefore I am left to use the wood most conve- 
 nient, and that will be the easiest to work." Abihu 
 and Nadab may have reasoned similarly to Prof. S., but it 
 cost them their lives to put it into practice, and yet they 
 only transgressed a rite of external observance. 
 
 The following language of Dr. Dana, an eminent Pedo- 
 baptist, when rebuking the incipient move, on the part of 
 some, to substitute water, or molasses and water, for the 
 wine of the Lord's Supper, and the specious reasonings of 
 Prof. Stuart, Chapin, and others, who argue for the right of 
 the Church to change the ordinances, we deem equally ap- 
 propriate here : for is not baptism a positive institution, and 
 equally important, and does it not as imperiously demand 
 our unqualified and implicit obedience, as the Supper % If 
 we may not dare to change the one ordinance in the least 
 respect, will we presume to abolish the other altogether, as 
 we should do by changing the action from immersion to 
 sprinkling ; for baptism is a rite, and a rite is nothing but a 
 mode ; to change the mode is to change the rife : it is abol- 
 ishing one rite, and instituting another in its place. 
 
 " Who sees not," says he, " that in regard to positive 
 Divine institutions, our duty is equally plain and imperious- — 
 the duty of unqualified, implicit submission ? Here all d pri- 
 ori reasonings are out of place ; all objections are palpably 
 fallacious; and every plan, and every thought of change or 
 modification, ought to be resisted with horror. The positive 
 institutions of heaven are emphatically trials, both of our 
 faith and our obedience. They bring home the question, 
 whether we will submit our understanding to the Divine 
 guidance, as well as our will to the Divine pleasure. To 
 oppose them is to dispute Infinite authority. To attempt 
 their improvement, is to prefer our ignorance to the wisdom 
 of Heaven. To dispense with them, or any of them, is to 
 repeal the laws of the Sovereign of the universe." (Eeview 
 
32 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW. 
 
 of Chapin's Essay on Sacramental Use of Wine. By Rev. 
 Daniel Dana, D.D., p.656.) 
 
 Infant baptism, Prof. S. makes not the slightest effort to 
 defend. He considers the practice proper and expedient, 
 though frankly confesses " commands, or plain and certain 
 examples in the New Testament, relative to it, I do not find." 
 What then are his grounds 1 He says, " The general analogy 
 of the ancient dispensation ; the enlargement of it under the 
 new ; the silence of the New Testament." But does the old 
 dispensation furnish any analogy ] What does Prof. S. say 
 elsewhere? — 
 
 " How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contend- 
 ing for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy 
 of circumcision. * * * Numberless difficulties present them- 
 selves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a 
 manner as this." — Com. 0. T., Ch. 22. Again : " The Cove- 
 vant of Circumcision furnishes no ground for infant baptism." 
 — Lecture on Galatians. 
 
 The Old Testament, any more than the New Testament, 
 affords us no warrant, and are we at liberty to foist, infant 
 baptism into the list of Church ordinances and Christian 
 duties, because, forsooth, ive may deem it proper or expe- 
 dient 1 The establishment of such a principle would be the 
 opening of Pandora's box, and crowd the Church with all 
 the traditions and senseless mummeries of the Romish apos- 
 tacy. 
 
 We have now noticed this work of Mr. Stuart, so far as 
 our limits will permit. We conceive the singular weakness 
 of his reasonings as a Pcdobaptist, and the popish grounds 
 he is compelled to take in attempting to sustain the practice 
 of sprinkling, as well as infant baptism, will constitute a more 
 powerful argument in the hands of Baptists, than even the 
 facts which, as a scholar, he so frankly admits. 
 
 J. R. Graves. 
 
 Nashville, Jan. 1855. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ; ■ 
 
 The immediate occasion of writing the present dis- 
 sertation, it may not be improper to state by quota- 
 tions below from two among the many letters that I 
 have received in relation to the subject of it. It has 
 been impossible for me to give any satisfactory answer, 
 in the way of private letters, to my correspondents 
 making inquiries with regard to the subject of baptism. 
 It would occupy all my time, and be nearly a fruitless 
 labor, to attempt it. I hope to be borne with by that 
 class of readers who are not deeply interested in a dis- 
 pute about rites and forms, when I appeal to them and 
 ask them, Whether it is not time that the stumbling- 
 block so often thrown in the way of Christians respect- 
 ing the mode of baptism, should be removed, and the 
 churches no longer divided by contentions about it ? 
 If so, and if the following pages may have any ten- 
 dency towards effecting so desirable an end, then such 
 readers, I would hope, will not, all things considered, 
 task me with doing amiss, because I have engaged in 
 the present discussion. 
 
 The letters above alluded to are the following ; to 
 which a brief reply will be found at the close of this 
 discussion : — 
 
 Maulmein and Rangoon, May, 1832. 
 
 Eev. and Dear Sir, — 
 
 We beg leave to request your decision on the fol- 
 
 2* (38) 
 
XXXIV PREFACE. 
 
 lowing questions, concerning which some discrepancy 
 of opinion obtains among the members of our mis- 
 sion : — 
 
 1. In translating and publishing the New Testament 
 in the language of Burmah, shall we retain or reject 
 the disputed passage in 1 John v. 7 ? 
 
 2. Shall we transfer the Greek word /Sawrt^w into 
 the Burman language, when it relates to the ordinance 
 of baptism, or translate it by a word significant of 
 immersion, or by a word of some other import ? 
 
 3. Are the words contained in Acts. xix. 5, the 
 words of Paul, or of the author ; and if there be an 
 ambiguity in the original, how shall we decide, when 
 translating into a language like the Burman, whose 
 idiom positively requires that the question be ascer- 
 tained ? 
 
 We remain, Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Most respectfully yours, 
 C. Bennett, Jno. Taylor Jones, A. Judson, 
 
 EUGENIO KlNCAID, J. WADE. 
 
 The second letter is anonymous, but is evidently 
 from some friend who appears to have thought seri- 
 ously on the subject of baptism. It was received last 
 December. I give only those parts which have relation 
 to the arguments in the case. They are as follows : — 
 
 December 3, 1832. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, — 
 
 Allow me to submit the following remarks to your 
 consideration : — 
 
 First, we do not obey the command of Christ to be 
 
TREFACE. XXXV 
 
 baptized, unless we are immersed. You probably will 
 not question the two following propositions : Baptism 
 is nothing but a rite; a rite is nothing but a form. 
 Are not, then, the following conclusions just, viz., that 
 if we would receive the baptism, we must perform the 
 rite ; and that, if we would perform the rite, we must 
 observe the form ? If these deductions be correct, 
 will it not follow, that if we are immersed, we have 
 observed the form ; that if we have observed the form, 
 we have performed the rite ; and that, if we have per- 
 formed the rite, we have received the baptism, or, in 
 other words, have obeyed the Saviour's command to 
 be baptized ? If we are sprinkled, will it not also fol- 
 low, that we have not observed the form ; that if we 
 have not observed the form, we have not performed 
 the rite ; and that, if we have not performed the rite, 
 we have not received the baptism, or, in other words, 
 have not obeyed the Saviour's command to be bap- 
 tized? If a rite be nothing but a form, when we 
 change the form, do we not change the rite itself? 
 If we change the rite, though we may adopt another, 
 which we may think will answer the design of the 
 institution as well, do we obey his directions ? Are 
 we not, on the contrary, undertaking to alter what we 
 have every reason to believe is best, as he ordered it 
 to be? 
 
 It is sometimes said, that if the feelings be right, it is 
 no matter about the form ; but, from the reasoning of 
 the preceding paragraph, it appears, that while the 
 feelings are right, the form should be observed, if we 
 would obey. This may also be argued from the com- 
 
XXXVI PREFACE. 
 
 mand to " believe and be baptized." Here are two 
 duties enjoined. The first, to believe ; the second, to 
 be immersed. The one relates to the feelings with 
 which we are to perform the rite ; the other relates to 
 the rite or form enjoined, viz., immersion. The appli- 
 cation of water in any other way may be a rite, but it 
 is not the rite commanded. He who has believed, has 
 discharged the first duty ; but he who has been sprin- 
 kled, has not discharged the second. 
 
 Secondly, the evil of the separation which is pro- 
 duced among Christians, by their different views of 
 baptism, is very great. You doubtless have noticed 
 the hard and angry feelings which, by conversation 
 upon this subject, have been excited in the bosoms of 
 the truly pious. You have lamented the influence of 
 this, in prejudicing impenitent men against the Gospel ; 
 in delaying the anxious, and in destroying the piety 
 of Christians. You have seen that the evil is great. 
 But who causes it ? Evidently he who has departed, 
 in practice, from the form laid down in Scripture. If 
 this form be immersion, then those who practise sprink- 
 ling have departed from the Bible. They have caused 
 the evil ; and to them belongs the guilt. 
 
 Thirdly, it is desirable that this should be done 
 away. Now, how can this best be effected? How, 
 but by every Christian's practising the form laid down 
 in Scripture ? Is it not, then, the duty of every one 
 to learn the form, and having learned it, to adhere to 
 it ? If you believe the form to be immersion, ought 
 you not to practise this, hoping that all Christians will 
 do the same ? 
 
PKEFACE. XXXV11 
 
 Perhaps you may say, if I should renounce sprink- 
 ling, others would not ; and thus the separation would 
 still continue. Suppose it should, yet you have done 
 your duty, and given your influence to truth. If you 
 excuse yourself, by such reasoning, from pursuing this 
 course, the moderate drinker may excuse himself from 
 total abstinence on the same ground. 
 
 Fourthly, if we depart in the least from the Bible, 
 either in doctrine or form, we are not safe — we have 
 no stopping-place. The Roman Catholics have de- 
 parted widely from the Bible in ' their ceremonies. 
 The forms which they have introduced are numerous. 
 They have destroyed the life of religion among them. 
 These, however, were not introduced all at once. 
 There was one that was first in order. If, however, 
 the entrance of this one had been opposed, how differ- 
 ent would have been the state of that church ! Instead 
 of being corrupt, it would have been pure. "We are 
 safe only by adhering closely to the Bible. Is it not, 
 then, the duty of every Christian who believes immer- 
 sion only to be baptism, to practise it ? 
 
 Fifthly, as those who are not immersed, but adopt a 
 form of man's invention, do not obey the Saviour's 
 command, so they will not (all other things being 
 equal) enjoy the highest seat in heaven. Regeneration 
 is the only qualification necessary to enter there. All 
 who have been born again will see Grod. But in 
 heaven there are different grades [degrees] of happi- 
 ness. The degree which each will enjoy, will be pro- 
 portioned to the fidelity of his obedience. To explain 
 more fully my meaning : of two persons, who have in 
 
every other respect thought, and acted, and spoken 
 alike, but the one was immersed and obeyed, while the 
 other was sprinkled and did not obey ; the former must 
 have a higher place in heaven than the latter. If, 
 then, he would be as happy as possible in heaven, 
 ought not he who believes immersion only to be bap- 
 tism, to practise it ? 
 
 Nothing is more common than to hear persons say 
 that the observance of the form is not essential. If 
 they mean, it is not essential in order to enter heaven, 
 we grant it. But to enjoy the most happiness there, 
 it is essential ; since we cannot obey unless we do it, 
 [i. e., unless we are immersed.] 
 
 These reasons are communicated briefly ; . but if you 
 will think of them, you can supply what is wanting. 
 If the denomination to which you belong are in an 
 error in reference to baptism, and are disobeying the 
 Saviour ; producing this separation, with its attendant 
 evils ; preventing the removal of this separation ; ren- 
 dering itself insecure, by breaking away from the Bible ; 
 and are pursuing a course which will diminish their 
 happiness in heaven ; — ought not their interests in this 
 respect to suffer, — yea, to be destroyed ? Ought you 
 not to give [your influence] wholly to the cause of 
 truth? With prayer that you may be led aright, I 
 close. 
 
 An Invisible Hand. 
 
 These are a specimen of letters which I often receive. 
 Sometimes they are on one side of the question, and 
 sometimes on the other. I have been filled with regret, 
 
PREFACE. XXXIX 
 
 while reading sueli letters, that questions of this nature 
 should thus agitate the Christian Church ; but, as the 
 matter actually is, I know of no way in which a dis- 
 cussion can be well avoided. I have engaged in it 
 with much and sincere reluctance ; but if I must en- 
 gage, and cannot be let off (which really seems to be 
 the case), then at least I ought not to spend my time 
 in beating the air. I may possibly accomplish thus 
 much, if nothing more, viz., I may be the means of 
 turning the attention of other minds to the whole sub- 
 ject ; and the result of this may be, the foial removal 
 of the difficulties that now agitate so many churches. 
 If my discussion should be the occasion of this, it will 
 not be in vain that I have expended so much time and 
 pains upon it. 
 
 M. STUAKT. 
 
MODE 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 § 1. Form and Classical Use of the word fiatr-ifa. 
 
 . The original etymological root of the verbs fia-nrifa, 
 fidTTTG), as also of the nouns pdnrtoig, fid-nrw\ia, (3anTi- 
 ofxog, (5a7T~iOTfipiov, $cmTio-T\g, (iaiTTpia, fiacp^, 0a(pvg, 
 ftcMpelov, (3a(piKrj, (3dipi[wg, Bdxpig, and in like manner of 
 the adjectives or verbals fia-nrog, Qafaicog, Qdifjifiog, — 
 appears plainly to be the monosyllable BAIT. In all 
 the words derived from this root, there is a similarity 
 of meaning which shows an intimate connection be- 
 tween them. 
 
 As to the formation of the words, some of them 
 adopt the smooth and others the rough consonant or 
 mute, as grammarians call letters of this class, viz., it 
 and (j)i sometimes with, and sometimes without, any 
 special variation of meaning. The leading and origi- 
 nal meaning of BAIT seems to have been dipping, 
 plunging, immersing, soaking, or drenching, in some 
 liquid substance. As kindred to this meaning, and 
 closely united with it, i. e., as an effect resulting from 
 such a cause, the idea of dyeing, colouring, tinging, 
 
 (41) 
 
42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 seems also to have been often associated with the ori- 
 ginal root, and to have passed into many of its derivates. 
 For example : fia-rxTog, dipped, immersed, coloured ; 
 pdnTG), to dip, plunge, dye, colour; fiafievg, a dyer, usually 
 limited to this signification ; (3a<pfj, dipping, plunging, 
 immersing, the act of colouring, colouring -stuff or mat- 
 ter, dye ; fiacjuitog, what belongs or is appropriate to dip- 
 ping, immersing, or to colouring, dyeing ; $a$LKf\ (sc. 
 Texvrj), the art of dyeing ; (3a(pelov, a dyer's workshop ; 
 fiaxpcg, the act of immersion, or of dyeing ; fidipcuog, to be 
 immersed (quasi immer sable), or to be coloured; all of 
 which shew that there is a frequent interchange of 
 meaning iu the above derived words, and a similarity 
 between them all ; and also that the two ideas of im- 
 mersion and of dyeing or colouring lie at the basis of 
 the words derived from BAIT, in most of their forms ; 
 although, in a few cases, usage has confined some par- 
 ticular words among these derivates solely to one class 
 of meanings ; e. g., fiafavg, a dyer, fiatyeiov, a dyer's shop, 
 (3diTTiaig, immersion, submersion, washing, etc. Such a 
 limited usage of a few of these derivative nouns, how- 
 ever, is probably the result merely of convenience and 
 custom, and lies not in the original nature itself of the 
 words thus employed ; for as they are obviously from 
 the root BAIT, so they might be employed, if usage had 
 thus determined, like nearly all its other numerous 
 derivates, in the twofold sense of dipping or inn min- 
 ing, and of dyeing or colouring. 
 
 For the present, I merely state the fact in relation 
 to these several meanings of the root' BATE and its 
 derivates. The reader is desired particularly to notice 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 43 
 
 what has been stated, viz., that while most of tne nouns 
 derived from BAII have a twofold sense, that of 
 immersion and that of dyeing, yet some of them are 
 employed only in one sense exclusively, either that of 
 immersion, or that of dyeing. We shall see, in the 
 sequel, that the verbs jSarrrw and Pairr't^G) have distinc- 
 tions of meaning analogous to these — distinctions 
 which are never confounded by usage ; while they both 
 agree in one common and original meaning, viz., that 
 of immersion or plunging. 
 
 In the brief view given above, I have supposed the 
 original and literal meaning of the root BAIT to be 
 that of dipping or plunging ; and accordingly I have 
 arranged this meaning so as to stand first in order. 
 Still, some may be disposed to consider this as not 
 altogether certain. They may perhaps maintain, that 
 the idea of BAIT was to tinge, dye, or colour ; and that 
 the idea of plunging or dipping was derived from this, 
 because, in order to accomplish the work of dyeing, 
 the act of plunging or dipping was necessary. But as 
 the idea of immersing or plunging is common to both 
 the words pdnro) and fia-rrri^u), while that of dyeing or 
 colouring belongs only to (3d,7TTG), it would seem alto- 
 gether probable, that the former signification is the 
 more usual and natural one, and therefore more proba- 
 bly the original one. Accordingly I have so arranged 
 it in my statement above; but at the same time, it 
 should be understood, that the signification of dyeing 
 or colouring, as attached to the word j3dnro), and many 
 forms derived from it, is not less certain than the sig- 
 nification of dipping or immersing. If the reader will 
 
44 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 keep this in mind, he will be enabled in the sequel 
 easily to solve some cases, concerning which there has 
 been dispute among those who have defended views 
 that widely differ in regard to the manner in which 
 the rite of baptism should be performed. 
 
 In addition to the two fundamental meanings of the 
 word pdnrcj as derived from BAIT, there are other 
 derived or secondary meanings of the word, which 
 will of course be noted in the sequel, when we come 
 more fully to consider this subject. My present object, 
 and the one first in order, is merely to illustrate, in an 
 intelligible way, the different forms of the respective 
 words. I do this first, in order that we may see 
 whether Pclttto and (ia-rrric,^ are really synonymous, as 
 they have often been asserted to be ; or whether they 
 have, in some respects, a real diversity of significa- 
 tion — a question not without importance in regard to 
 the object before us. 
 
 It is seldom that any language has two words which 
 in all respects are synonymous, and are both in com- 
 mon usage at one and the same time. Synonymous 
 words may indeed exist in a language, when a recent 
 form of a word is substituted for a more ancient one 
 of the same meaning ; or when a word of foreign origin 
 coexists with one that is indigenous and of the same 
 meaning, as is the case in our language with regard to 
 a great number of words derived from the Latin, 
 Greek, French, etc., which coexist with our indige- 
 nous Anglo-Saxon words ; or lastl} 7 ", Avords of different 
 forms and yet synonymous in sense, may exist in a 
 language which has different dialectical variations, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 45 
 
 such as the ancient Greek exhibited. But do any of 
 these reasons exist in respect to /3a7trw and (ia-nri^, so 
 that on account of them we may take these words as 
 in all respects synonymous ? 
 
 In quite ancient times, we find evidence of some 
 difference being supposed to exist between them. For 
 example, Tertullian says: "Dehinc ter mergitamur" 
 Corona Militis, c. 8. Jerome (ad vers. Luciferianos) 
 also says, " Nam et multa alia, quae per traditionem in 
 ecclesiis observantur ; velut in lavacro ter caput mer- 
 gitare" etc. Now mergito is a frequentative form of 
 mergo. At the same time, however, these fathers, and 
 others who wrote in Latin, often and commonly use 
 the words tingo, mergo, demergo, in order to express the 
 idea conveyed by Pami^a) ; especially do they employ 
 tingo and mergo. By these latter words, in fact, do 
 the Latin ecclesiastical writers for the most part render 
 /JaTTr^a), when they really translate the word; for 
 oftentimes, iike our English version, they employ the 
 original word itself, baptizo, in order to represent the 
 Greek fiaTTri^G), merely making it conform to the Latin 
 mode of inflection. 
 
 It would appear, then, that a feeling existed among 
 some of the Latin fathers, when they rendered fSanri^G) 
 by mergito, that fianTi^o is, in its appropriate sense, 
 what the grammarians and lexicographers call a fre- 
 quentative verb, i.e., one which denotes repetition of the 
 action which it indicates. ISTor are they alone in this. 
 Some of the best Greek scholars of the present and 
 past age, have expressed the same opinion in a more 
 definite shape. 
 
46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Buttman lays it down as a principle of the Greek 
 language, that a class of verbs in -£gj, formed from 
 other verbs, have the signification of frequentatives, 
 Gramm. § 119. 1. 5. 2. Eost lays down the same prin- 
 ciple, Gramm. § 94. 2. b. Both appeal, by way of 
 confirming their opinion, to such examples as otevg), 
 to groan or sigh, orevdfa, to sigh or groan often or much ; 
 alreu), to ask, airifa, to beg, i.e., to ask repeatedly ; epircj, to 
 creep, epni^cj, to creep along, to continue creeping • pirrro), 
 to cast or throw, pLTrrd^o), to throw hither and thither. In 
 accordance with this, Stephens and Vossius have given 
 their opinions ; and the highest authorities of recent 
 date in lexicography have decided in the same way. 
 Passow, Bretschn eider, and Donnegan, all affirm that 
 (3anTi^o) originally and properly means to dip or plunge 
 often or repeatedly. 
 
 With all deference to such masters of the Greek 
 language, and with the full acknowledgment that fre- 
 quentative verbs may be, and actually are, formed in 
 the way just stated, I must still doubt whether the 
 sense offrequentativeness belongs essentially to verbs of 
 this prolonged form, which are derived from other 
 verbs of a shorter and more simple form. My mean- 
 ing is, that although frequentative verbs may be easily 
 and naturally formed in this way ; and although this 
 mode of formation accords well with the genius of the 
 Greek language ; yet still, it is rather owning to special 
 usage, in some cases and with regard to particular 
 words, that this prolonged form is employed in this 
 way, than to any absolute general usage or to the 
 nature of the case. Proof will be necessary to sustain 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 47 
 
 suck a declaration against such authorities ; and I pro- 
 ceed to adduce it. 
 
 Thus jSAucd, to bubble up, to gush forth, has a kindred 
 verb pXvfa, of the same meaning ; op/coco, to bind by 
 oath, to adjure, and 6piri$(o the same; dXeyu, to take care 
 of, to attend to, dXeyifa the same, with the exception 
 that dXey w is not only employed in this sense, but also 
 in the sense of reckoning up, computing ; shades of 
 meaning which do not appear to be attached to dXeyifa. 
 Jn like manner ei9w, to be accustomed, to be wont, and 
 £#t£w in the same sense; ?)#«j to sift, to strain, and 
 rjM^o) the same ; icavaxco) to ring, to resound, navaxifa 
 the same. 
 
 In some of the like examples, there is a slight shade 
 of difference in the meaning of the simple and derived 
 verbs. 'AAey^w and dXeyo) above are an instance, to 
 show that one of the verbs has greater latitude, in 
 actual usage, than the other. So dvo) means' to burn 
 incense, to sacrifice, to move violently, to be in a stale of 
 fury, to be boisterous, while dv a£w is usually confined to 
 the meanings of sacrificing and raving ; (3opf3opoo) means 
 to cover with mud, to change into mire, while (3opf3opifa 
 means to resemble mud or mire or dung, to smell of mud, 
 etc. ; dv&EUi, to bloom, to grow up in a flourishing man- 
 ner, and dv-Si^G), to adorn with flowers, to deck with gar- 
 lands ; ttXovteg), to be rich, and ttXovti^g), to make rich ; 
 denrveu, to sup, and deirrvi^G), to give a supper to others, 
 etc. 
 
 How natural it is, where two kindred words exist in 
 any language, to give one a direction in practice some- 
 
48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 what different from the other, is abundantly illustrated 
 by the examples just produced. 
 
 But still, the attentive and intelligent reader will of 
 course remark for himself, that the variations now 
 before us are not of such a nature as to establish the 
 position that a frequentative sense is attached to verbs 
 in -£«, derived from other verbs. Gale asserts that 
 not only these verbs just mentioned, but infinita olia, 
 are of the tenor above described ; and that " the com- 
 mon criticism," which makes ^aixri^ a diminutive 
 instead of a frequentative, " is nothing but a ridiculous 
 piece of pedantry." — Refl. on WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bo.pt. 
 p. 217. That the opinion which he condemns has no 
 foundation in truth, I deem to be quite certain. But 
 that the opposite opinion, which makes Pa-nrifa a fre- 
 quentative (if by this it is designed to imply that it is 
 necessarily so by the laws of formation, or even by 
 actual usage), is equally destitute of a solid foundation, 
 I feel constrained, on the whole, to believe. The lexi- 
 cographers who have assigned this meaning to it, 
 appear to have done it on the ground of theoretical 
 principles as to the mode of formation. They have 
 produced no examples in point. And until these are 
 produced, I must abide by the position that a frequent- 
 ative sense is not necessarily attached to (ianTi^o) ; and 
 that, if it ever have this sense, it is by a speciality of 
 usage of which I have been able to find no example. 
 
 I am unable to determine, from the grammars of 
 Buttmann and Eost, as cited above, whether they 
 intend to give it as their opinion, that all verbs in -£w, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 49 
 
 derived from other verbs which are shorter and more 
 simple, have a frequentative sense. They merely 
 assert the fact, that to such verbs belongs such a mean- 
 ing ; without denning any limits, in respect to the prin- 
 ciple which they lay down. This is leaving the matter 
 at loose ends ; inasmuch as the reader can never deter- 
 mine, by what they say, Whether they mean to lay 
 down a universal principle of language, or whether 
 they mean merely to aver that there are frequentative 
 verbs in the Greek language, which take the form in 
 question. 
 
 To the latter proposition I fully and readily accede ; 
 of the former, I have already given reasons why we 
 should doubt. Indeed, there is not a single lexico- 
 grapher, so far as I know, who has been consistent 
 with himself, if he holds to the general principle in 
 question. Even Passow and Bretschneider, and Don- 
 negan, " quos facile principes nominarem," and who 
 have all attributed to fianri^u) the sense of a frequent- 
 ative, have given to many of the verbs in -co and -£w, 
 named above, the very same sense; and have thus 
 shown that they do not regard the principle concern- 
 ing frequentatives, as laid down in the grammars, to 
 be any thing more than one of partial application. 
 That it actually applies in real usage to (3a7rri<;o), none 
 of them have even attempted to prove by examples. 
 
 What, then, is the foundation of such an assertion, 
 in writers of such distinguished knowledge and acute- 
 ness as the grammarians and lexicographers men- 
 tioned above ? Two reasons, as it seems to me, may 
 be given for it with probability ; first, that there are 
 
50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 some clear and undoubted cases in which verbs in -£w 
 have a frequentative sense ; as in otcvo) arevdCu), aired) 
 alri^oi, tpTTU) epm^o), pinro) pcirrd^o) ; secondly, that the 
 usage of the Greek language forms many verbs in -£w 
 in such a way, that they denote usual, customary, or 
 often-repeated and habitual action ; e. g., ' EXXnvi^o), 
 to speak as a Greek, (3ap(3api^(o, to act or speak as a for- 
 eigner, 2kv#££g), to act like a Scythian, ^iXitttti^o), to take 
 part with Philip, etc. The frequency and extent of the 
 two classes of verbs just named, would seem to give 
 some colouring to the assertion, that verbs in -£«, gene- 
 rally, might be considered as a species of intensive 
 verbs ; but Buttmann himself avers (and very rightly), 
 in another place, that verbs of this ending can be 
 reduced to no definite species, § 119. I. 3. d. Let 
 the reader consult ducd^o), i x]n.L\idC ) w, jxeXi^o), depi^co, 
 XanTi^o), etc. 
 
 On the whole, I am unable to make out for verbs in 
 -£a>, any peculiarity of meaning, as appropriate to them 
 only. Not even where they are derived from more 
 simple verbs, does such a difference always, or even 
 more usually, exist. It follows, then, that we are to 
 regard (iaTrri^uy, so far as its mere form is concerned, 
 and unless there are special reasons for viewing it dif- 
 ferently, as only an example of a prolonged and second- 
 ary form of a verb ; of which there are so many scores 
 of examples in the Greek language, particularly in the 
 Present and Imperfect tenses. 
 
 Dismissing, then, the question of mere form, let us 
 now inquire, whether in actual usage /3a7rr^w has a 
 different meaning from fid-n-u). In particular, is it 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 51 
 
 distinguished from (Sdrrru by the writers of the New 
 Testament ? 
 
 The answer to these questions will be fully devel- 
 oped in the sequel. I have already intimated that 
 Pan-i^G) is distinguished from (3airT(o in its meaning. 
 I now add, that it is not, like this latter word, used to 
 designate the idea of colouring or dyeing ; while in 
 some other respects, it seems, in classical use, to be 
 nearly or quite synonymous with j3dnrco. In the New 
 Testament, however, there is one other marked dis- 
 tinction between the use of these verbs. Banri^o) and 
 its derivates are exclusively employed, when the rite of 
 baptism is to be designated in any form whatever ; and 
 in this case, ^a-rrw seems to be purposely, as 'well as 
 habitually, excluded. 
 
 Let us come now, for the fuller development of this 
 matter, to the more important part of our inquiry 
 under the first head, viz., What are the classical mean- 
 ings of (3dnT(o and (3airrit;co 1 In some measure I have 
 been obliged to anticipate the answer to this inquiry, 
 in the statements which I have already made ; but I 
 come now to the exhibition of the grounds on which we 
 must rest the positions that have been advanced, and 
 others also which are still to be advanced. 
 
 1. BaTiTO) and (3a7TTi^o) mean to dip, plunge, or inn- 
 merge, into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and 
 critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of 
 this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted ; 
 but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the 
 reader's patience, while I lay before him, as briefly as 
 may be, the results of an investigation, which seems to 
 
52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 leave no room for doubt. Take the following examples 
 from the classics: 
 
 Homer, Od. I. 392: As when a smith dips or 
 PLUNGES (j3dnTei) a hatchet or huge pole-ax into cold 
 water, viz., to harden them [it]. 
 
 Pindar, Pyth. II. 139, describes the impotent malice 
 of his enemies, by representing himself to be like the 
 cork upon a net in the sea, which does not sink : As 
 when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am 
 I UNPLUNGED (dftaTTTioTog) ; on which the Greek 
 scholiast, in commenting, says : " As the cork ov dvvei, 
 does not sink, so I am dftd-miGrog, unplunged, not im- 
 mersed. . . . The cork remains dfidrrTiorog, and swims 
 on the surface of the sea, being of a nature which is 
 dj3dTTTtorog ; in like manner I am dftdnTiOTog." In the 
 beginning of this explanation, the scholiast says : 
 " Like the cork of a net in the sea, ov ParrTifrnai, lam 
 not plunged or sunk." The frequent repetition of the 
 same words and sentiment, in this scholion, shows, in 
 all probability, that it is compiled from different anno- 
 tators upon the text. But the sense of fia-nTc^u) in all, 
 is too clear to admit of any doubt. 
 
 Aristotle, de Color, c. 4, says: By reason of heat and 
 moisture, the colours enter into the pores of things 
 dipped into them (ruv fianTo^ievojv) . De Anima, 
 III. c. 12. If a man DIPS {fid^eie) any thing into wax, 
 it is moved so far as it is dipped. Hist. Animal. VIII. 
 c. 2, speaking of certain fish, he says : They cannot 
 endure great changes, such as thai, in the summer-time, 
 THEY SHOULD PLUNGE (piiTTQfft) into cold water. 
 Ibid. c. 29, he speaks of giving diseased elephants 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 53 
 
 warm water to drink, and DIPPING (pdnTovrec) hay into 
 honey for them. 
 
 Aristophanes, in his comedy of Tlie Clouds, Act I. 
 Sc. 2, represents Socrates as gravely computing how 
 many times the distance between two of its legs, a flea 
 could spring at one leap ; and in order to ascertain this, 
 the philosopher first melted a piece of wax, and then 
 talcing the flea, he DIPPED or PLUNGED (evifiaipe) two of 
 its feet into it, etc. 
 
 Heraclides Ponticus, a disciple of Aristotle, Allegor. 
 p. 495, says : Yfhen a piece of iron is taken red hot from 
 the fire, and PLUNGED in the water (vdan fia-nTi&rai), 
 the heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the 
 water, ceases. 
 
 Herodotus, in Euterpe, speaking of an Egyptian 
 who happens to touch a swine, says : Going to the river 
 [Nile'], he DIPS Jmmelf (ej3aipe eoivrov) with his clothes. 
 
 Aratus, in his Phaenom. v. 650, speaks of the con- 
 stellation Cepheus as dipping {(36,tttg)v) his head or 
 upper part into the sea. In v. 858 he says : If the sun 
 DIP (PaTT-oi) himself cloudless into the western flood. 
 Again, in v. 951, If the crow has DIPPED (e(3diparo) his 
 head into the river, etc. 
 
 Xenophon, Anab. II. 2. 4, describes the Greeks and 
 their enemies as sacrificing a goat, a bull, a wolf, and a 
 ram, and DIPPING ([3d7rrovTsg) into a shield [filled with 
 their blood], the Greeks the sword, the Barbarians the 
 spear, in order to make a treaty that could not be 
 broken. 
 
 Plutarch, Parall. Graec. Rom. p. 545, speaking of 
 the stratagem of a Roman general, in order to ensure 
 
51 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 victory, says: He set up a trophy, on which, dipping 
 his hand into blood (elg to al\ia . . . (3imTioac), he wrote 
 this inscription, etc. In Yol. VI. p. 680 (edit. Eeiske), 
 he speaks of iron PLUNGED (fiaTTTopevov), viz., into 
 water, in order to harden it. Ibid. p. 633, plunge 
 (j3dnTioov) yourself into the sea. Yol. X. p. 118, Then 
 PLUNGING (j3aTTTi$u)v) himself into the lake Copais. 
 
 Lucian, Yol. I. p. 139, represents Timon, the man- 
 hater, as saying: If a winter 's flood should carry away 
 any one, and he, stretching out his hands, should beg for 
 help, I would press down the head of such an one lohen 
 SINKING (!3a7TTi^ovTa), so that he could not rise up again. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, edit. Heyne IY. p. 118, Whose 
 ship being SUNK or MERGED (f3anTia&eiang). Some 
 other editions read (Zvdiodeione, plunged into the deep, 
 which is a good gloss. 
 
 Plato, De Repub. IY. p. 637, represents dyers, who 
 wish to make a permanent colour, as first choosing out 
 wool, sorting and working it over, and then (ftdftTovai) 
 they plunge it, viz., into the dye-stuff. 
 
 Epictetus, III. p. 69, ed. Schwiegh. in a fragment of 
 his work says: As you ivould not ivish, sailing in a 
 large ship adorned and abounding with gold, to BE SUNK 
 or IMMERGED (PanTi&odai), so, etc. 
 
 Hippocrates, p. 532, edit. Basil : Shall I not laugh 
 at the man who SINKS (flaTTTioovra) his ship by overload- 
 ing it, and then complains of the sea for ingulfing it with 
 its cargo? On p. 50, TO DIP (pdnreiv) the probes in 
 some emollient. P. 51, DIPPING (f3dipaoa) the rag in 
 ointment, etc. P. 101. Cakes dipped (liLfianTo^evoi) 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 55 
 
 into sour swine. P. 145, DIPPING (/3a7rro)v) sponges in 
 warm water. And in the same way, in all parts of his 
 book, in instances almost without number. 
 
 Strabo, Lib. VI. p. 421, speaking of a lake near 
 Agrigentum, says: Tilings that elsewhere cannot float, 
 DO NOT SINK (/irj panTi^eodaL) in the water of this lake, 
 but swim in tlie manner of wood. XII. p. 809, If one- 
 shoots an arrow into the channel [of a certain rivulet in 
 Cappadocia], the force of the water resists it so much, that 
 it will scarcely PLUNGE IN (PaTTri&odcu) . XIV. p. 982, 
 They [the soldiers] marched a whole day through the 
 water, PLUNGED IN (fiaTTTL^ofxivojv) up to the waist. 
 XVI. p. 1108, The bitumen floats on the top [of the lake 
 Sirbon], because of the nature of the water, which admits 
 of no diving ; nor can any one who enters it PLUNGE IN 
 (j3a7rri^ea^a), but is borne up. 
 
 Polybius, III. 72, The foot soldiers passed through [the 
 water] scarcely immersed to the paps. See also V. 47. 
 
 Josephus, Ant. IX. 10, speaking of the ship in which 
 Jonah was,' says uiXXovroc PaTrri^ea^ai rov cwacpovc, the 
 ship being about TO SINK. In the History of his own 
 Life, speaking of a voyage to Eome, during which the 
 ship that carried him foundered in the Adriatic, he 
 says: Our ship being immersed or sinking ((3o,ttti- 
 adevroc) in the midst of the Adriatic. Speaking of 
 Aristobulus as having been drowned by command 
 of Herod, Bell. Jud. I, he says : The boy was sent to 
 Jericho, and there, agreeably to command, being IMMERSED 
 in a pond (j3a,7TTi$ouevoc iv tcoXvpftridpa), he perished. 
 Bell. Jud. LI, As they [the sailors] swam away from a 
 
56 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 SINKING ship (panT^ofievnc veuc). Bell. Jud. Ill, The 
 wave being raised very high, OVERWHELMED or IM- 
 MERGED them (eftdnTLoe.) 
 
 It were easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to 
 usage; but the reader will not desire it. He may 
 see many examples in Carson's recent publication on 
 baptism ; which I did not see, until after the present 
 dissertation was written. It is impossible to doubt 
 that the words fld-nTto and Panri^cj have, in the Greek 
 classical writers, the sense of dip, plunge, immerge, sink, 
 etc. But there are variations from this usual and pre- 
 vailing signification; i.e., shades of meaning kindred to 
 this (as happens in respect to most words), some literal 
 and some figurative, which demand, of course, our spe- 
 cial notice. 
 
 2. The verb pdnro means to plunge or thrust into 
 any thing that is solid, but permeable ; to plunge in so 
 as to cover or inclose the thing plunged. 
 
 Some place here the example in Sophocles, Ajax 
 v. 95, rendering it : Thou hast plunged deep (Zfiaxpac 
 ev) thy sword INTO the Grecian army; but here irpog 
 'Apyeiuv orpdrc^, seems not to admit of this construc- 
 tion, as it means with, or by means of, the Grecian 
 army. See under No. 6, in the sequel. 
 
 Lycophron, Cassand. v. 1121, representing Orestes 
 as about to punish Clytcmnestra for murder, says : 
 The child . . . shall with his own hand PLUNGE (/3dipei) 
 his sword into the viper's boivels. 
 
 Philippus, in Jacobs' Anthol., says: lie thrust 
 (e(3aipe) his ivholc chin into the belly of the ram. 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Bom. V. 15, says : 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 
 
 The one thrust (/3ai/>ac) Ms spear between the other's 
 ribs, who at the same instant [thrust his] into his belly. 
 
 Euripides, Phoeniss. 1593, Taking his sounding 
 scimitar from the dead, he PLUNGED it (t/3aipe) into the 
 flesh. 
 
 So far as I have observed, the verb Pair™ is exclu- 
 sively employed in all such cases. 
 
 3. The verb pd-xTO) only is employed, in order to 
 convey the meaning, to dip out, to dip up, by plunging 
 a vessel into a liquid and drawing it up. 
 
 Euripides, Hec. 607 sq. But go, you old maidservant, 
 take a vessel, [and] DIPPING it (pdipaaa), bring some sea- 
 water hither. On this the scholiast remarks, that 
 (3dirT£iv means to let down into the water or any liquid. 
 
 Theocritus, Idyll. V. 126. Every morning, instead of 
 water, the maid shall DIP OUT (Paipai) a cup of honey. 
 Idyll. XIII. 46, The lad directed his large pitcher towards 
 the water, hastening to DIP it (fidapai). 
 
 Hermolaus, lie DIPPED (efiaxjje) his pitcher in the 
 ivater ; cited in Gale's Refl. on Wall, p. 121. 
 
 Lycophron, Cassand. 1365, DIPPING up (/Sd^avreg) 
 pleasure with foreign buckets. 
 
 Aristotle, Quosst. Mechan. c. 27, One must DIP 
 ((3dipai), viz., the bucket, and then draw it up. 
 
 Euripides, Hippol. 123, Bubbling ivater dipped up 
 (fidijjav) with pitchers. 
 
 Callimachus, Hymn, in Lavacr. Pallad. 45 : To day, 
 ye bearers of water, DIP UP NONE (p) ^dnrere), viz., dip 
 up none from the river Inachus ; as the context shows. 
 
 Nicander, as quoted by Spanheim in his note on the 
 above passage, says : avrnv aXa ftdnre, DRAW UP the 
 
58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 sea-water itself. On this the scholiast remarks, that 
 /3tt7rre stands for dvrXel, y£[u%e, draw up, fill. 
 
 4. The verb .Sarrrw only (and its derivatives in point 
 of form), signifies to tinge, dye, or colour. 
 
 Thus in the Batrachom. of Homer, v. 218, speaking 
 of one of the champions which was slain, the poet says : 
 He fell, without even looking upwards, and the lake WAS 
 TINGED (efidTTTETo) with blood. 
 
 Aristophanes, Plut. Act. II. Sc. 5, Do not adorn 
 yourself with garments of variegated appearance, COL- 
 OURED (fianTuiv adj.) at a great expense. — In Aves, p. 
 526, the poet speaks of vpvig pan-dc, a COLOURED bird. 
 In Acharn.'Act. I. Sc. 1, he makes one of his bullies 
 say: Lest /tinge you with a Sardinian hue, oe f3dipG) 
 fid\±\ia lapdiviaaov, i. e., beat you until you are all be- 
 smeared with blood ; in other words, until you become 
 of a red colour. 
 
 Aristotle, De Color, c. 4. ad fin.: The colour of things 
 DYED (t&v (Sanrojievcjv) is changed by the aforesaid 
 causes. 
 
 Lucian, I. p. 89, He teas present at the exhibition, hav- 
 ing on a garment COLOURED {(Barrrov) ; in opposition to 
 the usual custom of the Athenians, who wore white 
 garments on the occasion here alluded to. 
 
 Herodotus, Lib. VII. 67, The Sarangae adorn them- 
 selves with garments that are COLOURED (@£fiau}.itva). 
 
 Plutarch, VI. p. 680, Then p>erceiving that his beard 
 ivas COLOURED (Sa-Tofievov), and his haul. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, Tom. III. p. 315, They [the 
 Gauls] wear singular garments, coats DYED (fiaTCTolg), 
 and /lowered with various colours, etc. Tom. II. p. 149, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 59 
 
 The p>hysiologists, reasoning from these things, show, that 
 native warmth has TINGED (t-jSatpev) the above variety of 
 the growth of the things before mentioned; he refers to the 
 variety of colours in various precious stones, birds, etc. 
 
 Marcus Antoninus, Lib. V. § 16, For the soul is 
 TINCTURED (/3a7r-£rat) by the thought; TINGE it (fidTtre), 
 then, by accustoming yourself to such thoughts, etc. 
 
 Plato, De Eepub. IV. p. 637, The dyers (oi (3a<pe7g), 
 when they are desirous TO DYE (fidipai) ivool, so as to 
 make it purple . . . and whatever may be DYED ((3a(()y) in 
 this manner, the thing DYED (to fiafyev) becomes strongly 
 tinctured, — If any one DYE (fiaTTTy) other colours, etc. — 
 That they may receive Hie laws in the best manner, as a 
 DYE (/3a0?/v), that tJieir opinion may be durable . . . And 
 those streams cannot ivash out THE DYE (ficKpTjv), al- 
 though they are very efficient to wash out, etc. 
 
 Helladius, in Jacob's Anthol. III. p. 145, 
 Bdnrcjv ndvra, j3a<p£v, teal ^pu^arcoig [xera/Sd^Xov, 
 K<u 7Tevi7]v fidxpae, ttXovococ i^eepdvne. 
 Dyer, ivho tingest all things, and dost change them by 
 thy colours, thou hast TINGED poverty also, and now ap- 
 pearest to be rich. The epigram was made upon a dyer, 
 who, although once poor, had become rich. The con- 
 ceit of the poet is singular enough ; but the manner in 
 which (3dTTTu> and its kindred forms are used, cannot 
 be mistaken. 
 
 Josephus, Ant. III. 6. 1, Some DYED ((3ef3afif.itvac) 
 with hyacinth, and some with purple. 
 
 No doubt, then, can remain that the word [3aTrro) 
 means to tinge, or colour ; and in this respect it seems 
 plainly to differ from /Sa-rrrt^w. I find no instance in 
 
60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 which the latter is employed in this way. There may 
 be some, which have escaped the extensive search that 
 I have made. But until I see them produced, I must 
 believe that the sense of tinging is appropriated only 
 to (3dnTG), and to its kindred words in respect to form. 
 I am aware that Passow assigns to ^aTrriorng the 
 meaning of baptizer, plunger, and dyer ; but of the last 
 meaning I must now doubt, until some examples are 
 produced. All other words kindred to ^a-nriornc 
 (kindred in form, as coming from {3<nrTi%a)) are desti- 
 tute of such a sense as that of dyeing or colouring, 
 according to Passow's own statement. * 
 
 If the conclusion just stated be correct, then we can 
 see that there exists the like difference between the 
 actual usage of P&tttu and fSairri^cj, as exists between 
 many other verbs which have the same relation in 
 respect to form, and where the ending in -£w has not 
 the sense of a frequentative. The reader by looking 
 back to the statement made above (p. 294 sq.) in rela- 
 tion to this subject, may now satisfy himself still fur- 
 ther, that pairTi^G) is not a frequentative. I have found 
 no instance in which this sense is apparent, so far as 
 the nature of the verb itself is concerned. 
 
 5. The word fianri^cj means to overwhelm, literally 
 and figuratively, in a variety of ways. 
 
 Aristotle, De Mirabil. Ausc. speaks of a saying 
 among the Phenicians, that there were certain places, 
 beyond the pillars of Hercules, which, when it is ebb- 
 tide, are not OVERFLOWED (u?) (3aKri^ea&ai), but at full- 
 tide are overflowed (tiaraiiXv^eadai); which word is here 
 used as an equivalent for (3qnTi%eo&ai. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 61 
 
 Evenus, XV. in Jacobs' Anthol. I. p. 99, says : If 
 [Bacchus] breathe strongly, it hinders love, i. e., if a man 
 becomes thoroughly intoxicated, it hinders the gratifi- 
 cation of amorous passions; for he [Bacchus] over- 
 whelms (jSaTTTL^ei) with a sleep near to death. Here is 
 the metaphorical sense of the word. And so in most 
 of the following examples. 
 
 Heliodorus, iEthiop. Lib. IV. p. 192, When midnight 
 has overwhelmed (el3dTT~i%ov) the city with sleep. Lib. LT. 
 3, OVERWHELMED (fiefianTLonEVov) by misfortune. See 
 also IV. 20. V. 16. 
 
 Clemens, Alex. Pa^d. II. p. 182, By intoxication 
 OVERWHELMED (/3a7Tr^ofievoc) unto sleep. 
 
 Plato, Conviv. p. 176, I myself am one of those who 
 were DRENCHED or OVERWHELMED (/3e/3a77Ticr J wevwv) 
 yesterday, viz., with wine. In another place : Having 
 OVERWHELMED (fiarr-ioaGa) Alexander with much wine. 
 Euthydem. p. 277, eel. Heindorf, A youth over- 
 whelmed ((3a7rn^6[.ievov), viz., with questions. 
 
 Lucian, Tom. III. p. 81, He is like one dizzy and 
 OVERWHELMED ((BefianTiouevGi), viz., with wine ; used 
 like our vulgar word fuddled. 
 
 Josephus, Ant. X. 9. 4 : Seeing him in this condition 
 and OVERWHELMED, ((3e(3aiTT(,ou£vov) by excessive drink- 
 ing into shamelessness and sleep. 
 
 Philo Judaeus, "Vol. II. p. 478, I know some, who, 
 when they easily become intoxicated, before they are entirely 
 OVERWHELMED (jrplv reXeug (3a7TTLO&rjvai), viz., with 
 wine. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, Tom. I. p. 107, Host of the land 
 animals that are intercepted by the river [Nile] perish, 
 
62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 being overwhelmed ^airtitfi^m) ; here used in the 
 literal sense. Tom. VII. p. 191, The river, home along 
 by a more violent current, OVERWHELMED (Ifidnrioe) 
 many ; — the literal signification. Torn. I. p. 129, And 
 because they [the nobles] have a supply by these means 
 [presents], they do not overwhelm their subjects with 
 taxes. Figurative. 
 
 Justin Martyr, Dialog, cum Tryphone, p. 313: 
 fiefia-nTionivoc ajxapriaig, OVERWHELMED with sins. 
 
 Plutarch, Tom. VI. p. 30, The soul is nourished by 
 moderate labours, but is OVERWHELMED (foa-nri^erai) by 
 excessive ones. In his Moralia, Tom. III. p. 1504, he 
 speaks of Galba as bfyXryiaoi fiefianTioiievov, OVER- 
 WHELMED with debts. In Opp. VIII. p. 345, he says : 
 virb rtiv rrpayndruiv (3aTrTi^ojj,evovg, OVERWHELMED with 
 business. 
 
 Chrysostom, as quoted by Suicer, Thes. Ecc. I. p. 
 623,'Ttto fitting (3<nmo&ijvai, to be OVERWHELMED with 
 ivine; — OVERWHELMED (fiaTTri^ouevog) with innumera- 
 ble cares; — having the mind OVERWHELMED ((3e(3aiTTi- 
 ofiivov) with a multitude of cares ; OVERWHELMED (/3a7r- 
 TL^ofiEvoL) on all sides by the many waves of business / — 
 IMMERGED (PefianTiofievog) in malignity. — Justin Mar- 
 tyr: OVERWHELMED (ftanTur&eig) by drunkenness. 
 
 It were easy to increase the number of examples ; but 
 these are enough to exhibit both the literal and meta- 
 phorical sense of the word. The reader will observe, 
 that in all these examples, the word panTi^G) (and not 
 fidnTG)) is employed ; which, with the usage in Nos. 2, 
 3, 4, is a conclusive argument against supposing that 
 these two words are in all respects synonymous. Usage, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 63 
 
 as it plainly appears from all these examples, employs 
 (3a,7TTG) exclusively in some shades of meaning ; (ia-nri^oi 
 in others ; and both in designating the original and 
 generic idea of the root BAIT, as exhibited in ISo. 1. 
 
 6. Bairrw is also employed in the sense to smear, to- 
 bathe, by the application of liquid to the surface, etc. 
 
 Sophocles, Ajax, v. 95, efiaipag ev, thou hast well 
 BATHED or SMEARED thy sword, with the Grecian army, 
 viz., by plunging it into the Grecian soldiers. The 
 construction -rrpbg Apyeiuv orparu does not seem very 
 well to admit of any other sense, inasmuch as the 
 object into which any thing is plunged, is usually put 
 by classic writers, in the Ace. with elg, after the verb 
 (3a7T-G). Tipog, as above, signifies by means of, with, as 
 designating the manner in which the sword was bathed. 
 
 .^Eschyrus, Prometh. v. 861, For the wife has de- 
 prived each husband of life, BATHING ((3&ipoaoa) the 
 sword by slaughter ; where bathing the sword means, to 
 make it reek with blood, by plunging it into human 
 bodies. 
 
 Aristophanes, ' Innelg, Act. I. Sc. 3, speaking of 
 Magnes, an old comic player of Athens, represents him 
 as Avdit%(x>v, nal ipnvi^ojv, teal PanTOfievog ^arpax^iotg, 
 using the Lydian music or measure, and making plays, 
 and SMEARING himself with frog-coloured [paints], 
 
 Bionysius of Halicarnassus, Yit. Homeri, p. 297, 
 cited by Gale, p. 123, comments on the expression of 
 Homer in II. XYI. 333, where the poet represents 
 Ajax as killing Cleobulus, and says : He struck him 
 across the neck, with his heavy sword, and the whole sword 
 became warm ivith blood. Upon this Dionysius remarks : 
 
64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 That the sword was so bathed (/3anTio$evToc) with 
 blood, that it became heated by it. This is capable of 
 being rendered, so dipped in blood ; and so Gale renders 
 it, p. 123. But if this shade of meaning was designed 
 to be conveyed by Dionysius, would he not have 
 written : fianTLO&tvroc ovrug e I c rb al^a rov %i(povc 
 k. t. X. 1 However, I do not consider the example as 
 altogether certain, but adduce it as a probable one. 
 
 7. A shade of meaning kindred to the above, viz., to 
 wash, i. e., to cleanse by the use of water, is sometimes 
 attached to the word P&ittu in the classics. 
 
 Aristophanes, in Eccles : First they WASH {fianrovai) 
 the wool in warm water, according to the old custom. The 
 lexicographers, Suidas and Phavorinus, interpret the 
 word pdnrovac here, by -nXvvovoi, they wash, or wash 
 out ; and Stephens says (ad voc. ttXvvo)), that (3aTTT<o is 
 peculiarly spoken of garments, as Xovo) is of the body, 
 and vlttto) of the hands and feet. — We shall see in the 
 sequel, that this shade of meaning is not unfrequent in 
 the sacred writers, though seldom, so far as I have, been 
 able to discover, to be met with in profane writers. 
 
 These, I believe, are all the various shades of mean- 
 ing assigned in the classics to pdnro and fia-ri^G). 
 How little ground there is to represent j3a7rri^o) as a 
 frequentative, the reader must now see, and be able to 
 judge for himself. lie will also be able to judge with 
 how little correctness Gale has asserted (p. 217), that 
 " (3dTTTG) and f3arzTi^cj are loodvvaimi, i.e., exactly the 
 same as to their signification." Neither the one nor the 
 other of the above representations agrees with fact. In 
 all the derived or secondary meanings of both (3d-rcj 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 65 
 
 and Pam-ifa, it would seem plain, from the above exhi- 
 bition of them, that the Greek writers made a diverse 
 and distinct use of the words, never confounding them. 
 Why should lexicographers and critics not have more 
 thoroughly investigated this, before they made repre- 
 sentations so little accordant with the state of facts ? 
 
 I come now to investigate the usage of the sacred 
 records. This we can do with much greater advantage, 
 after the extensive survey of classical usage which has 
 been taken above. 
 
 § 2. Use of pan™ and (ia-nri^o) in the Septuagint and 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 1. The verb pdn-o) signifies to plunge, immerse, dip 
 in. 
 
 Lev. 11 : 32, Every vessel [that is unclean] shall he 
 PLUNGED {[3a<p)joeTai) into water ; Heb. tOfttt, shall be 
 brought or introduced. 4:6, And the priest shall dip 
 (fidipei) his finger into the blood; Heb. bat). 9: 9, And 
 he [Aaron] DIPPED (efiaipe) his finger into the blood ; 
 Heb. 5&&. 14 : 6, And he shall dip ((3dif)ei) them . . . 
 into the blood ; Heb. bnt? . 14 : 51, And he shall dip 
 (pctyei) it into the blood; Heb. bit?. 
 
 Num. 19 : 18, And the man that is cleansed shall take 
 hyssop, and DIP it (pdipei) into the water ; Heb. b?tt . 
 
 Deut. 33 : 24, And he shall dip (pd^ei) his foot in oil 
 (ev iXaiu, Heb. yivss) ; Heb. corresponding to fidipei, 
 
 Josh. 3 : 15, The feet of the priests . . . were dipped 
 
6Q CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 (i/3d(pr]aav) into a pari of the water of the Jordan ; 
 Heb. !at>. 
 
 Kuth 2 : 14, And thou shalt DIP (J3dipeic) thy morsel 
 in vinegar (£v r<3 o£«, ffcjta) ; Heb. verb biti. 
 
 1 Sam. 14: 27, J.?irf Ae dipped (t/3ai/>e) #, viz., the 
 end of his sceptre, into a Aone?/ comb ; Heb. boa . 
 
 2 Kings 8: 15, i?e took a mattress, and dipped it 
 (tPatpe) in water (ev t<2 vdar*, Heb. fi^li) ; "verb bate. 
 
 Job 9 : 31, TAoii Aas/ PLUNGED me (//e tj3a^ag) into 
 the mire (ev puny, rinia5, wito ^Ae pit or ditch)) Heb. 
 verb i&to. 
 
 Ps. 67: 23 (68: 24), That thy foot may be dipped 
 (j3a0?ji) m ttooc? (iv al\ian, 6%); Heb. verb fD>?. 
 
 In like manner PaTrrifo takes the same signification. 
 
 2 Kings 5 : 14, ./l?zcZ Naaman went down, and 
 PLUNGED HIMSELF (k(3a7TTL(jaTo) seven times into the 
 river Jordan; Heb. iatt. The prophet Elisha had 
 said : Xovaai e-nrdKig h> ru ' lopddvy, WASH THYSELF 
 seven times in the Jordan, 2 Kings 5:10. 
 
 These constitute the majority of the examples in 
 the Septuagint, of the words under consideration. The 
 others, which are few in number, I proceed to subjoin. 
 
 2. To smear over or moisten by dipping in ; in which 
 sense I find pdnro) only employed. 
 
 Lev. 4:17. And the priest shall SMEAR OVER or 
 MOISTEN (Pdipa) his finger, and rod aqiarog, by or with 
 the blood of the bullock; Heb. tnn ]$• • 'bsbv AVhen then 
 the sense of plunging into is directly and fully ex- 
 pressed in Hebrew, it is by using the preposition p 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 67 
 
 after the verb baa; e. g. tn? bat> , ti^raa ias, etc. 
 But "p is sometimes used (as in the example above) 
 before the noun designating the liquid element made 
 use of; and then the Seventy have imitated this in 
 such a way, that we are constrained to render their 
 version as I have done above. The same is the case in 
 the next example. 
 
 Lev. 14 : 16, And he [the priest] shall smear over 
 ifidxpet) his rigid finger with the oil, and rov eXcuov, Heb. 
 
 Ex. 12 : 22, And moistening or smearing it [the 
 bundle of hyssop] with the blood j3dipaavreg and rov 
 a'ijxaTog). But here the Hebrew has MS Miiow and 
 the Seventy, if they had followed their own analog}^, 
 would have rendered it Qdxpavreg e I grb al\xa. Inas- 
 much, however, as they have not so done, it would 
 seem that they meant to give another shade of mean- 
 ing to the expression. 
 
 3. To overwhelm ; where (3anri^u) is used. Of this I 
 find but one example ; and in that the word is used in 
 a figurative way. 
 
 Is. 21 : 4, My iniquity OVERWHELMS me (jue Panri&i) ; 
 where the Hebrew has Ma to terrify, etc. 
 
 4. Of the sense of tinging or colouring, given to 
 /3arrrw, I find only one example ; and here the reading 
 is various and contested, viz. : 
 
 Ezek. 23 : 15, where the Septuagint reads napd(3an-a, 
 according to the Roman edition ; but other editions 
 read -idpai (3anrai, coloured turbans. Ylapafianra means 
 tinctured, coloured, variegated with colours. The Hebrew 
 is Q^aa wn redundantes milris, with turbans or 
 
68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tiaras redundant, i. e., having ends hanging down, etc. 
 The word fi^bint? > a derivate of bntp appears here to 
 point to the sense of tinging, tincturing, which into 
 (like the Greek fidix™) seems once to have had. 
 
 5. To wash, cleanse by water; where ftanri^ is used. 
 Thus "it is said of Judith, in c. 12 : 7, that she went 
 
 out by night into the valley of Bethulia, and WASHED 
 herself {efiaTTTifyro) in the camp, at the fountain of 
 'water. 
 
 In Sirach 81 : 25, we find the expression (s3air- 
 rt^ievoc and vetcpov, he who is CLEANSED from a dead 
 [carcase] and toucheih it again, what does he profit by 
 his washing (t<5 hovrpti avrov) 1 The phrase ftaix- 
 rLi,6\itvoc aixo veicpov may be easily explained, by com- 
 paring such passages as are to be found in Lev. 11 : 25, 
 23, 31, 39, 40. Num. 19 : 18, etc., by which it ap- 
 pears, that a person who touched a dead body was 
 ceremonially defiled, and must wash his clothes and 
 his person in order to become clean. 
 
 6. To moisten, wet, bedew ; where j3dnTU) is used. 
 Thus in Dan. 4 : 30, it is said, that Nebuchadnezzar 
 
 was driven from among men, and made to eat grass 
 like the ox, and that his body was moistened, wet 
 (efidtyri) with the dew of heaven. 
 
 Dan. 5 : 21, His body teas moistened (^Sdcpv) with 
 the dew of heaven. The version of this book, it will 
 be recollected, came from the hand of Theodotion, 
 about A. D. 150, a Jew by religion, or at least a Juda- 
 izing Christian. Commonly his version agrees with 
 the Septuagint, and it was highly prized by Origen 
 and the ancient Christians in general ; so much so, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 69 
 
 that Origen corrected, the faults of the Septuagint by 
 it, and the ancient churches preferred it to that of the 
 Seventy, in respect to the book of Daniel, and. received 
 it in the Canon. 
 
 These are all the examples of pdnru or^ fiaTrrifa 
 which can be found in the Septuagint or Apocrypha, if 
 the Concordance of Tromm is to be trusted. From 
 these the reader will easily see, that some of the classi- 
 cal meanings of these Avords are not to be found in the 
 books aforesaid; while other meanings, viz., to wash, to 
 bedew or moisten, are more clearly and fully exhibited. 
 The examples in Daniel from Theodotion make it plain 
 that the word /3dnro) was occasionally used to desig- 
 nate the application of liquid or moisture to the surface 
 of any thing, in any way whatever ; whether by wash- 
 ing, or by gentle affusion as in the case of dew. The 
 example of Judith shews very clearly, that washing of 
 the person may be designated by j3anrL^o) ; for into the 
 fountain in the midst of the camp, it is not probable 
 that she 'plunged. In both the examples in Daniel, the 
 Chaldee (the original is here in this language) is srfl?, 
 which, like the Greek /3a7rrw, means both to dip and 
 to tinge or colour. The like is the case with the same 
 verb in Syriac and Arabic, as well as in Chaldee ; and 
 the Hebrew appears also to have employed the same 
 verb in the like sense, inasmuch as we have yns, a deri- 
 vate of it, signifying coloured garment, Judg. 5 : 30. 
 
 I have taken an extensive range, in order to prepare 
 for the investigation of the words in question in the 
 New Testament. But we may now come to the work, 
 under circumstances that will enable us to judge with 
 
70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 a greater degree of accuracy and satisfaction than we 
 could possibly have done, if these introductory inves- 
 tigations had been superseded. 
 
 § 3. Meaning of the words /3 a n- r w , /3 a 7r t t £ w , and their 
 derivatives in the New Testament, when not applied to 
 the rite of baptism. 
 
 I. BaTTTW. 
 
 1. To dip. 
 
 E. g., Luke 16 : 24, That he may dip (pdifyq) the lip of 
 his finger in water, vdaroc, the Gen. of instrument, i. e., 
 that he may wet his finger WITH water, which is a ren- 
 dering that seems to accord more exactly with the 
 syntactical construction of the sentence. 
 
 John 13 : 26, It is he, to whom I shall give the morsel 
 or crumb, when I have DIPPED it ((3dipac). 
 
 2. To dye. 
 
 E. g., Eev. 19 : 13, a garment DYED {fieftamievov) in 
 blood. 
 
 These are all the examples of pd-rrru ; and by these 
 it appears that in no case is this word applied to the 
 rite of baptism, by the writers of the New Testament. 
 Nor are there any words derived from this form, which 
 occur in the New Testament. 
 
 We proceed, then, to consider the other verb. 
 
 II. Ba-nri^o). 
 
 I shall first ex? mine all the examples of this word 
 and its derivatives, in cases which have no relation to 
 the religious rite of baptism. After this is done, we 
 may come with more advantage to the examination of 
 the meaning, when these words are applied to this rite. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 71 
 
 1. To ivash, in the literal sense. 
 
 E. g., Mark 7 : 3, 4, The Pharisees [returning] from 
 the market eat not, except they WASH THEMSELVES, (3an- 
 riocovrai, Mid. voice. 
 
 Luke 11 : 38, But the Pharisee, seeing him, wondered 
 that he had not first WASHED HIMSELF (if3a7TTiod?j) be- 
 fore dinner. Here the 1 Aor. Pass, is used in the 
 same way as the 1 Aor. Middle would be employed ; 
 as it is oftentimes elsewhere. 
 
 In accordance with this sense of ^a-nri^w, we find the 
 word paTTTionoc- employed. 
 
 E. g., Mark 7 : 4, The washings (Pairriaiiovc) of 
 cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches (tc?av&v). 
 
 Mark 7 : 8, The washings (j3aTZTiofjt,ovg) of pots and 
 cups. 
 
 Heb. 9 : 10, Only in meats, and drinks, and divers 
 WASHINGS {fiaiTTiopolc). 
 
 These are the only examples in the New Testament 
 where fianri^u) or any of its derivates has a literal 
 sense, with the exception of those cases in which these 
 words are applied to designate the rite of baptism. 
 Whether these are to be literally understood, remains 
 still the object of our inquiry. 
 
 2. But fianri^o) and pdnriofia have, in a few cases, a 
 figurative sense, which deserves a particular considera- 
 tion. This meaning stands nearly allied to that in 
 No. 5 under our classical head in § 1 ; or rather, it is, 
 in amount, an idiom of the same nature. The exam- 
 ples are the following : 
 
 Luke 12 : 50, / have a baptism to be baptized with 
 ( fiatx-ioua 6e e^w fiaTTrurdrjvai), and how am I straitened 
 
72 . CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 until it be accomplished! That is, I am about to be 
 overwhelmed with sufferings, and I am greatly dis- 
 tressed with the prospect of them. A comparison with 
 the similar classical usage, under No. 5 just mentioned, 
 makes this sense very plain. 
 
 Mark 10 : 38, 39, Are ye able to drink of the cup that 
 I must drinlc, and to be baptized with the baptism with 
 which I am baptized ? ml rb fidnTiofia, 6 eyw /Sarrri^ofiai, 
 /3aTTTio$Tjvai ; which words are found also in Matt. 
 20 : 22, 23, of the common editions of the New Testa- 
 ment, but are there marked as spurious by Knapp. 
 The genuineness of them in Mark, however, stands 
 uncontroverted. The sense is evidently the same as 
 that given above, viz. " Can ye indeed take upon you 
 to undergo, patiently and submissively, sufferings like 
 to mine — sufferings of an overwhelming and dreadful 
 nature ?" 
 
 So the classic usage: " To overwhelm with misfor- 
 tune ; to overwhelm with taxes — with wine — with 
 questions — with debt — with excessive labour," etc. etc. 
 In the like sense I must understand the word in 1 Cor. 
 15 : 29, Else what shall they do, who are baptized for 
 the dead ? ol f3a7rTi$6fievoi vvep rwv veKptiv ; That is (for 
 so the course of the apostle's reasoning leads us to un- 
 derstand him), " If the dead are not raised — if there be, 
 as some affirm, no resurrection to life, then what be- 
 comes of all our multiplied toils and sufferings, which 
 we undergo with reference to a future state and to that 
 world unto which the dead go ? Of what avail is it 
 to endure overwhelming sorrows, if there be no resur- 
 rection of the dead?" 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 73 
 
 Sucli a sense of the word 0a7rr«£<u is so well sup- 
 ported and illustrated by classic usage, that nothing 
 further needs to be said upon it. I will only add, that 
 G. J. Yossius, in his Disputationes de Baptismo, Thes. 
 L, attributes such a usage of the word to the custom of 
 the Hebrews in designating great calamities by the 
 image of overwhelming waters. Had he examined the 
 classic usage of the word, he would have seen no need 
 of this solution. To Hebrews and Greeks both, the 
 idea of an overivhehning flood offered a very obvious 
 image to designate great sorrows and afflictions. Both, 
 therefore, employ it. Thus David : " Save me, O 
 God, for the waters are come into my soul ! I sink 
 in deep mire, where there is no standing ; I am come 
 into deep waters, where the floods overflow me;" Ps. 
 69 : 1. Again, Ps. 69 : 14, " Let me be delivered . . . 
 out of the deep, waters." Ps. 18 : 16, " He sent from 
 above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters." 
 Ps. 32 : 6, " Surely in the floods of great waters, they 
 shall not come nigh to him." Ps. 42 : 7, " Deep call- 
 eth unto deep, at the noise of thy water-spouts ; all thy 
 waves come over my soul." Inasmuch, now, as the 
 more usual idea of PaTrri^o) is that of overwhelming, inn- 
 merging, it was very natural to employ it in designating 
 severe calamities and sufferings. 
 
 3. There is another figurative use of j3aTrri^co, allied 
 in some respects to the preceding one, but distinguished 
 from it in the mode of its application. I mean that 
 usage of the word which employs it to designate the 
 idea of copious affusion or effusion, in a figurative man- 
 ner. The basis of this usage is very plainly to be 
 4 
 
74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 found in the designation by (iaixri^ of the idea of 
 overwhelming, i. e. ; of surrounding on all sides with 
 fluid. Copious affusion or effusion is kindred to this ; 
 and very obviously, the word which designates the 
 preceding idea may also designate these meanings. 
 
 E. g., Matt. 3 : 11, He shall BAPTIZE (panrioei) you with 
 the Holy Ghost and with fire ; i. e., he will make a copious 
 effusion of his Spirit upon a part of you ; and another 
 part, viz., the finally unbelieving and impenitent, he 
 will surround with flames, or plunge into the flames. 
 Or perhaps baptizing with fire may here have reference 
 to the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
 when there appeared to the apostles, " cloven tongues 
 as it were of fire, and it [the fire] rested upon every 
 one of them," Acts 2 : 3. In Luke 3 : 16, the same 
 expression is again found; and in Mark 1 : 8, John 
 1 : 33, and Acts 1:5; 11 : 17, is found the phrase, He 
 shall BAPTIZE (Panrioei, (3aTTri^o)v) you with the Holy 
 /Spirit. In 1 Cor. 12 : 13, Paul says : For by one Spirit 
 have we been BAPTIZED (efiaTTTio'&rjfxev) into one body ; 
 i. e., by the copious effusion of one and the same Spirit, 
 have we been made members of one and the same 
 church. So he afterwards explains it : " We all have 
 been made to drink in one and the same Spirit." 
 
 I have now examined all the examples in the New 
 Testament, in which Pairri^G) and its derivates have 
 a literal or figurative sense, and arc not applied to des- 
 ignate the right of baptism. We come, then, at last, 
 after thus opening the way, to the consideration of the 
 main question. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 75 
 
 § 4. Do PanTi^o) and its derivates, when applied to des- 
 ignate the rite OF baptism, necessarily imply that this 
 rite was performed by IMMERSION of the whole person ? 
 
 There are different ways in which, light may be cast 
 npon the ground of this inquiry. 
 
 I. AYe may contemplate the proper force and signi- 
 fication of the word itself, as determined by the usus 
 loquendi in general. 
 
 II. We may examine the circumstances which at- 
 tended the administration of this rite, and see whether 
 they cast any light upon the manner of the rite itself. 
 
 III. We may investigate the early history of the 
 rite, and. see whether it already existed in the Jewish 
 church, at the time when John the Baptist made his 
 appearance ; and if so, what was the manner of it 
 among the Jews, and whether John or Jesus made any 
 change in this manner. 
 
 IV. We may investigate the subsequent history of 
 the rite, in the early ages of the Christian church, and 
 see what mode "of baptizing Avas practised by the 
 churches in general. 
 
 V. When all this is done, and the mode is philologi- 
 cally and historically exhibited or established, we may 
 then make the inquiry, whether any particular mode 
 of applying Vater in baptism is essential to the ordi- 
 nance, and obligatory upon the churches of Christ at 
 the present day. 
 
76 CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 §5. General usus loquendi of fiairrifa. 
 
 1. What is the proper force and signification of the 
 word, according to the general usus loquendi? 
 
 A review of the preceding examples must lead any 
 one, I think, to the conclusion, that the predominant 
 usage of the words pdnra) and fiaTrrifa is to designate 
 the idea of dipping, plunging, and overwhelming, and 
 (in the case of f3dnT(S) of tinging or dyeing. But we 
 have already seen, in Nos. 6, 7 above, respecting classic 
 usage, that (3dnro) is employed in the sense of bathing 
 the surface of any thing with a fluid, and also of wash- 
 ing it. We have also seen, in Nos. 2, 5, 6 of exam- 
 ples from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the word 
 f3a7TTi$G) sometimes means to ivash ; and fid-rrTO) to 
 moisten, to wet or bedew. There is, then, no absolute 
 certainty from usage, that the word /3a-TTt<w, when ap- 
 plied to designate the rite of baptism, means of course 
 to immerge or plunge. It may mean masking ; possibly 
 (but not probably) it may mean copiously moistening or 
 bedewing ; because words coming from the common 
 root BAIT, are applied in both these senses, as we have 
 seen above. 
 
 But there is another point of philology yet to be ex- 
 amined. This relates to the mode in which the New 
 Testament writers employ the words that designate the 
 element with which one is baptized. This deserves a 
 serious consideration ; and, so far as I knew, it has not 
 yet been duly examined. 
 
 The Greek classic writers are accustomed, when 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 77 
 
 they designate the idea of plunging, dipping, immerg- 
 ing, etc., into any thing, to put the name of that thing 
 in the Accusative case after i3dnro) and (3anriL,o), and 
 to put before this case the preposition elg, or some 
 equivalent one. The following are examples. 
 
 Lycophron, Cassand. v. 1121, elg a-nXdyxva . . .ftdipet 
 |t'0oc. The scholiast on Eurip. Hec. 609, says : j3dnTeiv, 
 iart to %aXav rt elg vdo)p, ■}) elg erepov tl vyrrov. Aris- 
 toph. Nub. Act. I. Sc. 2, evefiaipev elg tov nvpov. Aristot. 
 De Anim. III. 12, el elg fcvpbv /3dipete rig. Hist. Ani- 
 mal. VIII. 2, edv /3dTTT(oo~Lv elg ipvxpov. Ibid. VIII. 26 
 etc peXi pdnrovTeg. De Kepub. VII. 17, elg iroTafibv 
 dT:ofid~-Eiv. Herodot. Melpom. p. 154, e-rreira drco(id- 
 ipavreg eg (elg) rijv kvXikol. Dionys. Hal. Ant. Horn. V, 
 elg rag nXevpag pdijjag. Plutarch. Parall. Graec. Eom. 
 p. 545, elg to al\xa rr\v x^? a Pairricag. Marcus Anton. 
 Lib. III. § 4, j3fij3a[.inevov elg j3d&og, etc., etc. 
 
 It were easy to multiply examples. But no possible 
 doubt can arise, that such is common usage in classic 
 Greek. But a review of the instances in which fia-nTifa 
 is employed in the New Testament, presents a con- 
 struction in general quite different from this. The re- 
 sult of such a review is, that after a particular exami- 
 nation of all the cases which refer either to the baptism 
 of John or of Jesus and his disciples, I find but a sin- 
 gle instance of the construction which is so general in 
 the classics, whenever the element made use of in or- 
 der to perform the rite of baptism is named. This is 
 the following : 
 
 Mark 1:9,' Irjaovg . . . e[3a7TTia-&r] v^b ' Icodvvov elg tov 
 ' lopddvnv, Jesus . . . was baptized by John into or IN 
 
78 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the Jordan ; following the usual method of the clas- 
 sics. 
 
 The other cases where the element is named, are of 
 two kinds. 
 
 1. With the Dative and the preposition ev; e. g., 
 Matt. 3 : 11, / baptize you ev vdan, WITH water or BY 
 water. Mark 1 : 8, the same ; and so John 1 : 26, 31, 33. 
 
 2. With the Dative merely ; e. g., Luke 3 : 16, 1 bap- 
 tize you vdan, with water or by water ; and so in Acts 
 1:5; 11 : 16 ; the idiom being peculiar to Luke. 
 
 The question very naturally occurs, then, Is there 
 any special significance to be attached to these modes 
 of expression by the writers of the^New Testament ? 
 Did they intend to avoid a description of the manner of 
 the rite, by forms of expression which designate merely 
 the means, without marking the manner ? What they 
 have done, as to modes of expression, is matter of fact, 
 and therefore certain. What significancy, or whether 
 any, is to be attached to these modes, is a question in- 
 timately connected with the object of our inquiry. 
 
 My first view of their manner, compared with the 
 usual method of expression in the classics, inclined me 
 to the supposition, that there was some special design 
 in their employing the kind of phraseology which they 
 have made use of. I am not confident now, that such 
 is not the case ; yet a review of the whole state of the 
 case may, perhaps, lead to doubt, whether we ought to 
 adopt such an opinion in respect to their usage. 
 
 1. We have one example apparently of the usual 
 classical mode of expression, as above quoted, viz. : 
 
 Mark 1 : 9, eiSanriadi] . . . elg rov ' lopddvnv. Elg is in- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 79 
 
 deed found before the Accusative, and this not unfre- 
 quently, where it is employed in the like sense with ev 
 before the Dative, by the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment ; e. g., Matt. 2 : 23, He dwelt elg -noXiv 'Na^aper, 
 AT or IN the village Nazareth : John 21 : 4, He stood elg 
 rbv alyiaXov, ON" the shore or BY it; Acts 8 : 40, Philip 
 was found elg "A£wtov, AT Azotus. So in the Septuagint, 
 Esth. 1 : 5, The heathen who are found elg rrjv noXiv, AT 
 or nsr Hie city. In accordance with such examples of 
 elg before a name of place, one might say that in Mark 
 1 : 9, elg rbv ' lopd&vqv means, AT the river Jordan. So 
 Bretschneider construes ev ™ ' lopddvco, Matt. 3 : 6, in 
 his Lexicon, under PaTrri^o). This is clearly a possible 
 construction ; but whether it is here the most probable 
 one, I entertain some doubts ; because the Jordan natu- 
 rally designates the element by which the rite of bap- 
 tism is performed. 
 
 That elg rbv ' lopd&vnv, however, may designate no 
 more in Mark 1 : 9, than the element ivith ivhich or by 
 zvhich John performed the rite of baptism, one might 
 argue from such an example as that in John 9 : 7, where 
 Jesus says to the blind man, Go wash iisr the pool (viipcu 
 elg KoXvufirjdpav) of Siloam. Now we know that the 
 word vitttcj (also vi$(S) is used almost exclusively* for 
 the washing of the face, hands, or feet. So here, the 
 blind man is directed to wash his face or his eyes at the 
 pool, or in the pool, of Siloam. To plunge or immerse, 
 is not necessarily implied by the word vinro), although 
 in some cases it may clearly admit of this idea. 
 
 Other cases, where elg before the Accusative is em- 
 ployed in a like sense with ev before the Dative, spe- 
 
80 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 cially in regard to the place in which any thing is or is 
 done, the reader may find by consulting Mark 2:1. 
 John 1 : 18. Mark 13 : 16. Luke 11 : 7. Acts 
 18 : 21. Mark 13 : 9. In like manner the classic au- 
 thors not unfrequently employ elg before nouns sig- 
 nificant of place ; Winer's Gramm. Ed. 3, p. 350. 
 And in accordance with the example in John 9 : 7, 
 cited above, we may appeal to the expression of Alci- 
 phron, III. 43, \ovaa\ikvov elg to ftaXavelov, having 
 washed IN the bath or AT the bath. 
 
 With so many examples before us, of cases where elg 
 and ev are assimilated in usage, both in heathen and in 
 sacred writers, it must be somewhat doubtful, whether 
 the solitary example of elg after fiaTtTifa and before the 
 noun designating the element, which is found in Mark 
 1 : 9, can be much relied on, in order to sh w that the 
 New Testament usage agrees with the usual classical 
 one. The only circumstance which weighs much in its 
 favour, so far as the case has yet been develo]3ed, is, that 
 the noun which here follows fta-nTifa, may very natu- 
 rally designate the element by which the rite in ques- 
 tion is performed ; and so, the usual classical construc- 
 tion may more naturally be allowed. But this again 
 is rendered so dubious by viipcu elg T-ijv icoXvufirj&pav 
 and Xovaa\ievov elg to fiaXavelov, that we can scarcely 
 come with safety and confidence to a philological con- 
 clusion of such a nature. 
 
 We are obliged, then, to cast about us, and see if any 
 further light can be thrown upon this usage of the 
 noun (after the verb Pain-ifa), which signifies the ele- 
 ment by which the rite is performed. Have the classic 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 81 
 
 writers used not only the Accusative with etc, but also 
 the Dative with and without kv, and other equivalent 
 constructions ? 
 
 In answer to this question I will now produce sev- 
 eral examples, which show that the classical writers 
 have expressed themselves in different ways, when em- 
 ploying the words (id-nrw and Pami^o). 
 
 Aristophanes, Eccles. They dip the wool #£pju<3, in 
 warm water; Dative without ev. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. 
 V 1,1,1, 29, And dipping it IN wine (ev olviS), they drink 
 it ; Dative with ev. Heraclides Ponticus, Allegor. p. 
 495, vdari Pa-nri^erai. Aratus, Phaenom. v. 650, pdn- 
 tojv (biteavolo, baptizing WITH the ocean ; Genitive with- 
 out a preposition, used in the same sense as the Dative 
 with ev. Ibid. 858, fidir-ot poov eonepioto bathes himself 
 with the western flood, i. e., the sea; Genitive of instru- 
 ment. Again, v. 951, Bathes herself TroTa/ioto, WITH 
 the 'river ; Genitive of instrument. Strabo, XVI. p. 
 1117, Dipped dioToTe, in the gall of serpents ; Dative 
 without preposition. Plutarch, De Ednc. Puer. p. 15, 
 role vTiepfiaXXovoi l3airriL,erai, are overwhelmed WITH ex 
 cessive labours ; Dative of cause. Marcus Antoninus 
 V. § 16, PaTT-erai imb rtiv (fravraoitiv, Genitive of in 
 strument, with a preposition. Plutarch, Moral. Tom 
 III. p. 150-1, d(pXrjiiaai (3e(3aTT~iofievov, overwhelmed WITH 
 debts; Dative of cause, without a preposition. 
 
 It follows, then, from these examples, to which many 
 more might easily be added if necessary, that the verbs 
 QdixTo and fiaixri^ admit after them several various 
 methods of construing the noun, which designates the 
 element made use of in the action indicated by the 
 4* 
 
82 CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 verb. (1) The Accusative case with elg before it ; 
 which is the usual construction. (2) The Dative with 
 ev. (3) The Dative without iv. (4) The Genitive 
 with vtto, etc. (5) The Genitive without a preposition. 
 And probably it is another variety still, which So- 
 phocles exhibits in his Ajax, v. 96, where he says : 
 Thou hast well BATHED (e(3aifjag) thy sword trpog ' Apyeiojv 
 arpdrco, WITH the army of the Greeks. 
 
 From such examples, which, indeed, are somewhat 
 numerous, we may come very fairly to the conclusion, 
 that when a Greek employed the word pdnrcj or Pan-ifa, 
 he did not feel constrained to use the Accusative case 
 after it with the preposition elg. He might express 
 himself in various other ways, and still conform to the 
 usus loqucndi. 
 
 But are all these modes of speaking, now exhibited, 
 equivalent to each other? I think not. There is a 
 difference which may be made quite manifest, between 
 saying [Saipeve ixoTa\io elg row, and efiaipev iv t<5 Trorafiti, 
 or f3dn~u)v t<3 TroTa/iw, pdnroiv irorauov, e/3d<pn vnb rov 
 irorafiov, etc. In the first case, I understand the writer 
 or speaker as meaning to designate the manner of the 
 baptism ; he plunged into the river means, that he im- 
 merged or submerged himself, i. e., that he went down or 
 sunk beneath the surface of the water. In all the 
 other cases, the manner of the action is no further 
 designated, than the words pdrrrw or fiaTxrti^u imply it ; 
 but the means, cause or instrument of baptism is desig- 
 nated, viz., the river, or the waters of the river. 
 " Ef3d7TTioe elg rbv -noraiiov cannot usually mean less 
 than that the individual of whom this is affirmed, did 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 83 
 
 actually dive into the water, or was in some way sub- 
 merged in it ; whereas all the other methods of con- 
 struction do not of necessity imply any more, than 
 that the individual concerned bathed himself or washed 
 himself, with the element named. This may have been 
 by plunging into it, or in any other way ; but the ex- 
 pression, when the Genitive or Dative is used after the 
 verb, either with or without a preposition, does not 
 designate the manner of the baptism, but only the kind 
 of element by which this baptism was effected. This 
 results from the nature of the Genitive and Dative 
 cases, and the prepositions with which they are con- 
 nected, in all the constructions now in question. To 
 this I make the appeal ; and those who know enough 
 of the laws of syntax and idiom in Greek to be quali- 
 fied to judge, will be able to determine for themselves 
 whether the distinction now made is well founded. 
 
 Believing that it is so, I may now bring to the test 
 the cases of /3anri^co in the New Testament^ after which 
 verb the element is designated. As we have already 
 seen, all these are either in the Dative with or without 
 ev 1 one only excepted, which seems to be construed 
 after the usual analogy. Setting aside this, then, for a 
 moment, we may say, in all other cases in the New 
 Testament, the mode of baptism is left undetermined 
 by the original Greek, so far as the language itself is 
 concerned, unless it is necessarily implied by the word 
 fSa-rrri^G) ; for in all other cases, only the element by which, 
 not the mode in which baptism is performed, is desig- 
 nated by the sacred writers. (See Appendix A, Nojc !•) 
 
 I take this to be sufficiently plain and certain, to, the. 
 
84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 well - instructed philologist ; and I apprehend it may 
 now appear plain to others, from the evidence placed 
 before them. Is there, then, in the word (3arTri^G) 
 itself, a meaning sufficiently definite and exclusive to 
 imply, of necessity, that the rite of baptism was per- 
 formed only by plunging? And does the solitary 
 example in Mark 1:9, add confirmation to the suppo- 
 sition of such a meaning ? 
 
 It will be remembered, that I am now making the 
 inquiry, how much we may justly conclude ex vi ter- 
 mi?ii, i. e., merely from the force of the words con- 
 cerned, independently of any historical facts that may 
 stand connected with them, and be explanatory of 
 them. For in this case, as in all others, more or less 
 of modification may be admitted in respect to the 
 sense of particular words, as the circumstances, i. e., 
 the facts connected with the case, may require. 
 
 The answer to the above questions which I feel philo- 
 logically compelled to give, is, that the probability that 
 fian-i^G) implies immersion, is very considerable, and 
 on the whole a predominant one ; but it does not still 
 amount to certainty. Both the classic use and that of 
 the Septuagint show, that washing and copious affusion 
 are sometimes signified by this word. Consequently, 
 the rite of baptism may have been performed in one 
 of these ways, although it is designated by the word 
 (3anri^(D. Whether in fact it was so, then, seems to be 
 left for inquiry, from other evidence than that which 
 the word itself necessarily affords. 
 
 In respect to Mark 1 : 9, efiaTrriodn . . . elg rdv ' lopdd- 
 vnv, after what has been said above, and in considera- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 85 
 
 tion that this is the only instance of the kind in the 
 New Testament, it cannot be deemed, as it appears to 
 me, quite safe to build with confidence upon it. The 
 expressions, vlxpai elg KoXvjifiijdpav, in John 9 : 7, and 
 Xovoafiivov elg rb fiaXavelov (washed in a hath) in Alci- 
 phron III. 43, show that the Greek verbs which desig- 
 nate the -washing of the hands, face, or feet, and also of 
 the body, may and do take the same construction, viz., 
 the Accusative with els after them. In either of these 
 two last cases, plunging is not essential to the idea 
 conveyed by the verb, although it is admissible. 
 
 On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in 
 favour of the idea of immersion, when we argue simply 
 ex vi termini, i. e., merely from the force of the words 
 or expressions in themselves considered. 
 
 I know not that I can cast any further light on this, 
 part of my subject, by pursuing simply philological 
 investigation. ■ However, as this seems to leave us 
 somewhat in a state of uncertainty still, we must have 
 recourse to the other means of inquiry suggested 
 above. 
 
 § 6. Circumstances attending Baptism. 
 
 II. Do the circumstances which attend the administra- 
 tion of the rite of baptism, as related in the New Testa- 
 ment, cast any light upon the manner of the rite itself '? 
 
 1. The Baptism of John. 
 
 («) John is called fia-TLOTng in the following pas- 
 sages ; viz., Matt. 3:1; 11 : 11, 12 ; 14 : 2, 8 ; 16 : 
 14; 17:13; Mark 6:24, 25; 8:28; Luke 7:20, 
 28, 33 ; 9 : 19. But as this appellation determines 
 
86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 merely his office, and not the manner in which he per- 
 formed the rite of baptism, it would serve no purpose 
 to pursue an investigation relative to this word ; which 
 of course must take its hue from fiajTrifa. 
 
 (b) I have already remarked, that Bretschneider con- 
 siders Matt. 3 : 6, All Jerusalem, etc., . . . were baptized 
 w™' lopdavq, in the Jordan, as designating the place 
 where they were baptized. This he seems to justify 
 by an appeal to Mark 1 : 4, John was baptizing ev r<3 
 iprjjM*), in the desert. But the difference between the 
 two cases is, that the river Jordan may naturally sig- 
 nify the element with which the rite was performed. 
 
 I find nothing else in the accounts of the several 
 Evangelists, or in the Acts of the Apostles, respecting 
 the baptism of John, which has not already been dis- 
 cussed under our first inquiry in § 5, excepting the 
 phraseology in Matt. 3 : 16, and in Mark 1 : 10. It is 
 here related, that Jesus, being baptized 'by John, dvefin 
 (dvafiatvuv) and tov vdarog, went up from the water, 
 viz., from the river Jordan. The question has been 
 raised, whether this means "went up out of the water 
 of the river," i. e., rose up after being plunged into the 
 river, and came out of the water. It becomes neces- 
 sary therefore to investigate this question. 
 
 Several considerations may serve to determine it. 
 (1) The rite of baptism was completed, before John 
 went up from the water. So says Matthew, fSanriadeig 
 6 ' Irjoovc ; and Mark also says, that Jesus tvas baptized 
 by John in the Jordan, and then ivent up from the water. 
 Both Evangelists say, that the action ongoing up took 
 place immediately or straightway {eir&vc, evdecog) after 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 87 
 
 the baptism. Now if the rite of baptism was com- 
 pleted before John emerged from the water (in case he 
 was immerged), i. e., if it was completed merely by 
 the act of plunging him under the water, then indeed 
 dvafiaivuv might possibly be supposed to apply to his 
 emerging from the water. But who will venture to 
 introduce such a conceit as this ? (2) Yet if any one 
 should wish to do so, the verb dva(3aivu) will hardly 
 permit such an interpretation. This verb means to 
 ascend, mount, go up, viz., a ship, a hill, an eminence, 
 a chariot, a tree, a horse, a rostrum, to go up to the 
 capital of a country, to heaven, etc., and as applied to 
 trees and vegetables, to spring up, shoot up, grow up. 
 But as to emerging from the water, I can find no such 
 meaning attached to it. The Greeks have a proper 
 word for this, and one continually employed by the 
 ecclesiastical fathers, in order to designate emerging 
 from the water ; and this is dvadvcj, which means to 
 come up out of the water, the ground, etc., or to emerge 
 from below the horizon, as do the sun, stars, etc. But 
 this verb is never commuted, to my knowledge, with 
 dvafiaivG). The usage of each seems to be perfectly dis- 
 tinct ; yet I do not deny the possibility of employing 
 dva(3aiv(o in the sense of emerging. I know the want 
 of accuracy in some writers too well to hazard the as- 
 sertion, that no example of such usage can be found. 
 But if there are such examples they must be very rare. 
 The New Testament surely does not afford them. (3) 
 The preposition d-no will not allow such a construction. 
 I have found no example where it is applied to indi- 
 cate a movement out of a liquid into the air. ' E/c 
 
88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 would of course be the proper word to indicate such 
 a relation as this. 'Ami denotes either the relation 
 of origin, as sprung from, descended from, etc., or 
 removal in regard to distance, or the relation of cause 
 to effect, the instrument, etc. To designate emerging 
 from any thing that is liquid, I have not found it 
 ever applied. (See Appendix, Note 2.) 
 
 These concurrent reasons, both of circumstances and 
 usus loquendi, make it a clear case, that Jesus retired 
 from the water of the river, by going up its banks. 
 Nothing more can properly be deduced from it. 
 
 As there appeaas to be nothing more of a circum- 
 stantial nature, in all the examples cited above where 
 the baptism of John is mentioned, which can cast any 
 light upon the point in question (excepting one case 
 that stands connected with the mention of Christian 
 baptism), I proceed to make inquiry respecting this 
 latter subject. 
 
 2. Christian Baptism, as practised by the primitive disciples of Jesus. 
 
 This is mentioned or alluded to, in Matt. 3 : 14 
 28 : 19 ; Mark 16 : 11 ; John 3 : 22 ; 4 : 1, 2 ; Acts 2 
 28, 41 ; 8 : 12, 13, 16, 36, 38 ; 9 : 18 ; 10 : 47, 48 ; 16 
 15, 33 : 18 : 8; 19 : 3, 5; 22 : 16; Rom. 6 : 3 bis. 
 1 Cor. 1:14, 15, 16, 17 ; 12 : 13 ; Gal. 3 : 27. The 
 example in Acts 19 : 3 may be doubtful. The passages 
 in* Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3 : 5, and Hcb. 10 : 22, also refer 
 to Christian baptism. 
 
 The examples in Matthew and Mark afford nothing 
 pertinent to our present object. But in John 3 : 22- 
 24, a narration just alluded to above, occurs in connec- 
 tion with mentioning that Jesus abode in Judea and 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 89 
 
 baptized there, -which deserves our special attention. 
 The writer, after narrating what has just been stated, 
 goes on to say : Now John was baptizing in (or at) 
 Enon, near Salim, on vdara -rroXXa tjv eicel,for there was 
 MUCH WATER there, or (more literally), there were MANY 
 waters there. The question is, "Whether John bap- 
 tized at Enon near Salim, because the waters were there 
 abundant and deep, so as to afford convenient means 
 of immersion ; or whether the writer means merely to 
 say, that John made choice of Enon, because there was 
 an abundant supply of water there for the accommo- 
 dation of those who visited him, for the sake of being 
 baptized and of hearing the powerful addresses which 
 he made to the Jews. The former statement makes 
 the much water or many waters necessary, or at least 
 convenient and desirable, for the purposes of the bap- 
 tismal rite ; the latter for supplying the wants of the 
 multitudes who attended to the preaching of John. 
 
 It has always seemed to me a very singular mode 
 of expression, if the sacred writer meant to designate 
 the former idea, to say on vda-a -noXXa r\v iicei. Why 
 not say, because the water was deep, or abundant, 
 simply? A single brook, of very small capacity, but 
 still a living stream, might, with scooping out a small 
 place in the sand, answer most abundantly all the pur- 
 poses of baptism, in case it were performed by immer- 
 sion ; and answer them just as well as many waters 
 could do. But on the other hand, a single brook 
 would not suffice for the accommodation of the great 
 multitudes who flocked to John. The sacred writer 
 tells us, that " there went out to him, Jerusalem, and 
 
90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 all Judea, and all the neighbouring region of Jordan" 
 (Matt. 3:5,) and that they were baptized by him. Of 
 course there must have been a great multitude of 
 people. Nothing could be more natural than for John 
 to choose a place that was watered by many streams, 
 where all could be accommodated. 
 
 The circumstances of the case, then, would seem to 
 favour that interpretation which refers the mention of 
 many waters to the wants of the people who flocked 
 to hear John. 
 
 But let us see, now, what the idiom of the language 
 demands. The following passages serve to illustrate 
 this idiom. 
 
 In Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10, vdarog (water) desig- 
 nates the river Jordan ; as we might very naturally 
 suppose. In Acts 8 : 36-39, it is left uncertain by 
 the text, whether a stream or fountain of water is there 
 meant; for vdop may designate either. In Eev. 8:11, 
 Tpirov Tuv vddruv, a third part of the waters, refers both 
 to the rivers and fountains of water that had just been 
 mentioned ; and so e« rtiv vdarwv again in the same 
 verse. In Eev. 17:1, the angel says to John : "I 
 will show thee the punishment of the great harlot, who 
 sitteth on many waters" i. e., many streams or rivers 
 of water, not merely a large quantity of water. In 17 : 
 15 the same phrase and idea is repeated. In Kev. 22 : 
 1, we find the expression iroranbv vdaroe £wf/c, river of 
 the water of life, which in Eev. 22 : 17 is referred to 
 and called vtiup Says', water of life. In Eev. 1 : 15 ; 
 14 : 2 ; 19 : 6, we have the expression <pu)vi) vddruv 
 tto/Uwv, tlie voice of many waters; which, in two of the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 91 
 
 passages, is followed by the expression, as the voice of 
 thunder, i. e., a noise exceedingly load. Now it is the 
 waves of the sea, probably, to which the writer here 
 alludes ; for there were no cataracts in Palestine that 
 would have supplied him with an apposite idea. But 
 these waves of the sea are successive, and (so to speak) 
 different and broken masses of water ; not one contin- 
 uous mass, deep and abundant. The simple idea of 
 depth and abundance would not give birth to the con- 
 ception of roaring waters. It is the movement, the 
 division, the succession, and the motion, which form 
 the ground of this idea. 
 
 Of the Evangelists, only Matthew and Mark use vdup 
 in \h& ^plural. Matthew employs it four times; viz., 
 14 : 28, 29 ; 8 : 32 ; 17 : 15. In the three former 
 instances it designates the waters (as we say) in the 
 lake or sea of Tiberias ; in the latter it probably means 
 different or various streams or fountains of water. In 
 this last sense, Mark employs it, in the only example 
 in which the plural is used in his Gospel ; viz., in 9 : 
 22. ISTo other example of the plural occurs until we 
 come to the Apocalypse. Here, as we have seen, the 
 waters or waves of the ocean are designated by the 
 plural in 1 : 15 ; 14 : 2 ; 19:6. In Eev. 7:17; 8 : 10, 
 11 bis. ; 11 : 6 ; 14 : 7 ; 16 : 4, 5 ; 17:1, 15, fountains 
 and streams (plural) of water are designatedby vdara. 
 
 No example then can be brought in the New Testa- 
 ment of the application of vdara to designate merely 
 quantity of water, simply considered as deep and 
 abounding. It is either the vast waters of a sea or 
 lake, as agitated by the winds and broken into waves, 
 
92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 or the multiplied waters of numerous springs and 
 fountains, which are here designated by the plural of 
 the word in question. 
 
 That vdcjp is sometimes employed to designate a 
 stream or river, is clear, moreover, from the Septua- 
 gint use of the word. 
 
 E. g., Ex. 7 : 15, " Behold he (Pharaoh) will go out 
 em, to vdcop, to the water, i. e., the river, for so the next 
 clause explains it ; and thou shalt meet him on the brink 
 rov TTorajiov, of the river. In Ex. 8 : 20, the same 
 phrase, in the same sense, is again repeated. So in Lev. 
 14 : 5, 6, 50-52, mention is made of a bird to be killed 
 e0' vdart £wvT£, over living water, i. e., over a running 
 stream or brook ; although the meaning of living water 
 may be, that of a spring or fountain, which continually 
 sends forth fresh water ; as it is in Gen. 26:19; Jer. 2 : 
 13. The first, however, is what I should deem to be 
 the most probable sense here. Num. 24 : 6, As cedars 
 nap' vdara, by the waters, i. e., rivers, or water-courses, 
 which is here the most probable idea ; comp. Ps. 1 : 3, 
 " lie shall be as a tree planted D?a-iaii3~is by the water- 
 courses." 2 Chron. 32 : 30, And he [Hezekiah] stopped 
 up the issue rov vSaroc Teitiv, of the WATER-COURSE or 
 sluice Gihon. Is. 18 : 2, Who sendest . . . epistles of 
 papyrus over the water, indvo) rov vdaroc, i. e., upon the 
 face or surface of the river Nile. 
 
 Indeed, there can be no doubt of such a usage of 
 the word vdup, whenever occasion calls for it. The 
 simple question then is, whether the occasion does call 
 for it, in John 3 : 22—21. 
 
 Grotius, and after him Kuinoel, thinks that vdara 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93 
 
 TToXkd designates such a copiousness of water, as was 
 sufficient for the purposes of immersion. Beza, on the 
 other hand, one of the most acute judges of Greek 
 idiom, says that "by the appellation vdara is meant 
 many rivulets (multi rivi) ;" and he appeals to vdarog in 
 Matt. 3 : 16, in confirmation of this. He might have 
 carried the appeal much farther if he had been at the 
 pains of consulting his Concordance. Even in Homer, 
 Od. XHI. 109, vdara occurs as designating great or 
 flowing streams. 
 
 I do not deny that in the Suptuagint, for example, 
 vdop and vdara are sometimes promiscuously used with- 
 out any perceptible difference of meaning. In most 
 cases, however, this is not the fact; but the plural 
 vdara is used to designate great bodies of water or nu- 
 merous bodies or streams of it ; e. g., in Gen. 1 : 10, 20, 
 21, 22 ; Ex. 2 : 19 ; 8:6; 15 : 27; 20 : 4 ; and often 
 so elsewhere. The promiscuous use -in some cases of 
 vdo)p and vdara in the version of the Seventy, seems to 
 be the result of imitating the Hebrew ; for the Hebrew 
 has only a plural form (ofi??) to designate the element 
 of water. 
 
 Why should the epithet noXXd be added to vdara, in 
 John 3 : 22-24, if merely deep water, or a quantity of 
 water sufficient for immersing, was. intended ?. The 
 natural and primary meaning of iroXyg is many in op- 
 position to few. It has merely a secondary meaning, 
 especially so when in the plural number, if at any 
 time it designates largeness of quantity, intensity of 
 degree, etc. 
 
 On the whole, I cannot divest myself of the impres- 
 
94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 sion, that there seems to be something extravagant in 
 the supposition, that not only the plural vdara, which 
 naturally designates a large quantity or many streams 
 of water, but also noXXd should be employed, in order 
 to designate a quantity of water sufficient for baptizing 
 by immersion, when any small rivulet would furnish 
 abundant means for such a purpose. I cannot avoid 
 the belief, therefore, that vdara -noXXd is designed, as 
 Beza says, to designate many streams or rivulets. John 
 chose a place abounding in these, when he removed 
 from the banks of the Jordan, in order that the multi- 
 tudes who flocked to him might be accommodated. 
 
 The passage which my present purpose leads me 
 next to examine, is in Acts 8 : 36-39. Philip ex- 
 pounded to the Ethiopian eunuch the Scriptures re- 
 specting the Messiah, and he was moved to believe in 
 that Saviour who was preached to him. As Philip 
 and his new disciple journeyed on together, they came, 
 says the sacred writer, km rl vdojp to a certain water. 
 What kind of water ? A rivulet, river, spring, pool, 
 or what ? If the answer be, a brook or river, then the 
 sense put upon vdara -noXkd in the paragraph above is, 
 of course, conceded; i. e., it is conceded that such a 
 sense may be given to vdara, as has here been assigned 
 to it. If the answer be, to a spring, fountain, or pool 
 of water, then again it is conceded that vdup designates 
 something besides the mere element of water. The use 
 of rl here, of necessity implies that uJwp must be either 
 a stream, or a fountain, or a pool of warer. 
 
 I acknowledge myself unable to determine, with any 
 good degree of certainty, which of these is meant. Yet 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 95 
 
 I think the probability to be that it was a fountain of 
 water. I draw this conclusion rather from the geog- 
 raphy of the country than from the mere principles 
 of philology. There is, indeed, a river with branches 
 between Jerusalem and Gaza ; yet it runs not through 
 the desert, but through the inhabited country ; for riv- 
 ers in the East make habitable places. There is an- 
 other river south of Gaza. But the place where Philip 
 met the eunuch was the desert between Jerusalem and 
 this place, Acts 8 : 27. I must, therefore, think the 
 rl vdojp in Acts 8 : 36, to be a spring or pool of water. 
 
 Such a collection of water is usually, of course, in 
 some valley or ravine. Hence it is said in v. 88, They 
 went down elg to vdiop, TO the water, as some would 
 render it, or into the water, as others insist it should 
 be translated. Does elg in this case admit of either 
 sense ? And which is to be preferred ? 
 
 That elg with the verb Karaj3aivo) (which is used in 
 Acts 8 : 38) often means going down TO a place, is quite 
 certain; e. g., John 2 : 12, Jesus went down TO (elg) 
 Capernaum ; Acts 7 : 15, Jacob went down TO (elg) 
 Egypt ; Acts 14 : 25, They went down TO (elg) Attalia ; 
 Acts 16 : 8, They went down to (elg) Troas ; Acts 
 18 : 22, He went down TO (elg) Antioch ; Acts 25 : 6, 
 Going down TO ( elg) Cesarea ; comp. Luke 10 : 30 ; 
 18 : 14 ; Acts 8 : 26, et al. So common, indeed, is the 
 meaning of elg, when it designates direction to a place 
 or towards it, that Bretschneider has given this as its 
 first and leading signification. But I have confined 
 my examples to its connexion with narafiaivu). 
 
 On the other hand, I find but one passage in the 
 
96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 New Testament where it seems to mean into when used 
 with the verb KaTaj3aivG). This is in Rom. 10 : 7, 
 Who shall go down elg afivooov, into the abyss. Even here 
 the sense to is good. And, in fact, when one analyzes 
 the idea of naraPaivuv, going down, descending, he finds 
 that it indicates the action performed before reaching 
 a place, the approximation to it by descent, real or 
 supposed, and not the entering into it. 'Eioepxofiai is 
 the appropriate word for entering into ; or rather (in dis- 
 tinction from KarafiaivG)) sfi/3aiv(o is the appropriate 
 word to signify entrance into any place or thing. Hence 
 I must conclude, on the whole, that although in sev- 
 eral of the above cases of KaTa[3atva) with elg, we may 
 translate elg by into and still make good sense in Eng- 
 lish, yet the real and appropriate signification of this 
 phraseology in the New Testament seems plainly to 
 be, going down TO a place. Karaj3aiv(o designates the 
 action performed in order to arrive there by descend- 
 ing, in any sense ; and not the action of entering into 
 the place to which one has gone down, although this 
 may sometimes be included by popular diction. 
 
 I must come, then, to the conclusion, that Kare^aav 
 diKporepoi elg to v6g)(j, in Acts 8 : 38, does neither ne- 
 cessarily nor probably mean, they descended into the 
 water. This conclusion is rendered nearly certain by 
 the exact counterpart or antithesis of this expression, 
 which is found in v. 39, where, after the baptism, it is 
 said, dvefinoav ht rov vdarog, they went up from the wa- 
 ter. We have seen (p. 320) that, dva/3aivo) is never em- 
 ployed in the sense of emerging fro? a a liquid substance. 
 The preposition etc, here, would agree well with this 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 97 
 
 idea, although it by no means of necessity implies it ; 
 but dvafiaivu) forbids us thus to construe it. As, then, 
 to go up from the water is to ascend the bank of a 
 stream, pool, or fountain, so to go down to the water is 
 to go down the bank of such stream, fountain, or pool, 
 and to come to the water. "Whether the person, thus 
 going down elg to Cdojp, enters into it or not, must be 
 designated in some other way than by this expression, 
 which of itself leaves the matter in uncertainty. 
 
 I have another remark to make on KarEJ5noav dfKpoTepoi 
 elg to v6o)p, they BOTH went down to the water. This is, 
 that if naTefinoav elg to vdup is meant to designate the ac- 
 tion of plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part 
 of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well 
 as the eunuch ; for the sacred writer says that both 
 went into the water. Here, then, must have been a re- 
 baptism of Philip : and what is at least singular, he 
 must have baptized himself as, well as the eunuch. 
 
 All these considerations together show, that the go- 
 ing down to the water, and the going up from the water, 
 constituted no part of the rite of baptism itself; for 
 Philip did the one and the other just as truly as the 
 eunuch. As, then, neither the language allows us to 
 construe the passage as signifying immersion and emer- 
 sion, nor the circumstances permit us to interpret the 
 passage thus, we have no good and sufficient grounds 
 here to consider this example as making any determi- 
 nation with respect to the mode of the baptismal rite. 
 
 I come next to the examination of those passages 
 which have so often been adduced and relied upon, in 
 the controversy respecting the original mode of bap- 
 5 
 
98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tism, and which are contained in Eom. 6 : 3, 4, " Know 
 ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ 
 Jesus, were baptized into his death ? We, then, have 
 been buried with him by baptism into his death ; so 
 that as Christ Avas raised from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, in like manner we also should walk in 
 newness of like;" also Col. 2 : 12, " Being buried with 
 him by baptism ; with whom also ye have been raised 
 up (or have arisen) by faith, through the power of 
 God, who raised him from the dead." 
 
 I might refer the reader to what I have written upon 
 these verses in my Commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Eomans. But as the present disquisition may come 
 into the hands of some who do not possess that work, 
 I deem it proper to transfer to this place what I have 
 there said, and also to make some additions to the re- 
 marks thus transferred. The Commentary is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Verse 3. ' E/3a7mer#7//i£v elg rbv Xptorov ' l-noovv. The 
 sense of this depends on the meaning of the formula 
 (iaTTTL^eiv elg riva — or [SanTL^eiv elg rb bvo\m rivog. («) 
 In regard to f3anri$eLv elg rb ovopa, the noun bvo/ia is, no 
 doubt, to be regarded as expletive, as tid in Hebrew 
 often is. So in the Jewish formula of baptizing prose - 
 lytes. If the proselyte was a servant, the master, at 
 his baptism, made a declaration whether he intended 
 to make the servant free as a proselyte, or to have him 
 still remain a servant. This declaration was made 
 thus : fpfm "V? M?a bap, he is baptized into the flame 
 of freemen ; or *J3| ti$a bsp , he is baptized into the name 
 of a servant. So Matt. 28 : 19, Baptized elg rb Svofia 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 
 
 rov narpbg, icai rov vlov, icai rov rrvevfiarog dyiov, which 
 is the same as baptized elg rbv -rrarepa, icai rbv vtbv, icai 
 to rrvevim rb dviov. Accordingly, we find dvofia omit- 
 ted in our text, as also in 1 Cor. 10 : 2 ; Gal. 3 : 27 ; 
 it is used in Acts 8 : 16; 19 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 13, 15. 
 
 (b) The sense of the whole formula is more difficult 
 to be ascertained. Most commentators, after Vitringa 
 (Obs. Sac. 111. 22), explain elg as meaning into the ac- 
 knowledgment of, with an implication of affiance, sub- 
 jection, discipleship, etc. But the formula in 1 Cor. 
 12 : 13, ndvreg elg ev oQ/ia efiaTT-io§i]\xEv, seems not to 
 accord with such an explanation. Here elg plainly 
 means participation ; i. e., by baptism we come to be- 
 long to one body, to participate in one body, to be mem- 
 bers of one body. In like manner, we may say, by 
 baptism we come to belong (in a special and peculiar 
 sense, no doubt), to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; to 
 Moses, 1 Cor. 10 : 2 ; to Paul, 1 Cor. 1 : 13. In this 
 way all the passages may be construed alike, and the 
 sense in all will be good. The idea is, for substance, 
 that " by baptism we become consecrated to any per- 
 son or thing, appropriated (as it were) to any person 
 or thing, so as to belong to him or to it, in a manner 
 peculiar, and involving a special relation, and conse- 
 quent special duties and obligations." 
 
 This sense is such an one as fits the passage under 
 examination. Thus interpreted it would mean : " As 
 many of us as have become devoted to Christ by bap- 
 tism ; as many as have been consecrated to Christ by 
 baptism ; or been laid under peculiar obligations, or 
 
100 . CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 taken upon them a peculiar relation to him, by being 
 baptized." 
 
 Eif rov ■ddvarov avrov k^aiXTio^i}[itv , we have been bap- 
 tized into his death; i. e., we have, as it were, been 
 made partakers of his death by baptism ; we have 
 come under a special relation to his death ; we have 
 engaged to die unto sin ; as he died for it ; we have a 
 communion or participation in death to sin; comp. 
 Eom. 8:6; Gal. 2 : 19. The being baptized into his 
 death is, therefore, an internal, moral, spiritual thing, 
 of which the external rite of baptism is only a symbol ; 
 for the relation symbolized by baptism is in its own 
 nature spiritual and moral The participation in the 
 death of Christ, of which Paul here speaks, is surely 
 something more than what is external — it is of a moral 
 or spiritual nature, of which the external rite is 
 merely a symbol. 
 
 Verse 4. I,vveTd(pr]ixev ovv k. t. A., we have been buried 
 with him, then, by baptism into his death ; i. e., we are 
 (by being baptized into his death) buried as he was, 
 a v v e-dipniiev where ovv means like, in like manner 
 with; comp. v. 6 : also Eom. 8 : 17 ; Col. 3 : 1, Avhere 
 any other sense of ovv is out of question ; 2 Tim. 
 7 : 11, to which the same remark will apply. 
 
 Most commentators have maintained that owerd^iev 
 has here a necessary reference to the mode of literal 
 bsptism, which, they say, Avas by immersion ; and this, 
 they think, affords ground for the employment of the 
 image used by the apostle, because immersion (under 
 water) may be compared to burial (under the earth). 
 
CIIliTSTIAX BAPTISM. 101 
 
 » 
 
 It is difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient rehearing 
 for this subject, so long regarded by some as being out 
 of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction is 
 not, after protracted and repeated examinations, ac- 
 cordant here with that of commentators in general, I 
 feel constrained briefly to state my reasons. 
 
 (a) The first is, that in the verse before us there is 
 a plain antithesis — one so plain that it is impossible to 
 overlook it. If, now, avyerdtfufliev is to be interpreted 
 in a physieai way, i. e., as meaning baptism in a physi- 
 cal sense, where is the corresponding physical idea in 
 the " opposite part of the antithesis or comparison ? 
 Plainly there is no such physical idea or reference in 
 the other part of the antithesis. The resurrection there 
 spoken of is entirely a moral, spiritual one ; for it i« 
 one which Christians have already experienced during 
 the present life, as may be fully seen by comparing vs. 
 5, 11, below. I take it for granted, that after ijfielc in 
 v. 4, iyep&evreg is implied ; since the nature of the 
 comparison, the preceding (he riyepdn Xpioroc, and v. 5, 
 make this entirely plain. 
 
 If we turn now to the passage in Col. 2:12 (which 
 is altogether parallel with the verse under examina- 
 tion, and has very often been agitated by polemic wri- 
 ters on the subject of baptism), we shall there find 
 more conclusive reason still to argue as above respect- 
 ing the natitre of the antithesis presented. " We have 
 been buried with [Christ] by baptism." What, now, 
 is the opposite of this ? What is the kind of resurrec- 
 tion from this grave in which Christians have been 
 buried ? The apostle tells us : " We have risen with 
 
102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 him [Christ] by faith wrought by the power of God 
 (rrjg evepyeiag rov deov), who raised him [Christ] from 
 the dead." Here there is a resurrection by faith; i. e., 
 a spiritual, moral one. Why, then, should we look for 
 a physical meaning in the antithesis ? If one part of 
 the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely 
 moral or spiritual, why should we not construe the 
 other in the like manner ? To understand GvvETa§r\\izv, 
 then, of a literal burial under water, is to understand it 
 in a manner which the laws of interpretation appear to 
 forbid. 
 
 (b) Nothing can be plainer, than that the word 
 owerd^rjiiev, in Rom. 6 : 4, is equivalent in sense to 
 the word dneddvopev in v. 8. It seems to be adopted 
 merely for the sake of rendering more striking the 
 image of a resurrection, which the apostle employs in 
 the other part of the antithesis. A resurrection from 
 the grave is a natural phrase, when one is speaking 
 with respect to the subject of a resurrection; see John 
 5 : 28, 29 ; comp. Dan. 12 : 2. In accordance with 
 this statement, the context does most plainly speak, 
 both in respect to Rom. 6 : 4, and Col. 2 : 12. For in 
 respect to Rom. 6 : 4, the apostle goes on in the very 
 next verse (as is usual with him) to present the same 
 idea which is contained in v. 4, in a different costume. 
 Verse 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of v. 4) says : If 
 we have been homogeneous (av^vroi, like, of the same 
 kind) ivilh Christ in ins death, then shall we be in 
 his resurrection. The same idea and explanation is 
 repeated in v. 8 — drceddvo}.iEv — ovtf\ao\Lzv, and the 
 whole is summarily explained in v. 11, So reckon 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 103 
 
 ye yourselves to be veKpovg /.ttv ry dfiapria ^Civrag 6e 
 
 Exactly in the same manner has the apostle gone on 
 to explain ovvrafavreg in Col. 2 : 12. In v. 13 he 
 adds : "Youve icpovg in your offences . . . avve^OTzoiyae, 
 has he [God] made alive with him [Christ], having for- 
 given us all our offences." 
 
 There can be no real ground for question, then, that 
 by owe-dfpijfiev, in both cases, is meant neither more 
 nor less than by diroddvofiev, venpoi, etc. The epex- 
 egesis added in both cases seems to make this quite 
 plain. 
 
 The only reason, then, which I can find why ovve- 
 rdcpT]fiev is preferred in Rom. 6 : 4, and in Col. 2 : 12, 
 is, as has been suggested above, that the language may 
 be a fuller antithesis of the word resurrection, which is 
 employed in the corresponding part of the comparison. 
 "You who were [dead] buried with Christ," gives en- 
 ergy to the expression. 
 
 (c) But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual 
 exegesis of Gwerd^pev is, that the image or figure of 
 immersion, laptism, is, so far as I know, nowhere else 
 in Scripture employed as a symbol of burial in the 
 grave. Nor can I think that it is a very natural sym- 
 bol of burial. The obvious import of washing with 
 water, or immersing in water, is, that it is symbolical 
 of purity, cleansing, purification. But how will this 
 aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of corrup- 
 tion, loathsomeness, and destruction ? 
 
 For these reasons, I feel inclined to doubt the usual 
 exegesis of the passage before us, and to believe that 
 
104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the apostle had in view only a burying which is moral 
 and spiritual, for the same reasons that he had a moral 
 and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in 
 the corresponding part of the antithesis. 
 
 Indeed, what else but a moral burying can be meant 
 when the apostle goes on to say : We are buried with 
 him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism into his 
 death ? Of course it will not be contended that a 
 literal physical burying is here meant, but only a moral 
 one. And although the words into his death are not 
 inserted in Col. 2 : 12, yet, as the following verse there 
 shows, they are plainly implied. In fact it is plain 
 that reference is here made to baptism., because, when 
 the rite was performed, the Christian promised to re- 
 nounce sin, and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus 
 to die unto sin that he might live unto God. I can- 
 not see, therefore, that there is any more necessary 
 reference here to the modus of baptism, than there is 
 to the modus of the resurrection. The one may as 
 well be maintained as the other. 
 
 I am aware, however, that one may say : "I admit 
 that the burial with Christ has a moral sense, and only 
 such an one ; but then the language in which this idea 
 is conveyed (avv£rd(p?]iJ,ev) is evidently borrowed from 
 the custom of immersion." In reply to this, I would 
 refer to the consideration under (c) above. The pos- 
 sibility of this usage I admit ; but to show that the 
 image is natural and obvious, and that it is a part of 
 Scripture usage elsewhere, is what seems important, in 
 order to produce entire satisfaction to the mind of a 
 philological inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 
 
 think the case to be clear enough to entitle any one to 
 employ this passage, with confidence, in a contest re- 
 specting the mode of baptism. 
 
 In now reviewing the whole of these remarks, I am 
 not able to perceive that they are, for substance, incor- 
 rect. The more I reflect on the subject, the more I 
 am persuaded that the essential part of the idea which 
 is conveyed by ovve~d<pr)fiev consists in this, viz., that 
 when the Christian is baptized into the death of Christ, 
 Eom. 6 : 4, he is considered as " putting off the old 
 man with his lusts," as "crucifying him," as renouncing 
 the world and his former sinful course, and engaging 
 to live a new life. Accordingly, in Eom. vi., the apos- 
 tle presents at large the idea, that as Christ diedybr sin 
 Avhen he suffered on the cross, so his followers must 
 die to it ; i. e., renounce it, when they become his dis- 
 ciples. But they openly and solemnly profess to be 
 so when they are admitted by baptism to make a pub- 
 lic profession of the Christian religion. Now, as he 
 djed and was buried, in a physical sense, for or on ac- 
 count of sin, so we die and are buried, in a moral or 
 spiritual sense, when we solemnly profess and engage 
 to hate sin and renounce it, as we do in baptism. And 
 it seems to me, that the specific reason why the apos- 
 tle makes use of ovve-d^fiev is, that it is a stronger an- 
 tithesis to the word ovvnyep-&q-e (ye have been raised 
 up), which he employs in the context. I must repeat 
 again, that I find nothing in all the ritual use of water, 
 as an emblem of purification and consecration to God, 
 which seems to prepare the way for the use of baptism 
 by immersion as a symbol of Christ's literal death and 
 5* 
 
106 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 burial, or rather as bearing a resemblance to this. 
 And this is so strongly impressed on my mind, that I 
 must see more evidence than I now do that Paul meant 
 to make a comparison between literal burial and literal 
 baptism, before I can attach any weight to the argu- 
 ment attempted from Eom. 6 : 3, 4, and Col. 2 : 12, in 
 the controversy about the mode of baptism. The im- 
 pression is strong upon my mind, that the gist of the 
 true comparison lies in the being baptized INTO THE 
 death of Christ ; not in being baptized only. 
 
 When the apostle says, then, in Col. 2 : 12, aw- 
 rac()evTeg avrti ev rio $<nxTia\ia~i, I understand him as 
 employing iv tw parrriajiari in the Dative, in order to 
 signify the occasion, means, etc., in like manner as the 
 Dative is elsewhere used in a similar way. Thus, 
 when it is said, He shall baptize you iv Trvevfian ay'm 
 icai TTvpi, or iv nvevfia-i dyio) simply, e. g., Matt. 3 : 11 ; 
 Mark 1:8; Luke 3 : 16 ; John 1 : 33 ; Acts 1:5; 
 11 : 16 ; or when it is said, We have all been baptized 
 into one body, BY ONE SPIRIT, iv Lvl TrvevjiaTi ; the 
 meaning cannot be that we have been plunged or im- 
 mersed into one Spirit, or into one fire, but that by 
 means of these we have been spiritually baptized, or 
 that the Spirit has been copiously poured out upon 
 Christians. So, being buried with Christ by baptism, 
 i. e., by baptism into his death, cannot be shown to 
 mean, of necessity, any thing more, than that by the 
 rite of baptism Christians profess to die and be buried, 
 in a moral or 'spiritual sense, and as to the old man, 
 who, with his lusts, is to be crucified or put to death. 
 
 I have now examined all the passages on which re- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 107 
 
 liance lias been principally had, in order to show, from 
 circumstances and allusions, in what mode the rite of 
 baptism was originally performed in the Christian 
 church. If there may be some doubt remaining in the 
 mind of the reader whether I have allowed them to 
 speak fairly and fully, I can only say, that I have not 
 purposely either kept back any evidence in regard to 
 the subject, of which I am in possession, or willingly 
 magnified any view or statement for the sake of favour- 
 ing any particular sentiment ; for I am not at all con- 
 cerned in what way the result of this inquiry may 
 come out in respect to the original mode of baptism. 
 The external mode of an external rite never can, with 
 my present views of Christianity, become to me a mat- 
 ter of any peculiar interest in any other point of view 
 than merely that of a historical fact. My full belief is, 
 that since "God is a Spirit," he seeks worshippers "in 
 spirit and in truth ;" and that where the heart is given 
 to him, the manner of external rites can never be es- 
 sential. These may concern the costume of the church, 
 but never her glorious person. 
 
 I have still an inquiry to make under our present 
 head, and one which seems to be important, so far as 
 it concerns our investigation with respect to facts. It 
 is this : Are there not some circumstances, related or 
 implied, in the passages respecting Christian baptism, 
 which seem to render the idea improbable that immer- 
 sion was generally, or at least universally, practised ? 
 
 Let us examine the narrative in Acts ii. On the 
 day of Pentecost, Acts 2:1, the disciples were assem- 
 bled in one place, and the Holy Spirit was poured out 
 
108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 upon them in a miraculous manner, and they began to 
 speak in foreign languages. This attracted great mul- 
 titudes to hear them, and these Peter addressed in a 
 powerful manner, setting forth the claims of Jesus, and 
 exhibiting the guilt of their unbelief and their enmity 
 to the Saviour. Under this address, three thousand of 
 the audience "were pricked in the heart," and made 
 anxious for their salvation. On the very same day on 
 which all this happened, these three thousand, it would 
 seem, were all baptized and added to the Christian 
 church ; Acts 2 : 40, 51. The question apposite to 
 our purpose is : Where and how were they bcqrtized? 
 
 Was it in the brooks or streams near Jerusalem ? I 
 cannot find this to be probable. The feast of Pente- 
 cost, being fifty days after the passover, Lev. 25 : 15, 
 must fall into the latter part of the month of May, and 
 after the Jewish harvest. In Palestine, this is usually 
 a time of drought, or at least of great scarcity of rain. 
 The brook Kidron, on the east of Jerusalem, was not 
 a perennial stream ; and the brooks on the south of the 
 city, from the fountain of Shiloh or Gihon, were not 
 adequate, without some special preparation, for the 
 purposes of baptism by immersion, as one must be 
 prone to think from the representations respecting 
 them. Nothing can be more natural, moreover, than 
 the supposition, that if the apostles baptized the three 
 thousand in either of the streams around Jerusalem, it 
 would have been mentioned ; just as it is said of John, 
 that he baptized in the Jordan. No such mention, 
 however, is made. 
 
 We must conclude, then, that if baptism by immer- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 109 
 
 sion was practised on this occasion, it mnst have been 
 in baths or washing-places. I do not say that this was 
 impossible, for every one acquainted with the Jewish 
 rites must know that they made much use of ablu- 
 tions, and therefore they would provide many con- 
 veniences for them. But let it be remembered, in re- 
 spect to the present occasion, that a great many of the 
 three thousand were foreigners. How many belonged 
 to the city of Jerusalem, Ave cannot tell. But we may 
 ask : Did the apostles baptize, without individual con- 
 fession and profession, like that of the eunuch, insisted 
 upon by Philip ? We can hardly deem this probable. 
 Supposing, then, that these were required, and that the 
 apostles resorted to private baths in order to baptize, 
 would one day, or rather, some three quarters of a day, 
 suffice to perform such a work ? On the supposition 
 that only the apostles baptized, and granting, more- 
 over, that Peter ended his sermon at nine o'clock in 
 the morning (" the third hour of the day"), whereas he 
 only began it then, the consequence would be, that for 
 the remaining nine hours of the day, = 540 minutes, 
 each apostle must have baptized, on an average, one 
 in about two minutes, inasmuch as each would have 
 had two hundred and fifty baptisms to perform, if they 
 were equally divided. However, I concede that there 
 are some points here which are left undetermined, and 
 which may serve to aid those who differ from me in 
 replying to these remarks. It is true that we do not 
 know that baptism was performed by the apostles only, 
 nor that all the three thousand were baptized before 
 the going down of the sun. The work may have ex- 
 
110 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tended into the evening ; and so, many being engaged 
 in it, and more time being given, there was a possi- 
 bility that the work in question should be performed, 
 although immersion was practised. 
 
 But are these circumstances probable ones, which 
 have just been mentioned ? There is nothing in the 
 record that would naturally lead us to suppose so, and 
 we are left at liberty to deny them with as much prob- 
 ability as any one can assert them — I must think, on 
 the whole, with somewhat more. We shall, perhaps, 
 see further reason for this opinion in the sequel. 
 
 In Acts 10 : 47, Peter says, in respect to Cornelius 
 and those with him who believed on Christ : " Can any 
 one forbid water, that these should be baptized?" p/rt 
 rb vdojp KuXvocu dvvarai rig ; Observe that the idea in 
 this case seems almost of necessity to be : "Can any 
 one forbid that water should be brought in, and these 
 persons baptized?" He does not say: Can any one 
 forbid the bath, or the river, i. e., the use of these, by 
 which these persons should be baptized ; but the inti- 
 mation seems to be that they were to be baptized on 
 the spot, and that water was to be brought in for this 
 purpose. I admit that another meaning is not neces- 
 sarily excluded, which would accord with the practice 
 of immersion ; but I am persuaded that the more easy 
 and natural interpretation is such as I have now given. 
 
 I have the same persuasion respecting the baptism 
 of the jailer, recorded in Acts 16 : 83. Here it is said, 
 that the jailer, after the earthquake and other occur- 
 rences, and when brought under deep convictions of 
 sin, took Paul and Silas, at midnight, and washed them 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 from their stripes, i. e., washed off the blood which 
 flowed from the wounds made by their stripes ; and 
 straightway (-apaxpTjfia, forthwith) he was baptized, and 
 all his. Where was this done? At the jail, or in 
 the jail, where he met Paul and Silas ; at any rate, 
 within the precincts of the prison ; for after the whole 
 transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas 
 to his house, and gave them refreshments ; Acts 16 : 34. 
 If it be said, that there was probably a bath in the jail, 
 and that the jailer and his household were baptized in 
 it, I answer, that such accommodations in the prisons 
 of ancient days are at least very improbable. Who 
 does not .enow that mercy or convenience in a prison 
 is a thing of modern times — the work or result of 
 Christian beneficence, not of Pagan compassion. Still, 
 the possibility of this cannot be denied. But the prob- 
 ability is surely not very great, when we reflect, that 
 neither here nor in the instance recorded in Acts 
 10 : 47, -is any intimation given of a resort to the bath 
 in order to perform the rite of baptism. One may 
 naturally conclude, therefore, that the water brought 
 in to wash the stripes of Paul and Silas, also answered 
 the j)urpose of baptizing him who furnished it. 
 
 In Acts 22 : 16, Paul relates the words of Ananias 
 to him before he was baptized, and after he had for 
 some days been under most distressing conviction of 
 sin. They are these : Arise, (3diTTioai, baptize thyself 
 (Middle voice), i. e., receive baptism, ical d-rroXovaai, 
 and WASH AWAY thy sins. Here the words j3a7TTtaai 
 and dnSXovaai appear to be treated as in a manner 
 equivalent to each other ; and the natural conclusion 
 
112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 would seem to be, that washing, or washing off, was the 
 manner of the baptism on this occasion. Still, I ac- 
 knowledge that this is not a necessary conclusion, for 
 bathing or immersion would produce the effect of 
 washing off. 
 
 But there is a passage in 1 Cor. 10 : 2, which seems 
 of necessity to imply that immersion is not essential to 
 the idea of baptism. It runs thus : All were baptized 
 into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea. This re- 
 fers, of course, to the period and the transactions when 
 the children of Israel passed through the Eed Sea, and 
 eluded the pursuit of Pharaoh and his host. But how 
 were they baptized, on this occasion, in the cloud and 
 in the sea ? The reader will be enabled to judge for 
 himself, by examining well the following passage, 
 which records the history of that occasion : 
 
 Ex. 14 : 19-22, " And the angel of God which went 
 before the camp of Israel, removed, and went behind 
 them ; and the pillar of the cloud went from before 
 their face, and stood behind them : And it came be- 
 tween the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Is- 
 rael ; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it 
 gave light by night to these ; so that the one came not 
 near the other all the night. And Moses stretched 
 out his hand over the sea ; and the Lord caused the 
 sea to go bach by a strong east wind all that night, and 
 made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 
 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the 
 sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall 
 unto them, on their right hand and on their left." 
 
 Here, then, was the cloud which first stood before 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 113 
 
 them, and then behind them ; and here were the 
 waters of the Red Sea, like a wall on their right hand 
 and on their left. Yet neither the cloud nor the waters 
 touched them. " They went through the midst of the 
 sea upon dry ground." Yet they were baptized in the 
 cloud and in the sea, The reason and ground of such 
 an expression must be, so far as I can discern, a sur- 
 rounding of the Israelites on different sides by the 
 cloud and by the sea, although neither the cloud nor 
 the sea touched them. It is, therefore, a kind of figura- 
 tive mode of expression, derived from the idea that 
 baptizing is surrounding with a fluid. But whether 
 this be by immersion, affusion, suffusion, or washing, 
 would not seem to be decided. The suggestion has 
 sometimes been made, that the Israelites were sprinkled 
 by the cloud and by the sea, and this was the baptism 
 which Paul meant to designate. But the cloud on this 
 occasion was not a cloud of rain ; nor do we find any 
 intimation that the waters of the Red Sea sprinkled 
 the children of Israel at this time. So much is true, 
 viz., that they were not immersed. Yet, as the lan- 
 guage must evidently be figurative in some good de- 
 gree, and not literal, I do not see how, on the whole, 
 we can make less of it, than to suppose that it has a 
 tacit reference to the idea of surrounding in some way 
 or other. 
 
 That washing was at least one method, and perhaps 
 even the more ordinary one of practising baptism, may 
 be thought to find some support in such passages as 
 the following, viz., Eph. 5 : 26, where Christ is spoken 
 of as having loved the church, and given himself for 
 
114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 it, tliat lie might sanctify it, having cleansed it BY THE 
 washing of water, etc. Here the word used for wash- 
 ing is Xovrpti, which some render bath. Literally and 
 originally, the word, according to the laws of deriva- 
 tion, must signify : (1) The means of washing, inasmuch 
 as it comes from Xovu, to wash, in particidar, to wash 
 one's person, in whole or in part, e. g., to bathe, to wash 
 off the blood from a wound, etc. But in this sense, 
 i. e., as the means of toashing, bath, bathing-place, etc., 
 it is applied by Homer only in the plural number. 
 (2) It means the act of washing, ivashing off, cleansing, 
 etc. In the singular number it occurs first in Hesiod, 
 and is employed to signify washing, etc., as just stated. 
 Passow has exhibited its appropriate usage. The 
 reader will see in this case, that the idea of washing is 
 connected with the idea of cleansing, and that the refer- 
 ence is clearly made to baptism. But the modus of 
 this washing is no further determined, than that it is 
 so as to cleanse. This, indeed, is consistent with im- 
 mersion, bathing, or simple washing, and of course it 
 may be said to leave the subject undetermined. 
 
 In Titus 3 : 5, we have a similar passage : He saved 
 us dta Xovrpov -rraXiyjeveoiac. by THE WASHING of re- 
 generation, i. e., by that purification or cleansing which 
 regeneration confers. The reference, however, although 
 the language is figurative, is, beyond all doubt, to 
 the rite of baptism, which was emblematic of purifica- 
 tion by the Spirit. Still the word Xovrpov, washing, or 
 (if you please) laver, will not absolutely determine the 
 method in which the water was applied. If it means 
 bath, then we can hardly argue the practice of total im- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 115 
 
 mersion from it, as baths are not usually adapted to 
 such a purpose. 
 
 In Heb. 10 : 22, the apostle speaks of Christians as 
 drawing near to God with a true heart and full faith, 
 being sprinkled or cleansed (eppavriopevoi), as to their 
 hearts, from an evil conscience, and WASHED (XeAovfievot), 
 as to their body, with pure water. That he refers to the 
 rite of baptism here seems hardly to admit of any 
 doubt. The idea of washing or cleansing is expressed 
 by XeXovpivoi ; but still, the mode of effecting this, 
 whether by immersion, bathing, or washing, does not 
 seem to be necessarily determined ; for any one of 
 these would effect a cleansing of the body. Yet the 
 more natural understanding of the passage in this, as 
 in the two preceding instances, would seem to be a 
 washing with water. 
 
 I have now examined all those passages in the New 
 Testament in which the circumstances related or im- 
 plied would seem to have a bearing on the question 
 before us, viz. : Whether the MODE of baptism is deter- 
 mined by the sacred writers ? I am unable to find in 
 them any thing wliich appears to settle this question. 
 I find none, I am quite ready to concede, which seem 
 absolutely to determine that immersion was not prac- 
 tised. But are there not some, which have been cited 
 above, that serve to render it improbable that immer- 
 sion was always practised, to say the least? I can 
 only say, that such is my persuasion. The reader has 
 the evidence before him, and can judge for himself. 
 He will indulge me, I hope, in the same libeity. I do 
 consider it as quite plain, that none of the circumstan- 
 
116 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tial evidence thus far proves immersion to have been 
 exclusively the mode of Christian baptism, or even 
 that of 'John. Indeed, I consider this point so far 
 made out, that I can hardly suppress the conviction, 
 that if any one maintains the contrary, it must be 
 either because he is unable rightly to estimate the na- 
 ture or power of the Greek language ; or because he is 
 influenced in some measure by party feeling ; or else 
 because he has looked at the subject in only a partial 
 manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly. 
 
 Thus much for the evidence derivable from the cir- 
 cumstances attending the baptisms mentioned in the 
 New Testament. But were not these, in all proba- 
 bility, conformed in mode to baptisms already extant 
 among the Jews ? This leads us to another distinct 
 head of inquiry. 
 
 § 7. Jewish Proselyte- Baptism. 
 
 III. Was baptism, as an initiatory rite, practised in 
 the Jewish church antecedently to the time when Christian 
 uaptism commenced ? 
 
 This is a subject replete with difficulty in some re- 
 spects, because Ave have not adequate means of casting 
 upon it all the light which is desirable. I begin with 
 the ceremonies prescribed by the Mosaic law in respect 
 to the sacred use of water in ablutions, and inquire 
 whether there is any thing in them which will render 
 one mode of Christian baptism more probable than an- 
 other. We find, then, the following results : 
 
 1. That ivasliing (he clothes only is one of the ceremo- 
 
CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 117 
 
 nial rites of purification. The first direction of this 
 nature we find in Ex. 19 : 10-14. It was made in re- 
 lation to a preparation for the giving of the law at 
 Mount Sinai, and, of course, on a most solemn and in- 
 teresting occasion. Other similar directions, on a va- 
 riety of occasions, and for the like purpose of purifica- 
 cation, the reader will find by consulting Lev. 11 : 28, 
 40 ; 13 : 34, 54, 58 ; 14 : 47 ; 15 : 17 ; Num. 8 : 7, 
 21 ; 19 : 10, 21. We shall see in the sequel that this 
 is a different rite from that of washing the person. 
 
 2. That washing the person is also enjoined by way 
 of purification. Aaron and his sons were washed with 
 water when entering on the priest's office ; Ex. 29:4; 
 30 : 19-21 ; 40 : 12 ; Lev. 8:6; 16 : 4, 24. On other 
 occasions, also, when they contracted any pollution, 
 they were commanded to wash ; Lev. 22 : 6. In all 
 these and the like cases, the Hebrew verb is yn^i ; 
 which corresponds to the Greek Xovu. 
 
 3. That both the clothes and person were to be washed, 
 on a great variety of occasions, for the sake of purifi- 
 cation. E. g., Lev. 14 : 8, 9 ; 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 
 21, 22, 27 ; 16 : 26, 28 ; 17 : 15 ; Num. 19 : 7, 8, 19. 
 
 4. That sprinkling ivas used most frequently of all, by 
 way of purification and consecration. Especially was 
 the sprinkling of blood practised for this purpose ; e. g., 
 Ex. 24 : 6-8 ; 29 : 20, 21 ; Lev. 1:5, 11 ; 3 : 2, 8, 
 13 ; 4 : 6, 17 ; 5:9; 7:2; 8 : 19, 24, 30 ; 9 : 12, 18 ; 
 14:7, 51; 16:14, 15, 19; Num. 18:17; 19:4. 
 Also the sprinkling of oil; e. g., Lev. 8 : 11 ; 14 : 16, 
 27. Also the sprinkling of the water of purification or 
 separation ; e. g., Num. 8:7; 19 : 13, 18, 20, 21. 
 
118 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 5. That affusion was also used, in the ritos of purifica- 
 tion. E. g., Lev. 14 : 18, 29, of oil to be poured on the 
 head of him who was to "be cleansed. So the priests 
 were bedewed with oil, when consecrated to their 
 office. 
 
 6. That smearing over was also a rite of purification. 
 E. g., with oil ; Lev. 14 : 17, 28 ; of blood, Lev. 14 : 25 ; 
 16 : 18. 
 
 The statement just made, is the result of an exami- 
 nation, extended through the whole of the ceremonial 
 laws of Moses. It is quite possible that some indi- 
 vidual instances may have escaped my notice, in such 
 a protracted examination ; but this can in no way affect 
 the result of the examples now produced. Do all or 
 any of these examples cast any light upon the Christian 
 rite of baptism? 
 
 We may answer this question by saying, that they 
 serve, at least, to show that there is no trace of any such 
 rite as baptism, prescribed by the' Jewish ceremonial 
 law, as an initiatory rite, i. e., as one which was essen- 
 tial in order to make a profession of the Jewish religion. 
 It is true, indeed, that Aaron and his sons were washed 
 with water, when about to be inducted into the priest's 
 office ; see Ex. 29 : 4 ; Lev. 8:6. But it is equally 
 true, that this was only one of very numerous rites of 
 induction to that office. The reader will find them all 
 described at full length, in Ex. c 29, and Lev. c. 8. 
 
 It appears quite plain, that the washing of the priests, 
 as preparatory to their entering upon their office, was 
 in no other sense initiatory, than as a means of cere- 
 monial purification, and an emblem of that purity of 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 119 
 
 heart which was essential to a proper discharge of the 
 duties of their office. This rite, therefore, was not dif- 
 ferent, as to its essential meaning or intention, from the 
 like rite as practised by others, for the sake of cere- 
 monial purification. Indeed, I can see no difference as 
 to the object which was to be attained, between wash- 
 ing the clothes, the person, or the clothes and the per- 
 son both. It seems to be the fact, however, that wash- 
 ing of the person only, was a ceremony confined to the 
 order of the priests ; as may be seen by consulting the 
 passages under No. 2 above. But at Mount Sinai, all 
 the people were required to wash their clothes, Ex. 19 : 
 10-14 ; and so on divers other occasions, as may be 
 seen by the references under No. 1. On a variety of 
 occasions, likewise, all who had contracted certain kinds 
 of pollution, were required both to " wash their clothes 
 and bathe themselves in water." The word bathe, in all 
 the cases appealed to under No. 3 where it is used, cor- 
 responds to the Hebrew f rn to wash. Why our trans- 
 lators have rendered the word wash in one case, and 
 bathe in another, it is difficult to see. Neither washing 
 nor bathing appear to be the same as plunging or im- 
 mersing ; for neither the word ifltpi to merge, immerse, 
 nor the word t]tto*. to overwhelm, inundate, is used in 
 reference to these ceremonial washings. 
 
 As this is a point of some importance, I must dwell 
 for a moment upon it. The word into, dip, immerse, is 
 used in Lev. 4 : 6 ; 14 : 16 ; 9 : 9, in respect to the 
 priest's dipping his finger into blood or oil, in order to 
 sprinkle them before the Lord. So also in Lev. 4:17; 
 and in a similar way as to the dipping of various things 
 
120 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 into blood, in order to sprinkle it, in Lev. 14 : 6, 51 ; 
 Ex. 12 : 22. So of dipping a bundle of hyssop into 
 water, in order to sprinkle it, Num. 19 : 18. In all 
 these cases, it is evident at first view, that the dipping 
 of the finger, the hyssop, etc. is merely preparatory to 
 a rite to be performed, and is in no case of itself a pro- 
 per rite. 
 
 All the other examples of bsp in the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, are very few-; and I refer to them here, in order 
 that any one who chooses may consult them : Ruth 2 : 
 14 ; Deut. 33 : 24 ; Ezek. 33 : 15, t^b^n, dyed, coloured; 
 1 Sam. 14 : 28 ; Job 9 : 81 ; 2 K. 5 : 14, which is the 
 only example respecting immersion of the whole per- 
 son, and refers to Naaman's dipping himself seven 
 times in the river Jordan ; 2 K. 8 : 15 ; Gen. 37 : 31 ; 
 Joshua 3 : 15, which respects the dipping of the priest's 
 feet, who bore the ark, in the brim of the river Jordan. 
 
 As to the other word nod, it properly means to inun- 
 date, to overflow, overwhelm, etc. The only examples of 
 its occurrence in the Mosaic law, are in Lev. 6:28, re- 
 specting a brazen pot ; Lev. 15 : 12, respecting a vessel 
 of wood ; and Lev. 15 : 11, respecting the hands of a 
 person. In these three cases, our English version ren- 
 ders the word tiwsSi by rinsed, which implies immersion. 
 But in no case is the word applied to the whole person, 
 or to the clothes of any individual. 
 
 We find, then, no example among all the Levitical 
 washings or ablutions, where immersion of the person 
 is required. The word frn, which is almost uniformly 
 employed, and which our translators have rendered 
 luash and bathe, does not imply immersixm. It may, in- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 121 
 
 deed, admit the idea of immersion, because a washing 
 or ablution may be effected in this way ; but on the 
 other hand, the meaning of the verb is equally well an- 
 swered, without immersion. 
 
 Washing the clothes, then, or washing the person, or 
 both the person and clothes ; or sprinkling of blood, 
 oil, water ; affusion of oil, or smearing with oil or blood ; 
 were all the rites which had relation to liquid substances, 
 so far as they were concerned with application to per- 
 son or dress. From none of these, can any example be 
 drawn, to show or even illustrate the necessity of total 
 immersion, as an initiatory rite under the Christian dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 Is there, then, any thing in the ancient law which en- 
 joins baptism, on either the Jew or the Gentile proselyte, 
 when becoming a member of- the Hebrew community 
 or church ? I cannot find a word to this purpose in 
 the Scriptures. . In the original institution of the rite 
 of circumcision, Gen. 17 : 9-14, this rite, and this only, 
 is demanded, as the ceremonial of entrance among the 
 Jewish community. The same requisition is made, both 
 of the native Hebrew and of any foreigner who comes 
 under his control. So again in Ex. 12 : 48, 49, it is ex- 
 pressly enjoined, that the stranger shall be circumcised, 
 in order to keep the feast of the passover ; and it is at 
 the same time declared, that " one law shall be to him 
 that is home-born, and to 'the stranger." In all this, 
 there is not even a reference to any ablution whatever.' 
 
 Ablution, then, was not an original condition of 
 membership of the church, under the ancient dispen- 
 sation. It was obligatory, as we have seen, in many 
 G 
 
122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 forms, upon those who were already members of it, but 
 NOT to their becoming so. 
 
 In later times, then, than the giving of the law in the 
 wilderness, must the practice of baptizing proselytes 
 have sprung up. It was an idea very natural to a Jew, 
 that a man who passed over from a heathen state to the 
 Hebrew church, was unclean of course in his heathen 
 state, and needed to be purified. Hence the ablution 
 so common among the Jews, in order to become cere- 
 monially pure, might very easily be extended to him. 
 And one can hardly doubt, that in consequence of such 
 analogical reasoning, baptism came at length to be con- 
 sidered by the Jews, as essential to the due introduc- 
 tion of a Gentile to their church. 
 
 But did such a custom exist among the Jews, ante- 
 cedently to the ministry of John the Baptist and of 
 Jesus ? A question long and variously disputed, and 
 which seems, as yet, hardly to be settled to the satis- 
 faction of all. The impression, however, has become 
 widely extended in the Christian church, that such was 
 the fact ; and inasmuch as it is conceded that proselyte 
 baptism was usually by immersion, it becomes necessary 
 to our purpose, to examine into this subject. 
 
 The reader should be advertised, however, that there 
 is by no means a general agreement among the learned, 
 in regard to this question. While the majority of the 
 older writers have adopted the opinion of Selden, Light- 
 foot, Danz, Buxtorf, Schoettgcn, Wetstein, and others, 
 that the baptism of proselytes was common when John 
 the Baptist made his appearance as a public teacher ; 
 others of no small ability and reputation have denied 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 123 
 
 strenuously that there is any satisfactory evidence of 
 this. Among these are Ernesti, Bauer, Paulus, De 
 "Wctte, and (in a modified way) E. Gr. Bengel, of recent 
 times ; also John Owen, Wernsdorf, Zeltner, Carpzov, 
 and others, among the older writers. Most of these 
 writers I have consulted ; a great part of them, how- 
 ever, do but repeat what had been already said by some 
 leading author. The substantial part of the case, I 
 shall now endeavour to lay before the reader. 
 
 1. There can be no doubt, that among the Jews of 
 later times, probably from some time in the latter part 
 of the third century downwards, the baptism of prose- 
 lytes has been generally regarded as a constituent part 
 of the rite of initiation into the Jewish community, 
 when a Gentile convert was to be introduced. 
 
 Maimonides, in the twelfth century, speaks very fully 
 and positively as to such a practice ; and he extends it 
 to the Hebrews, as well as to others. " By three 
 things," says he, " Israel was introduced to the cove- 
 nant ; by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circum- 
 cision was in Egypt ; as it is said, No uncircumcised 
 person shall eat of the passover. Baptism was in the 
 desert, before the giving of the law ; as it is said, Thou 
 shalt sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and they shall 
 wash their clothes," etc. Issure Biah, cap. 13. Here 
 he has mistaken the washing of the clothes for the im- 
 mersion of the whole person ; a palpable mistake, as 
 may be seen by comparing the cases of ablution already 
 cited above. Again: " Whenever any Gentile wishes 
 to be received into the covenant of Israel, and associate 
 with them, . . . circumcision, baptism, and voluntary 
 
124 . CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 offering, are required. If the person be a female, then 
 only baptism and offering." Ibid. 
 
 Danz, in two dissertations on this subject, printed 
 in Meuschen's Nov. Test. ex. Talmude illustration, has 
 cited examples in abundance to show that such is and 
 has been the general opinion of the Jewish Eabbins. 
 In fact, it has become among them even a trite maxim, 
 ilitsi iifcira "J3> ^3 yn* . there is wo proselyte until he is 
 circumcised and baptized. 
 
 Yet, all this being conceded, as to the opinion of 
 Eabbins earlier and later, it makes but little to our 
 purpose. One has only to look into the Gospels, or 
 into the Mishna, in order to find conclusive evidence 
 that the Jews have added unnumbered ceremonies to 
 their ancient law. Whether they hold these to be 
 binding or otherwise, is a matter of no consequence to 
 our present purpose. Our present inquiry respects 
 only the antiquity of the usage in question ; and on this 
 point all the overwhelming mass of quotations pro- 
 duced in the pedantic and tedious dissertations of 
 Danz give little or no satisfaction. 
 
 The oldest source of Jewish Eabbinical traditions, 
 next after the works of Josephus and Philo, the New 
 Testament, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, 
 is the Mishna, i. e., repetition, or oral law — second law, 
 collected by Eabbi Judah Haqqodcsh, i. e., the Holy, 
 about A. D. 220. From this work, which contains 
 such an almost infinite number of Jewish superstitions, 
 usages, and rites, I have as yet seen but one passage 
 produced which seems to have any direct bearing upon 
 our question. It runs thus : 
 
CHRISTIAN" BAPTISM. 125 
 
 j^ajatt 1*a ffllisb rtftfrn "pa wfiwi tn^a ibn rrm sfisS 
 i. e., as to a proselyte, who becomes a proselyte on the 
 evening of the passover, the folloivers of Shctmmai say, 
 Let him be baptized (bmfc) and let him eat the passover 
 in the evening; but the disciples of HUM say, He who 
 separates himself from the prepuce separates himself from 
 a sepulchre ; Tract. Pesahhim, c. VIII., § 8. 
 
 De AVette, in commenting on this, says, that Ssio 
 is here equivalent to lavatus, washed; Opusc. Theol. 
 p. 62. It may be so ; for the Heb. Sao » like the 
 Greek iSdrrro) and ^arrri^io, might mean to wash, to 
 bathe, etc. But inasmuch as this word is not employed 
 in any part of the Mosaic institutes in respect to the 
 ablutions there specified, and as the compiler of the 
 Mishna must have been intimately acquainted with 
 the ritual parts of these institutes, I can hardly believe, 
 on the whole, that the word S:no has such a meaning 
 in this place. It more probably means baptized, im- 
 mersed. 
 
 Accordingly, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tract. Pesah. ■ 
 p. 36, c. 2, in the way of allusion to the passage of the 
 Mishna just quoted, and in explanation of it, Eabbi 
 Eliezer, the son of Jacob, is represented as saying that 
 some Eoman soldiers, who kept guard at Jerusalem, 
 ate of the passover, being baptized (ibntoi) on the evening 
 of the passover. De Wette (Opusc. p. 63) construes this 
 passage in the same way as he does that of the Mishna 
 above recited. But Bauer allows it to be a case of pros- 
 elyte-baptism ; Gottensdienst. Verfassung, II., p. 389. 
 
 The Jerusalem Talmud, it will be remembered, was 
 
126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 I 
 
 composed during the latter part of the third century, 
 some fifty or sixty years (the time is not exactly 
 known) after the Mishna was reduced to writing. I 
 cannot resist the impression, therefore, that the custom 
 of baptizing proselytes before they were admitted to 
 the passover, was at least distinctly known among the 
 Jews of the third century. Indeed, it is difficult to 
 see how we can avoid the conclusion that such a cus- 
 tom was older than the third century. The Mishna, 
 certainly, for the most part, only reduces to writing 
 what was before extant in traditions orally preserved. 
 It is probable, then, that the custom, in a greater or 
 less extent, of baptizing proselytes, must have existed 
 in the second century, and possibly still earlier. 
 
 Let it be noted, however, that the very passage in 
 the Mishna quoted above, shows that the ancient Jews 
 were not agreed in relation to the effect produced by 
 baptizing proselytes before their admission to the pass- 
 over ; in other words, they were not agreed as to its 
 being a sufficient initiatory rite, even when circumcision 
 accompanied it. The disciples of Shammai affirm, that 
 when a circumcised proselyte is baptized he ought to 
 be admitted to the passover ; but those of Hillel main- 
 tain, that circumcision, when recent, is not a sufficient 
 expurgation, not even when baptism follows it ; for 
 such seems plainly to be the meaning of the words, he 
 who separates himself from the prepuce separates himself 
 from a'sejndcJire ; i. e., he has need still of such repeated 
 lustrations as one must practise who has been polluted 
 by a dead body in the grave. 
 
 According to Jewish tradition, Hillel and Shammai 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 127 
 
 lived in the time of Augustus Ca?sar and Herod the 
 Great — i. e., they flourished about forty years before 
 the birth of Christ. They were the heads of two sects 
 among the Pharisees, and became bitterly opposed to 
 each other in almost every thing where there was any 
 room for difference of opinion. But Ilillel appears to 
 have acquired a great ascendency over Shammai in the 
 opinion of the Rabbins. In the Talmud it is related 
 of him (Succa, fol. 28. 1), that " Hillel had eighty dis- 
 ciples in his old age, of whom thirty were worthy of 
 the presence of the divine Majesty ; thirty others, that 
 the sun should stop in its course, as it did for Joshua, 
 the son of Nun ; the other twenty were of more mod- 
 erate capacity, the greatest among them being Jon- 
 athan Ben Uzziel [the famous Chaldee Paraphrast], 
 and the least, Eabbi Jochanan ben Zacchai" [a cele- 
 brated Rabbin]. I insert this merely to show what 
 views the Jews entertained of Hillel, while little is said 
 in the way of boasting with respect to Shammai. 
 
 I do not take it for granted, however, that Hillel and 
 Shammai did themselves agitate the disputed question 
 about baptism. Doubtless, many subjects of dispute 
 originated among their followers, and this may have 
 been the case in regard to the question about proselyte 
 baptism, for the words of the Mishna would not disagree 
 at all with such an exposition. I understand the Mish- 
 nical author as meaning to say, that the two famous 
 sects of Hillel and Shammai disputed on the subject of 
 baptizing proselytes at the time when he was writing. 
 Of how long standing this dispute had been, I do not 
 see that we can gather from the words of the Mishna. 
 
128 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The authority of the more dominant party, then, at 
 the time when the Mishna was written, decided that 
 baptism was not a complete initiatory rite, even after 
 circumcision. But the opinion of the party adverse to 
 them appears, at last, to have "become the prevailing 
 one, as we shall see in the sequel. 
 
 It would seem to follow, from what has now been 
 laid before the reader, that the practice of baptizing 
 proselytes was at least known among the Jews in the 
 second century, or, if we are to credit the testimony of 
 the Jerusalem Talmud, still earlier. But, inasmuch as 
 the evidence before us may appear, perhaps, to leave 
 this matter somewhat in doubt, we may now very nat- 
 urally ask, Is there any other source of evidence to 
 which we can appeal ? What have Philo, and Josephus, 
 and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, said or 
 hinted relative to the baptism of proselytes ? 
 
 The answer to this question, so important to our 
 present purpose, is, Nothing—at least nothing which 
 serves at all to confirm the idea that the practice in 
 question was extant, or at any rate notorious, at the 
 time when these authors composed their works. All 
 of them lived not far from the commencement of the 
 Christian era — Philo somewhat before, Josephus some- 
 what after, and Onkelos and Jonathan about the same 
 periods. I know the age of these two Chaldee trans- 
 lators has been questioned, and set down to a period 
 much later, by Eichhorn and some others ; but it is 
 now generally admitted that they may fairly be ranked 
 among writers who lived at, or very near, the com- 
 mencement of the Christian era. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 129 
 
 In all these writers, so far as their works have yet 
 been examined, there appears to be a deep and uni- 
 versal silence on the subject of baptizing proselytes — 
 a thing quite unaccountable in case such baptism were 
 usual at that period. Nay, there is one passage in 
 Josephus which seems to afford strong ground of sus- 
 pision that the rite in question was unknown at a 
 period not long antecedent to the time of the apostles. 
 This author is relating the history of John Hyrcanus, 
 high-priest and king of the Jews, a zealous Pharisee, 
 and one who, according to Josephus, was favoured with 
 divine revelations. He says that Hyrcanus (about 126 
 A. C.) took certain cities from the Idumseans ; " and 
 he commanded, after subduing all the Idumasans, that 
 they should remain in their country if they would cir- 
 cumcise themselves, and conform to the Jewish cus- 
 toms. Then they, through love of their country, un- 
 derwent circumcision, and submitted to the other modes 
 of living which were Jewish, and from that time they 
 became Jews." Ant. XIII. 9. 1, ib. 15. 4. 
 
 Now, as Hyrcanus was a most zealous Pharisee, and 
 as the Pharisees, in all probability, first began the 
 practice of baptizing proselytes, it would seem quite 
 strange that nothing should be done on this occasion 
 with respect to the baptism of a whole nation, or, at 
 least, that nothing should be said by Josephus respect- 
 ing it, in case he regarded it as essential to the recep- 
 tion of foreigners among his own people. I am aware 
 that we cannot always argue from the silence of wri- 
 ters, against the existence of this or that practice ; but 
 this would seem to be one of the cases in which silence 
 6* 
 
130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 speaks strongly against the probability of the practice 
 in question at that period. 
 
 We add, moreover, to what has now been exhibited, 
 that Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the 
 Jew, has let fall no expression from which any thing 
 can be deduced, in regard to the practice, by the Jews, 
 of the rite under consideration. 
 
 We come now to later testimonies, and such as cannot 
 be of any great weight in determining the question rel- 
 ative to the antiquity of proselyte baptism. I shall 
 therefore relate them in as succinct a manner as is con- 
 sistent with perspicuity. 
 
 In the Babylonish Talmud, Cod. Jevamoth, fol. 46, 
 the following passage occurs : " As to a proselyte, who 
 is circumcised, but not baptized, what of him ? Rabbi 
 Eliezersays: 'Behold, he is a proselyte; for thus we 
 find it concerning our fathers, that they were circum- 
 cised, but not baptized.' But as to one who is baptized, 
 and is not circumcised, what of him ? Rabbi Joshua 
 says : ' Behold, he is a proselyte ; for thus we find it 
 respecting maid-servants, who were baptized, but not 
 circumcised.' But the Wise Men say : ' Is he baptized, 
 but not circumcised ; or is he circumcised, but not bap- 
 tized ; he is not a proselyte until he is circumcised and 
 baptized.' " 
 
 I translate from Lightfoot, Hor. Ileb. p. 266. The 
 Talmud of Babylon is a work of a late period, being a 
 compilation made by the Babylonish Jews, during the 
 fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Here, then, is a 
 narration which respects the opinion of Eliezer the son 
 of Ilyrcanus, and Joshua the son of Ilananiah, who are 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 131 
 
 said to have lived near the time when the temple was 
 destroyed. Not improbably, then, this dispute was like 
 to that mentioned in the Mishna, on which I have al- 
 ready commented. 
 
 Setting aside now the great uncertainty which at- 
 tends almost all ancient chronological matters in the 
 Talmud, and supposing the two Eabbins here mentioned 
 to have lived at or near the time when the temple was 
 destroyed, it would follow only, that about this time 
 the practice of baptizing proselytes was in existence, 
 but was a matter of dispute and difference of opinion ; 
 which in this respect accords with the tenor of the pas- 
 sage already quoted from the Mishna. The Wise Men, 
 to whom the Talmud appeals, seem plainly to be the 
 later Rabbins, and probably those who lived at the pe- 
 riod when the passages were written, which we are now 
 examining. 
 
 A few other citations only, from the same Talmud, 
 will be necessary ; as all which can be required is, that 
 confirmation should be given to the idea, that the au- 
 thors of the Talmud in question were familiarly ac- 
 quainted with proselyte baptism. 
 
 Wetstein has collected a larger mass of these testi- 
 monies than I have elsewhere found, except in Danz ; 
 and in him they are much less select, and often little 
 or nothing to the purpose. From those of Wetstein, I 
 select the following, as being abundantly sufficient for 
 my purpose. 
 
 In his Nov. Test, ad Matt. 3 : 6, they stand thus : 
 Talm. Babylon. Tract. Ketabhoth, fol. 11. 1, Rabbi 
 Hanina said: Let them hajptize a little child who is a 
 
132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 proselyte, according to the opinion of the Elders." 
 Tract. Jebamoth, Talmud Hierosol. fol. 8. 4, " Eabbi 
 Hezekiah said : Behold, he finds an infant cast away, 
 and baptizes it in the name of a servant." But this case 
 is somewhat uncertain, as the baptism may not have 
 been altogether of a religious nature. Talmud. Hieros. 
 Berakhoth, fol. 6. 3, " In the days of Eabbi Joshua, 
 the son of Levi, they endeavoured to root out this im- 
 mersion (baptism), for the sake of the women of Galilee, 
 eo quod illse prse frigore sterilescerent." Talm. Bab. 
 Cherithuth fol 9. l f " Eab says : How was it that the 
 fathers did. not enter into the covenant, except by cir- 
 cumcision, baptism, and the sprinkling of blood ?" Ibid, 
 in Avoda Sara, fol. 57. 1, " Eabbi Simi, the son of Chaia 
 [says] : He who provides for himself Gentile servants, 
 who are circumcised, but not baptized ; or the sons of 
 female servants, who are circumcised, but not baptized ; 
 sputum et vestigium coram in platea est immundum. 
 . . . Proselytes do not enter into the' covenant except by 
 these three things, circumcision, baptism, and peace- 
 offering. Ibid. fol. 59. 5, et Jebamoth 46. 1, " Eabbi 
 Jochanan : Never shall any one be deemed a proselyte, 
 until he is baptized as well as circumcised ; for before 
 he is baptized he is regarded as a foreigner." Jebamoth 
 fol. 46. 2, " Eabbi Joseph says : If any one comes say- 
 ing, I am circumcised, but not baptized, let them see 
 that he is baptized. Eabbi Judah says : Baptism is 
 the principal thing." 
 
 These, and seyeral others of the same tenor, not only 
 from the Talmud, but from other Eabbinical works, such 
 as Bereshith Eabba, etc., the reader will find in a Latin 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 
 
 translation in Wetstein, as above cited ; lie will also 
 find some of them, and many others, usually accom- 
 panied by the original Hebrew and Chaldee, in the 
 work of Danz before alluded to, and contained in Meu- 
 chen's Nov. Test, ex Tdmude illustratum. 
 
 I have not thought it of sufficient importance to tran- 
 scribe the originals here ; for the amount of all the tes- 
 timonies from the Talmud, especially the Babylonish 
 Talmud, and the other works of the Eabbins, can be 
 but of small importance, in determining the question 
 concerning the antiquity of proselyte baptism. I con- 
 cede the point most fully and freely to all who may 
 desire it, that after the third century, if not sooner, this 
 baptism began to be very general among the Jews ; 
 and has been so ever since. Danz has given evidence 
 enough of this, in his chaotic mass of quotations ; and 
 so have Lightfoot, Selden, Wetstein, and many others. 
 
 But Wetstein has quoted one passage from the 
 Mishna, which, if correct, may be thought to be of im- 
 portance to our subject ; inasmuch as the Mishna is the 
 earliest of the Eabbinical writings on which we can 
 place any dependence. Wetstein (Nov. Test. I. p. 260) 
 quotes thus : "Semachotk, Mishna vii. Si non vult fieri 
 proselyta ; sed si vult proselyta fieri, baptized earn, et 
 libertatem illi donat, et statim est licita." I have look- 
 ed in vain for this passage in the Mishna ; for there is 
 not such a title to any of its treatises as Wetstein here 
 names. I do not deny that the passage exists in the 
 Mishna ; but if it does, it must be found in some other 
 way than through the medium of Wetstein. Even if 
 it exists there, it would be difficult to show, that by 
 
134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the baptism in question, is meant a proselyte baptism 
 of initiation. 
 
 The reader has before him the substance of the testi- 
 mony in respect to the antiquity of the baptism of pros- 
 elytes, so far as it has been developed from Rabbinic 
 sources. Appeals, however, have been made to two 
 passages in heathen writers, of which some notice must 
 here be taken. 
 
 Tacitus, who died about A. D. 100, speaking of cer- 
 tain persons (Hist. Y. 5), says : " Transgressi in morem 
 Judaeorum, idem usurpant, nee quidquam prius imbu- 
 untur, quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam," etc. i. e., 
 Going over to the Jewish manner of life, they practise the 
 same thing ; nor are they IMBUED with any thing sooner 
 than to despise the gods, to renounce their country, etc. 
 Or this last phrase may be thus translated: Nor are 
 they imbued, before they despise the gods, renounce their 
 country, etc. In the preceding sentence, Tacitus speaks 
 of circumcision as practiced by the Jews, that they may 
 be distinguished from others. Hence, Trangressi in- 
 morem Judaeorum, idem usurpaiit, must mean, that 
 those who become proselytes to Judaism, do the same 
 thing, viz., practise circumcision ; and by this they be- 
 come Jews. What follows seems to me plainly to re- 
 late to the doctrines or principles with which they are 
 imbued, and not to the baptism which may be prac- 
 tised. 
 
 The passage in the Epictetus of Arrian (who flour- 
 ished in the first part of the second century), Lib. II. c. 
 9, is still more obscure. It runs thus : " Why dost 
 thou call thyself a Stoic ? Why dost thou deceive the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 135 
 
 multitude ? Why dost thou, being a Jew, play the 
 hypocrite with the Greek ? Dost thou not see how any 
 one is called a Jew, how a Syrian, how an Egyptian ? 
 And when we see any one acting with both parties, we 
 are wont to say : He is no Jew, but he plays the hypo- 
 crite. But when dvaXdfin to irddog tov j3e[3a[iiJ,tvov aal 
 hpr\\ievov, he takes on him the state and feelings (nddoc) of 
 one who is WASHED or baptized (f3ej3afip:evov) and has 
 attached himself to the sect, then he is in truth, and is 
 called, a Jew. But we are -napa^aix-iarai- transgressors 
 as to our baptism, or falsely baptized, if we are like a 
 Jew in pretence, and something else in reality," etc. 
 A great variety of opinions have been given on this 
 passage. Some think that Arrian here refers to Chris- 
 tians ; but I see no good ground for such a supposition. 
 De Wette says, Opusc. p. 64, that " the passage is too 
 obscure to collect any thing certain from it." One 
 thing, however, seems to me certain ; viz., that the pas- 
 sage does not refer simply to a Gentile proselyte be- 
 coming a Jew, but marks what the Jew was accustom- 
 ed to practise. I can scarcely doubt, that the writer 
 refers to the Jewish ablutions, so often demanded by 
 the ritual law, and so often practised by the Hebrews. 
 It is more difficult to make out the meaning of vpr)[ievov : 
 which is coupled with (3ej3a[ifj,evov. The Middle voice 
 of alpeoj means to choose, to prefer; and as vpv^vov is 
 both of the Passive and Middle form, it may have here 
 an Active sense, and may mean, as I have translated 
 it, attached himself to a sect, i. e., become one of the aipeaig 
 or sect. Paulus, Comm. I. p. 283, has endeavoured to 
 explain away the force of the whole passage ; and Dc 
 
136 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 "Wette has followed in his steps, as is stated above. 
 Bauer (Gottesdienstl. Verfassung, II. p. 390) has treated 
 this question more fairly ; but he suggests, that /3e/3a//- 
 \levov may probably refer to a Christian, whom Arrian 
 confounds with a Jew, as early heathen writers were 
 wont to do. The context does not seem to allow of 
 this construction. On the whole, I concede this to be 
 a difficult and obscure passage, in some respects. The 
 rb Ttadog rov (3e(3ajj.fievov ical qprjfievov, is certainly a pe- 
 culiar Greek phrase ; yet, if we construe it in whatever 
 way is fairly possible, I think Ave cannot make out 
 from it any degree of certainty, that Pepafifievov refers 
 to proselyte baptism. 
 
 Another passage, found in Josephus, has also been 
 appealed to, which states the custom of the Essenes in 
 regard to # the reception of proselytes among them ; Bel. 
 Jud. 11. 8. 7, or p. 786 of the Cologne edition. It runs 
 thus : " To those who are desirous of joining their sect, 
 immediate access is not afforded ; but they prescribe to 
 each their own peculiar manner of living for one year 
 while he remains without . . . And when he has given 
 proof of his temperance for such a time, he secures ad- 
 mission to their meals, itai tcadapurspov tiov npoc dyveiav 
 vdaToiv nETaXafifidvei, and is made partaker of those 
 purer waters which are designed for purification ;" i. e., 
 he is washed with water before he sits down at the table 
 with them. But so were the Essenes themselves, as is 
 stated in another and preceding part of the same chapter 
 in Josephus. His words are : " Labouring strenuously 
 [at their usual occupation] until the fifth hour, they 
 then assemble together in one place, and girding them- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 137 
 
 selves with linen towels, they wash the body in cold wa- 
 ter ; and after this purification, they enter each his own 
 house, .... and being purified, they assemble at the 
 supper-hall, as a kind of sacred temple." Bell. Jud. II. 
 7. or 8. 5. Nothing more, then, was required of the 
 converts to Essenism than was demanded of those who 
 already belonged to this sect. Nor, indeed, is it at 
 all correct to assume that the bathing specified above 
 was a token of admission in full to the communion of 
 theEssenes; for, as the context tells us, "he [the new 
 convert] is not yet received into their society (ov/i- 
 fliuoeig), for after exhibiting his power of self-restraint 
 [for one year], his moral behaviour is put to the test 
 for two years more." Ibid. The initiatory rite of bap- 
 tism, then, as practised by John the Baptist, or by the 
 disciples of Christ, does not seem to be deduced from 
 the practice of the Essenes. The ablutions of the Jews 
 in general were quite as obvious a source of this rite as 
 the custom of that sect. 
 
 Thus much for Babbinic and other external testi- 
 mony in regard to the antiquity of the baptismal rite 
 among the Jews. Nothing from the heathen writers 
 or Josephus seems in any degree to confirm this an- 
 tiquity. From the Babbinic writers all that we can 
 gather is, that sometime in the latter part of the third 
 century, when the Jerusalem Talmud was written, the 
 custom of baptizing proselytes was common ; still more 
 so did it become during the times when the Babylonian 
 Talmud was written, i. e., from the commencement of 
 the fifth century onward, some two hundred or more 
 years. I must except, however, the testimony of the 
 
138 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Mishna from the above remarks. This has been made 
 light of by some, or explained away by rendering iaia 
 washed, chansed ; but I cannot help the feeling, that 
 impartiality in weighing testimony forbids this. 
 
 On the whole we must admit, that, independently of 
 the Scriptures, we have evidence which ought to satisfy 
 us, that at the commencement of the third century the 
 custom of proselyte baptism was known and practised 
 among the Jews ; and if the case of the Roman soldiers, 
 related in the Jerusalem Talmud in Cod. Pesachim, fol. 
 36. b., as stated above, be truly represented, then, even 
 while the temple was standing, proselyte baptism must 
 have been practised. But some degree of uncertainty al- 
 ways hangs over Talmudic stories. There are so many 
 narrations in the Talmud which are gross mistakes and 
 ridiculous conceits, that one hardly feels himself safe 
 in trusting to any of its statements respecting facts that 
 happened long before the period when this book was 
 written. We may, however, venture to believe, I think 
 safely, that we have sufficient evidence of the fact, that 
 such baptism was practised at, or not long after, the time 
 lohen the second temple was destroyed. 
 
 But we shall be reminded here that many writers 
 have considered the Bible itself as determining our 
 question — yea, determining that not only proselytes 
 from the heathen were admitted by baptism to the 
 Jewish communion, but that the whole congregation of 
 Israel, at Mount Sinai, were admitted into covenant with 
 God by virtue of the same rite. Such writers appeal 
 to Ex. 19 : 10, scp But this shows only that the people 
 were to wash their clothes, a thins which the whole ritual 
 
CIIMSTIAN BAPTISM. 139 
 
 of Moses plainly distinguishes from washing or bap- 
 tizing the body, as may be seen in the account of the 
 ritual ablution given above, p. 80G, sq. They appeal 
 also to Ps. 114 : 1, 2 ; Ezek. 16 : 9 ; 20 : 12 ; 1 Cor. 
 10 : 2, as serving to confirm the idea that the Jews 
 were admitted to the covenant by baptism. But I am 
 unable to discern in these passages of Scripture the 
 traces of an argument which can establish this. 
 
 An appeal of a more specious nature is made to the 
 narration in John 1 : 19-28. The messengers of the 
 Pharisees, who were sent to make inquiries of John the 
 Baptist, asked him, " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou 
 be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ?" 
 These two latter individuals their traditionary inter- 
 pretation of the Scriptures had connected with the 
 coming of the Messiah. The manner of the question 
 does obviously seem to imply that they expected, of 
 course, the Messiah himself and his two coadjutors, 
 Elijah and the prophet, to baptize those whom they 
 should receive as disciples. But does this imply that 
 proselyte baptism was already in use ? So it has been 
 thought and said. Yet I cannot see how this follows 
 of necessity. Nay, I must even say that the necessary 
 implication seems directly the contrary. What was the 
 initiatory rite which they expected under a dispensa- 
 tion that, even in their own view, was to be new, and 
 very different in many respects from the former one ? 
 Was it to be a new rite, a distinctive sign, or was it to 
 be merely the continuation of an old practice already in 
 common usage ? The former surely seems to be the 
 most natural and probable. Indeed, the manner of the 
 
140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 question put to John absolutely forbids the idea that 
 those who put it considered baptism as a rite in com- 
 mon use. The necessary implication is, that unless 
 John were either the Messiah, or Elijah, or the prophet, 
 he could have no right to baptize. How could this be 
 said with any good degree of force or congruity in 
 case the same kind of baptism which John practised 
 was a matter of common usage ? An appeal to this 
 text, then, serves rather to confirm the opinion oppo- 
 site to that for the support of which the appeal is made. 
 
 In fine, we are destitute of any early testimony to 
 the practice of proselyte baptism antecedently to the 
 Christian era. The original institution of admitting 
 Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, pre- 
 scribed no other rite than that of circumcision. No ac- 
 count of any other is found in the Old Testament; 
 none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of 
 Onkelos, Jonathan, Joseph the Blind, or in the work 
 of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, 
 whose work belongs to the 7th or 8th century. No 
 evidence is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the 
 earlier Christian writers. How could an allusion to 
 such a rite have escaped them all if it were as common 
 and as much required by usage as circumcision ? 
 
 The baptism of John and of Jesus, then, I must re- 
 gard as being a special appointment of Heaven. So 
 the intimation seems to be in John 1 : 33 ; Luke 3 : 2, 
 3 ; 7 : 30 ; and especially in Matt. 21 : 24-27. In this 
 latter passage, Jesus evidently means to imply that the 
 baptism of John was from heaven; and so the Jewish 
 people regarded it, v. 26. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 141 
 
 That we cannot point out the exact time when pros- 
 elyte baptism began among the Jews, is little to the 
 purpose of those who hold to its great antiquity ; for 
 where are the monuments which show how and when 
 many a rite began which came into general reception 
 in the churches of Christ in the third, fourth, and fifth 
 centuries ? Nor can I think, with, many writers, that 
 there is any thing mysterious in respect to the adoption 
 of such a rite by the Jewish churches. How obvious 
 the idea that a heathen man who came over to the Jew- 
 ish churches was unclean in his heathen state ! And 
 what could be more natural than to require ablution of 
 him, especially when the days of Pharisaic superstition 
 were fully come ? The Eabbins tell us that circum- 
 cision, baptism, and oblation, were all necessary to his 
 initiation. How, then, could the baptism of John or 
 Jesus, which was the sole initiatory rite, be derived 
 from the proselyte baptism of the Jews ? 
 
 Besides all this, when a proselyte was once baptized 
 and received, this rite was at an end. His children 
 born after his reception were no more required to be 
 baptized than those of the native Jews. "What paral- 
 lel, then, can be drawn between Christian and prose- 
 lyte baptism ? 
 
 Dr. Owen expresses his opinion that the Eabbins in- 
 troduced proselyte baptism in imitation of the popular 
 baptism of John ; Theologium. Lib. Y. Digr. 4. So 
 thinks Carpzov, also, in his Apparat. Criticus, p. 48. 
 Improbable, I think, this cannot be called, and par- 
 ticularly in connection with the many ceremonial ablu- 
 tions of the Jews, it cannot be so deemed. 
 
142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 That the Jews of our Saviour's time entertained the 
 idea that he would baptize his disciples, may be well 
 accounted for without resorting to the supposition that 
 proselyte baptism was already practised. Let the reader 
 consult Isa. 12 : 3 ; 44 : 3 ; Ezek. 36 : 25 ; Zech. 13 : 1, 
 and he will easily see how the Jews might have formed 
 an opinion that the Messiah would baptize his disci* 
 pies. But be this at it may, or be the origin of prose- 
 lyte baptism as it may, I cannot see that there is any 
 adequate evidence for believing that it existed contem- 
 porarily with the baptism of John and of Jesus. 
 
 But what has all this to do with the question, What 
 was the ancient mode of Christian baptism ? Much ; 
 for it is on all hands conceded, that so far as the testi- 
 mony of the Eabbins can decide such a point, the bap- 
 tism of proselytes among the Jews was by immersion. 
 To cite authorities to this purpose is needless. They 
 may be seen in Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 269 ; in Danz 
 (Meuschen Nov. Test, etc.), p. 283, and elsewhere. It 
 is, therefore, a matter of no little interest, so far as our 
 question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian bap- 
 tism had its origin from the proselyte baptism of the 
 Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this 
 result, viz., that there is no certainty that such teas the 
 a/sv, but that the probability, on the ground of evidence, is 
 si rung against it. 
 
 § 8. Mode of Baptism in tin' early Christ inn Churches. 
 IV. We come now to inquire, What was the mode of 
 baptism practised hy tin- churches in the early ages of 
 Christianity, and AFTER the times of the apostles ? 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 143 
 
 Here we may anticipate something more definite and 
 clear than we have yet been able to find, and conse- 
 quently this topic of inquiry becomes important to our 
 purpose. It is not my intention here to make a very 
 copious selection of testimonies. An appropriate num- 
 ber, well chosen and from good authorities, will satisfy 
 the reasonable desires of every intelligent reader. 
 
 In the writings of the apostolic fathers, so called, i. e., 
 the writers of the first century, or, at least, those who 
 lived in part during this century, scarcely any thing of 
 a definite nature occurs respecting baptism, either in a 
 doctrinal or ritual respect. It is, indeed, frequently 
 alluded to ; but this is usually in a general way only. 
 We can easily gather from these allusions that the rite 
 was practised in the church ; but we are not able to 
 determine, with precision, either the manner of the rite 
 or the stress that was laid upon it. 
 
 In the Pastor of Hernias, however, occurs one pas- 
 sage (Coteler. Patr. Apostol. I., p. 119, sq.), which runs 
 as follows : " But this seal [of the sons of God] is 
 water, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, into 
 which men descend who are bound to death, but those 
 ascend who are destined to life. To them that seal is 
 disclosed, and they make use of it that they may enter 
 the kingdom of God." 
 
 One would naturally expect something definite from 
 Justin Martyr. But in his Dialogue with Trypho the 
 Jew nothing of this nature occurs. He compares bap- 
 tism with circumcision, and speaks of it as an initiatory 
 ceremony, but says nothing specific concerning the 
 manner of the rite. In his Apology, however (Opp. 
 
144 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Pat. I., p. 210, ed. Obertliur), a passage occurs which 
 deserves our attention. Speaking of converts to Christ- 
 ianity, or those who become believers, he says : " They 
 are led out by us to the place where there is water, . . . and 
 in the name of the Father of the universe, the Lord 
 God, and of the Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 
 Spirit, to vdari Xovrpov Troiovvrai, they wash themselves 
 ivith water . . . rovrov Xovoopsvov dyovreg elg rb Xovrpov, 
 leading him who is to be washed to the bath or washing 
 place ... he who is enlightened Xoverai, is washed, or 
 washes himself." It is remarkable here that the verb 
 Xovojiai is employed throughout this passage, which is 
 used by the Greeks to designate washing the body. But 
 this may be done by bathing, by simple ablution, or by 
 immersion. Immersion may, of course, be washing, 
 although washing is not, by any means, always the 
 same as immersion. The greater includes the less, but 
 the less does not include the greater. I am persuaded 
 that this passage, as a whole, most naturally refers to 
 immersion ; for why, on any other ground, should the 
 convert who is to be initiated go out .to the place where 
 there is water 1 There could be no need of this if mere 
 sprinkling, or partial affusion only, was customary in 
 the time of Justin. 
 
 Tertullian, who died in A. D. 220, is the most ample 
 witness of all the early writers. In his works is an 
 essay in defence of Christian baptism, which had been 
 assailed by some of the heretics of his time. Passing 
 by the multitude of expressions which speak of the im- 
 portance of being cleansed by water, being born in the 
 water, etc., I quote only such as are directly to the point. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 145 
 
 In § 2 lie speaks of a baptized person, as " in aquam de- 
 missus, let down into the water, i. e., immersed, and inter 
 pauca verba tinctus, i. e., dipped between the utterance 
 of a few words ;" by which latter expression he means 
 the repetition of the baptismal formula by the priest 
 while he was performing the act. « 
 
 In § 4 is a passage which seems to convey a still 
 more definite sense. He is speaking of the original 
 waters at the time of the creation having been made a 
 sanctified clement by the influence of the Spirit of God 
 upon them, from which he goes on to argue the sancti- 
 fying influence of baptismal water. But some will ob- 
 ject, he says, that " we are not dipped (tinguimur) in 
 those waters which were at the beginning." His reply 
 is, that all water is a species of that genus, and that the 
 species must have the same quality with the genus. 
 He then proceeds : "There is, then, no difference 
 whether any one is washed in a pool, river, fountain, 
 lake, or channel, alveus, (canal ?) nor is there any dif- 
 ference of consequence between those whom John im- 
 mersed (tinxit) in the Jordan, or Peter in the Tiber." 
 Here, then, we have, in a very clear passage, the usual 
 elements named in which baptism was performed. It 
 was done at or in some stream, pool, or lake. What 
 other good reason for this can be given, excepting that 
 immersion was practised ? 
 
 In § 6 he says : " Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit 
 in aquis [i. e., in the baptismal water], but being cleansed 
 in the water (in aqua emundati), we are prepared for 
 the Holy Spirit," § 7. " Afterwards, going out from 
 the ablution or bath (lavacro), we are anointed," etc. 
 
146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 In § 11 and the sequel, he very often makes use of 
 the Latin word lingo in order to express the Greek 
 word PaTrrifa. In § 16 he speaks of those who had 
 been baptized, as being those qui aqua lavarentur, who 
 are washed with water ; and again, qui aqua lavissent. 
 
 In his Itook against Praxeas, § 26, sub fine, he says : 
 " Not once, but thrice, according to the several names 
 [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost], are we baptized (tin- 
 guimur) into the several persons." The reader is de- 
 sired to note here, and in other passages which will be 
 cited in the sequel, that the practice of trine immersion, 
 i. e., of plunging three times into the water, in cor- 
 respondence with the names of the Godhead as they 
 occur in the formula of baptism, was usual at so early 
 a period as the time of Tertullian ; how much earlier 
 we have no certain testimony, at least none that I am 
 acquainted with. Tertullian himself, however, seems 
 to have regarded this trim immersion as something su- 
 peradded to the precepts of the gospel ; for thus he 
 speaks in his book De Corona Militis, § 3 : " Thence 
 we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answering, 
 i. e., fulfilling somewhat more (amplius aliquid respon- 
 dentes) than the Lord has decreed in the gospel." 
 
 I do not see how any doubt can well remain, that in 
 Tertullian's time the practice of the African church, to 
 say the least, as to the mode of baptism, must have 
 been that of trine immersion. 
 
 Subsequent ages make the general practice of the 
 church still plainer, if, indeed, this can be done. The 
 Greek words Karadvu and Karddvoig were employed as 
 expressive of baptizing and baptism, and these words 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 147 
 
 mean going down into the water, or immerging. So in 
 the following examples : 
 
 Chrysostom, Homil. 40 in 1 Cor. i. : " To be bap- 
 tized, and to submerge (itaTadveodai), then to emerge 
 (dvaveveiv), is a symbol of descent to the grave, and of 
 ascent from it." Ambrose, Lib. II. c. 7, de Sacramentis : 
 " You were asked, Dost thou believe in God Almighty ? 
 Thou saidst, I believe; and thus thou wast immerged 
 (mersisti), that is, thou wast buried." Augustine, 
 Homil. IV., as cited by Gratian in P. III. Decretor. de 
 Consecrat. Distinct. IV. Can. 76, " After you professed 
 your belief, three times did we submerge (demersimus) 
 your heads in the sacred fountain." Was it the head 
 only ? Or did he mean to include with it the whole 
 body ? Every now and then passages of this nature 
 occur, which lead one to suspect that total immersion 
 was not uniform in the early church. But that it was 
 usual, seems to be clearly indicated by Dionysius Areop. 
 de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2, " Properly t\ 8C vda<roc 6/Uk?) 
 ndXvTptg, the total covering by water, is taken from an 
 image of death and burial out of sight." So the Coun- 
 cil of Toletan: " For immersion in the water is like a 
 descent to the grave ; and again, emersion from the 
 water (ab aquis emersio) is a resurrection." 
 
 The passages which refer to immersion are so nu- 
 merous in the fathers, that it would take a little volume 
 merely to recite them. Let the reader duly weigh the 
 following ones : 
 
 Gregory Nyssen, De Baptismo Christi, " Coming into 
 water, the kindred element of earth, we hide ourselves 
 in it, as the Saviour did in the earth : and doing this 
 
148 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 three times," etc. Basil, de Spiritu, c. 15, "By the 
 three immersions (ev rpcal rale Karadvoeoi), and by the 
 like number of invocations, the great mystery of bap- 
 tism is completed." Damascenus, Orthodox. Fides IV. 
 10, "Baptism is a type of the death of Christ ; for by 
 three immersions (Karadvoeuv) baptism signifies," etc. 
 So the Apostolical Constitutions (probably written in 
 the fourth century), Lib. III. c. 17, " Immersion (tta- 
 rddvoig) denotes dying with him [Christ] ; emersion 
 (dvddvoig), a resurrection with Christ." Photius (apud 
 Oecumenium) on Eom. vi., " The three immersions and 
 emersions (Karadvoeig teal dvadvoeig) of baptism signify 
 death and resurrection." Quest, apud Athanasium, 
 Qu. 94, "To immerse (Karadvoai) a child three times hi 
 the bath (or pool), and to emerse him (dvadvaai), this 
 shows the death," etc. Chrysostom, in cap. hi. Johan- 
 nis, " We, as in a sepulchre, immersing (KaradvovTuv) 
 our heads in water, the old man is buried, and sinking 
 down (KaradvgKdro)), the whole is concealed at once ; then 
 as we emerge, the new man again rises." Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem, Catech. 17, "For as he that goes down into the 
 water and is baptized, is surrounded on all sides with 
 water, so the apostles were baptized all over by the 
 Spirit. The water surrounds the body externally, but 
 the Spirit incomprehensibly baptizes the soul within." 
 Jerome, Advers. Lucif. c. 4, " Many other things which 
 are observed in churches by tradition, have usurped to 
 themselves the authority of the written law [of the 
 Scriptures] ; such as in lavacro ter caput mergitare, to 
 immerse the head three times in the bath. Id. Comm. in 
 Eph. ivi, "Three times are we immcrged, that the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 149 
 
 mystery," etc. Augustine, in Decreto Gratiani deCon- 
 secrat. Distinc. IV. 78, " Rightly are ye immerged 
 three times, who have received baptism in jfche name of 
 Christ, ... for that thrice repeated submersion (demer- 
 sio) expresses a resemblance of the Lord's burial," etc. 
 
 But enough. "It is," says Augusti (Denkw. VII., 
 p. 216), " a thing made out," viz., the ancient practice 
 of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have 
 thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know 
 of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be 
 more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible 
 for any candid man who examines the subject to deny 
 this. 
 
 That there were cases of exception allowed, now and 
 then, is, no doubt, true. Persons in extreme sickness 
 or danger were allowed baptism by affusion, etc. Cy- 
 prian pleads strongly and conclusively for this in his 
 epistle to Magnus, Ep. 76 (al 69). The Council of 
 Neo-Csesarea, Euseb. Lib. VI. c. 43 ; and so the Coun- 
 cil of Laodicea, Can. 47, sanction such baptisms. The 
 Acta Laurentii, apud Surium Tom. IV., mention a Ro- 
 man soldier who was baptized by Laurence with a pitcher 
 of water ; and the same person also baptized Lucillus 
 by pouring water upon his head. But all such cases 
 Avere manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common 
 usage of the church. 
 
 If the testimony already adduced should not be suf- 
 ficient to satisfy any reasonable person, he may con- 
 sider one circumstance more, which must be decisive. 
 This is, that all candidates for baptism, men, women, 
 and infants, were completely divested of all their gar- 
 
150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ments in order to be baptized. Eevolting as this cus- 
 tom was, yet it is as certain as testimony can make it. 
 
 Thus, Chrysostom (Horn. 6 in Coloss.), speaking of 
 baptism, says : " Men were as naked as Adam, . . . but 
 with this difference, Adam was naked because he had 
 sinned, but in baptism a man was naked that he might 
 be freed from sin." So Ambrose, Serm. X., "Naked 
 were we born into the world ; naked came we to the 
 baptismal font. . . . How absurd, then, that he whom 
 his mother brought forth naked, the church received 
 naked, should enter heaven with riches!" Cyril of 
 Jerusalem testifies the same thing, Catech. Myst. 2, 
 " As soon as ye came into the baptistery, ye put off 
 your clothes, . . . and being thus divested, ye stood 
 naked, imitating Christ, who was naked upon the cross. 
 . . . O wonderful thing ! ye were naked in the sight of 
 men, and were not ashamed; in this truly imitating 
 the first man, Adam, who was naked in paradise, and 
 was not ashamed." 
 
 One testimony more may suffice. Chrysostom, in 
 describing the violent proceedings of his enemies against 
 him, on the great Sabbath [before Easter], says : " They 
 came armed into the church, and by violence expelled 
 the clergy, killing many in the baptistery ; by which 
 the women, who were at that time unclothed, in order 
 to be baptized, were put into such a fright that they 
 fled away naked, and could not stay, in their terror, to 
 put on such clothes as the modesty of the sex required." 
 
 Enough of this most unaccountable of all the prac- 
 tices of the ancient church. I am ready to thank God 
 for the honour of the Christian religion, that the New 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 
 
 Testament contains no intimation of such a usage ; nor 
 even any of the earlier fathers. How it was possible 
 that it could prevail, is a problem difficult of solution. 
 I know well that the manners of ancient times rendered 
 such tilings less scandalous than they would now be 
 among us. But who needs to be told, that nothing but 
 ignorance or superstition, to make the very best of the 
 case, could ever have adopted and continued such a 
 shameful practice. 
 
 Still, say what Ave may concerning it in a moral 
 point of view, the argument to be deduced from it, in 
 respect to immersion, is not at all diminished. Nay, it 
 is strengthened. For if such a violation of decency 
 was submitted to, in order that baptism might be per- 
 formed as the church thought it should be, it argues 
 that baptizing by immersion was considered as a rite 
 not to be dispensed with. 
 
 • The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental 
 church has always continued to preserve, even down to 
 the present time ; see Allatii de Eccles. Orient, et Oc- 
 cident. Lib. III. c. 12. § 4 ; Acta et Script. Thel. Wir- 
 temb. et Patriarch. Constant. Jer. p. 63, p. 238, sq. 
 Christ. Anguii Enchirid. de Statu hodierno Graecor. 
 cap. 24 ; Augusti, Denkwurd. VII. p. 266, sq. The 
 members of this church are accustomed to call the 
 members of the western churches, sprinkled Christians, 
 by way of ridicule and contempt ; Walch's Einleit. in 
 die relig. Streitigkeiten, Th. V. pp. 476-481. They 
 maintain that fiairrifa can mean nothing but immerge; 
 and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as 
 immersion by aspersion ; and they claim to themselves 
 
152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the honour of having preserved the ancient sacred rite 
 of the church free from change and from corruption, 
 which would destroy its signiflcancy ; see Alex, de 
 Stourdza, Considerations sur la Doctrine et 1' Esprit de 
 1' Eglise Orthodoxe, Stuttg. 1816, pp. 83-89. 
 
 F. Brenner, a Eoman Catholic writer, has recently 
 published a learned work, which contains a copious 
 history of usages in respect to the baptismal rite ; viz., 
 Geschichtliche Darstellung der Yerrichtung der Taufe, 
 etc. 1818. I have not seen the work ; but it is spoken 
 of highly, on account of the diligence and learning 
 which the author has exhibited in his historical details. 
 The result of them respecting the point before us, I 
 present, as given by Augusti, Denkwiird. VII. p. 68. 
 
 " Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and 
 ordinarily performed by the immersion of a man under 
 water ; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling 
 or affusion permitted. These latter methods of bap- 
 tism were called in question, and even prohibited." 
 Brenner adds : " For sixteen hundred years was the 
 person to be baptized, either by immersion or affusion, 
 entirely divested of his garments." 
 
 These results will serve to show what a»-Eoman Cath- 
 olic writer feels himself forced by historical facts to 
 allow, in direct contradiction to the present practice of 
 his own church ; which nowhere practices immersion, 
 except in the churches of Milan ; it being everywhere 
 else even forbidden. 
 
 In the work of John Floyer on Cold Bathing, p. 50, 
 it is mentioned, that the English church practised im- 
 mersion down to the beginning of the seventeenth cen- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 153 
 
 tur j ; when a change to the method of sprinkling grad- 
 ually took place. As a confirmation of this, it may- 
 be mentioned, that the first Liturgy, in 1547, enjoins a 
 trine immersion, in case the child is not sickly ; Au- 
 gust!, ut sup. p. 229. 
 
 We have collected facts enough to authorize us now 
 to come to the following general conclusion, respecting 
 the practice of the Christian church in general, with 
 regard to the mode of baptism, viz., that from the ear- 
 liest ages of which we have any account, subsequent 
 to the apostolic age, and downward for several centu- 
 ries, the churches did generally practise baptism by 
 immersion ; perhaps by immersion of the ivhole person ; 
 and that the only exceptions to this mode which were 
 usually allowed, were in cases of urgent sickness or 
 other cases of immediate and imminent danger, where 
 immersion could not be practised. 
 
 It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion and 
 affusion, which had in particular cases been now and 
 then practised in primitive times, were gradually intro- 
 duced. These became at length, as we shall see here- 
 after, quite common, and in the western church almost 
 universal, sometime before the Eeformation. 
 
 In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ, 
 from a very early period, to say the least, understand 
 the word $a-mic,u in the New Testament? Plainly 
 they construed it as meaning immersion. They some- 
 times even went so far as to forbid any other method 
 of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and 
 mercy only excepted. 
 
 I£ then, we are left in doubt after a philological in- 
 7* 
 
154: CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 vestigation of fiaTrriga, how much, it necessarily im- 
 plies ; if the circumstances which are related as accom- 
 panying this rite, so far as the New Testament has 
 given them, leave us still in doubt ; if we cannot trace 
 with any certainty the Jewish proselyte baptism to a 
 period as early as the baptism of John and Jesus, so as 
 to draw any inferences with probability from this ; still 
 we are left in no doubt as to the more generally re- 
 ceived usage of the Christian church, down to a period 
 several centuries after the apostolic age. 
 
 That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were 
 familiar with the Greek, understood, the usual import 
 of the word Panri.^ would hardly seem to be capable 
 of a denial. That they might be confirmed in their 
 view of the import of this word, by common usage 
 among the Greek classic authors, we have seen in the 
 first part of this dissertation. 
 
 For myself, then, I cheerfully admit, that /3a7rr/£a> in 
 the New Testament, when applied to the rite of bap- 
 tism, does in all probability involve the idea, that this 
 rite was usually performed by immersion, but not al- 
 ways. I say usually and not always ; for to say more 
 than this, the tenor of some of the narrations, particu- 
 larly in Acts 10 : 47, 48 ; 16 : 32, 33, and 2 : 41, seem 
 to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples, with- 
 out the distinct conviction that immersion was not prac- 
 tised on these occasions, but washing or affusion. 
 
 For the satisfaction of the reader, I add here a word 
 respecting the manner in which the author of the 
 Peshito, an old Syriac version of the New Testament, 
 has rendered the word fta^ri^o). 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 155 
 
 This version is the oldest of all the translations of 
 the New Testament that are extant ; for in all proba- 
 bility it should be dated during the first half of the sec- 
 ond century. Withal, it is admitted by those who 
 are able to consult it, to be one of the most faithful and 
 authentic of all the ancient versions. 
 
 How does this translate the word in question ?. Only 
 and always by ^v^ which corresponds (in point of 
 form) to the Hebrew -jay, the Chaldee lto*, and the same 
 word in the Arabic. This is a very remarkable cir- 
 cumstance; for the Syriac has a word-, ^a^j ^ e tne 
 Chaldee 22:2 and the corresponding Hebrew 3>5t3 . which 
 means to plunge, dip, immerse, etc. See in Mich. Syr. 
 Lex. sub voce. Why should it employ the word , sq^ 
 then (i. e,, i^s), in order to render fianri^ui ? In the 
 Old Testament it is employed in the like sense, only 
 in Num. 31 : 84. Elsewhere, the Hebrew )ao is ren- 
 dered vj 7 ^ , There is no analogy of kindred languages 
 to support the sense in question of the Syriac ,^. 
 The Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic, all agree in assign- 
 ing to the same word the sense of the Lat. stare, per- 
 stare,fulcire, roborare. It is hardly credible, that the 
 Syriac word could vary so much from all these lan- 
 guages, as properly to mean, immerse, dip, etc. 
 
 We come almost necessarily to the conclusion, then, 
 inasmuch as the Syriac has an appropriate word which 
 signifies to dip, plunge, immerse (\jfc * ), and yet it i s 
 never employed in the Peshito, that the translator did 
 not deem it important to designate any particular mode 
 of baptism, but only to designate the rite by a term 
 
156 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 which evidently appears to mean, confirm, establish, etc. 
 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. 
 
 We now come, after these philological and historical 
 investigations, to our main question. 
 
 § 9. Importance of the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 V. Is any particular mode of applying water in bap- 
 tism, essential to the performance of this rite ? 
 
 The advocates of immersion, in the Oriental church, 
 and elsewhere, sometimes make the appeal to the sixty 
 millions of Christians, who, as they affirm, preserve 
 this apostolic usage. But if an appeal to numbers be 
 argument, what shall we say to one hundred and fifty 
 millions, who practise sprinkling or affusion ? Even 
 the Eoman Catholic church, jealous as she is of ancient 
 usages, and tenacious of that which the ancient fathers 
 practised, retains immersion, as we have seen, only in 
 the churches of Milan, and inhibits it elsewhere. 
 
 What do these facts show ? They prove, at least, a 
 general conviction in the minds of Christians, that im- 
 mersion is not essential, nor even important. I need 
 not make the appeal to multitudes of writers, Catholic 
 and Protestant, who have often and fully expressed 
 this view of the subject. Calvin, Instit. IV. c. 15. 
 § 19, says : " It is of no consequence at all (minimum 
 refert), whether the person baptized is totally immersed, 
 qr whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of 
 water. This should be a matter of choice to the 
 churches in different regions ; although the word bap- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 157 
 
 tize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was 
 practised by the ancient church." 
 
 To this opinion I do most fully and heartily sub- 
 scribe ; not because it is Calvin's, nor because the great 
 majority of Christians have adopted it. I have other, 
 and I trust better, reasons than either of these ; and it 
 is proper that I should now give them. 
 
 1. The rite in question is merely external. I do not 
 deny, that the grace of the Spirit may be given, when 
 baptism is performed ; but I feel myself authorized to 
 say, that the rite itself does not sanctify; nor does the 
 administration of it secure the sanctifying influences of 
 the Spirit of God. The appeal in proof of this, is to 
 the millions of cases in which baptism has been ad- 
 ministered to persons who have shown themselves to 
 be utterly "destitute of sanctifying grace, by the whole 
 tenor, from first to last, of their lives and conversation. 
 It is not, then, the opus operatum, the rite itself as ad- 
 ministered by any Christian minister, which sanctifies, 
 or can sanctify, any individual. All that can with 
 truth be said here, is, that this rite, like any other mat- 
 ter which concerns religious ordinances, may be used 
 to a good purpose, or abused to a bad one. 
 
 • Whenever an enlightened Christian wishes to make 
 the inquiry, what is essential to his religion, should he 
 not instinctively open his Bible at John iv., and there 
 read thus: "Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye 
 shall worship the Father, neither in this mountain nor 
 yet at Jerusalem. . . . The hour cometh, and now is, 
 when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in 
 spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to wor- 
 
158 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ship ham. GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship 
 him must worship him IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH." 
 
 Here is the very foundation principle of all Christian 
 and all acceptable worship. God, who is himself a 
 Spirit, requires the homage of our spirits. All else is 
 nothing, while this is withheld ; and when this is given, 
 all else is circumstance, not essence. 
 
 I need not stop to prove positions so plain and cer- 
 tain as these. But. I may ask, Can the mode of bap- 
 tism, which in itself is only an external rite, enter into 
 the essentials of piety or true religion ? The mere mode 
 of an external rite essential to the. Christian religion ! 
 Does not the question answer itself to every mind that 
 has not gone over into some degree of Pharisaic super- 
 stition ? 
 
 2. But you will say, perhaps, that if the rite is to be 
 performed at all, it must be performed in the manner 
 which the New Testament enjoins. This leads me to 
 my second remark, viz., That no injunction is anywhere 
 given in the New Testament respecting the manner in 
 which this rite shall be performed. 
 
 If there be such a passage, let it be produced. This 
 cannot be done. But it will, doubtless, be said, that 
 " the manner of the rite is involved in the word itself 
 which is used to designate it ; and that, therefore, this 
 is as much a matter of command as the rite itself." 
 
 To this I answer, that it would prove a great deal too 
 much. I may illustrate this by a case, which is of a 
 parallel nature, and has respect to a rite of equal im- 
 portance ; I mean the Lord's Supper. " The original in- 
 stitution of this rite took place at the last passover, 
 
CIIRISTIAN BAPTISM. 159 
 
 which Jesus and his disciples celebrated in Jerusalem. 
 They were assembled in an upper room ; Luke 22 : 12. 
 They reclined upon the usual sofa or triclinium, on 
 which the ancients reposed at their meals ; John, 13 : 28, 
 25. It was night when they kept the feast ; John 13 : 30. 
 They kept it with unleavened bread, for no other was 
 found in the houses of the Jews, at the feast of the pass- 
 over ; Ex. 12 : 19. The wine which they drank was 
 that of Palestine — probably red wine. It was kept in 
 leathern bottles ; it was served in peculiar vessels. The 
 bread was made in a certain particular fashion. The 
 clothes of the guests were of a certain form. In a word, 
 all the circumstances of the occasion were, in some re- 
 spect or other, different from those which now accom- 
 pany the administration of the Lord's Supper. Yet 
 Jesus gave command respecting this ordinance in the 
 following manner : This do, in remembrance of me; 
 Luke 22 : 19, 20; 1 Cor. 11 : 24, 25. 
 
 I ask, now, all the advocates for the literal sense of 
 /3a7TTi^w, who urge upon the churches the original 
 mode of this rite, why they do not urge upon them, in 
 the same manner, and for the same reason, the literal 
 doing of what Christ commanded as to the sacrament ? 
 Is that ordinance, which is a symbol of the blood of 
 Jesus shed for the , remission of sins — of that blood 
 which taketh away sin, and without which there is no 
 salvation — is that ordinance of less significance and im- 
 portance than the rite of baptism? This cannot be 
 pretended. "Why, then, do you not plead for its cele- 
 bration by night ; and this, too, in a reclining posture, 
 in an upper chamber, with unleavened bread, with the 
 
160 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 dress, furniture, and attendance, that originally were 
 exhibited ? You regard not one of all these circum- 
 stances — not even a single one. How, then, do you 
 obey the command of Jesus, This do in remembrance 
 of me ? According to the tenor of your own exegesis, 
 you do not obey it — you cannot, while you do not lit- 
 erally imitate all these particulars. 
 
 But you say, I obey the substantial part of the com- 
 mand, viz., to partake of bread and wine, in grateful 
 remembrance of the death of Christ ; and this is all 
 which the nature of the case seems to require. The 
 symbol in question is really and truly exhibited, when 
 I celebrate the Lord's Supper in such a way that an 
 appropriate meaning is really and truly given to it. 
 The circumstances of place, time, position of the guests 
 at the table, dress, furniture of the table and room, and 
 other like things, are merely of a local and accidental 
 nature. They cannot make an essential part of the 
 symbolic representation ; for this consists merely in 
 using such elements of nourishment and refreshment 
 for the body, as will significantly and appropriately 
 symbolize the nourishment which he receives, who 
 spiritually "eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the 
 Son of Man." 
 
 I accede to the correctness of this answer. It con- 
 veys a sentiment which seems spontaneously to com- 
 mend itself to any one who has enlightened and spirit- 
 ual views of the Christian dispensation. I can go 
 even beyond the tenor of this answer, and say that, in 
 my apprehension, the sacrament would be really and 
 truly observed, if those elements of nourishment for the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 161 
 
 body which are the common and principal ones in any 
 place, should be made use of in lieu of bread and wine, 
 in case these could not be easily procured. The whole 
 symbolic instruction conveyed by the ordinance of the 
 Lord's Supper is this : What food and drink, repre- 
 sented by the more important articles of the same, are 
 to the body for its nourishment and support and com- 
 fort, that a crucified Saviour is to the soul, for its life 
 and preservation and comfort. Could not the inhab- 
 itants of a country, then, to whom it might not be pos- 
 sible to procure wheat-bread and wine when it was 
 proper to celebrate the Lord's Supper — might they not 
 employ other aliments, which would symbolize the 
 death of Christ, and the benefits of that death to the 
 believer, with the like significancy? How can we 
 doubt this, without adopting a principle, which must 
 necessarily, if we are consistent with ourselves, make 
 us the literal imitators of every thing, even of dress, 
 furniture, etc., which existed in the apostolic ages. 
 
 Look at the case of Iceland during that year in which 
 the island remained, for the whole summer, inclosed in 
 the floating ice that had been driven there from the 
 polar sea, and no access from abroad to the island was 
 possible, nor any egress from it. Might not the inhab- 
 itants of the island, reduced to live upon fish and wa- 
 ter, have celebrated the Lord's Supper acceptably upon 
 these elements ? Would it not have been as monitory 
 and significant to them as bread and wine, and as ac- 
 ceptable to him who instituted the feast ? The man 
 who doubts this, must believe in the mysterious and 
 miraculous virtue of the sacrament as an opus operatum. 
 
162 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 With such an one it is not my present purpose to con- 
 tend. Christians, as I must think, have reason to bless 
 God, that principles such as that man cherishes, are 
 fast vanishing away before the spreading light of the 
 Sun of Righteousness. 
 
 Let us return to the rite of baptism. What is it that 
 it signifies? Purification is the answer; and this is 
 the only scriptural and consistent answer that we can 
 give. So Paul seems to teach us : " Christ loved the 
 church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify 
 and cleanse it with the washing of water [baptism] by 
 the word ; that he might present it to himself a glori- 
 ous church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish;" 
 Eph. 5 : 25-27. "According to his mercy he saved 
 us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost," i. e., we are saved by that regeneration 
 or sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, of which 
 the washing with water is an emblem or symbol ; for 
 evidently the language of Paul is borrowed from this. 
 So again in Heb. 10 : 22, "Let us draw near [to God] 
 with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water;" where again the symbol, 
 i. e., the washing of the body with pure water, is joined 
 with the thing signified by it, viz., the having the 
 heart sprinkled, purified, from an evil conscience. 
 
 In accordance with all this, Peter likewise expresses 
 himself: "The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth 
 now save us ; not the putting off the filth of the flesh 
 [not the mere outward cleansing by baptismal water], 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 163 
 
 but the answer of a good conscience toward God," i. e., 
 our being purified so that we live with a good con- 
 science, or (as Paul expresses it) " sprinkled from an 
 evil conscience ;" 1 Pet. 3 : 21. 
 
 The Saviour himself has uttered the like sentiment : 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5; 
 i. e., he must not only be purified by baptismal water, 
 but he must be sanctified, regenerated, by the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 In all these and the like cases, it is perfectly clear 
 that baptism is considered as the symbol of purification 
 or sanctification. It is an emblem of that holiness and 
 purity of life which the Christian engages to exhibit, 
 and which the gospel requires ; it is significant of that 
 sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, which a Sa- 
 viour's death has procured, and without which all must 
 perish in their pollution. 
 
 Even in those controverted passages in Eom. 6 : 4, 
 5, and Col. 2 : 12, baptism is connected with the work 
 of the Spirit, and is significant of his influence. It is a 
 dying to sin and being raised to a new spiritual life, 
 which is prefigured by it. How greatly this has been 
 overlooked, and how much the import of baptism has 
 been estimated ' amiss, both in ancient and modern 
 times, in consequence of overlooking the plain and ob- 
 vious import of the baptismal rite, no one needs to be 
 told who has extensively examined this subject. 
 
 Why should baptism be made symbolical of the 
 death of Christ? All Jewish analogy is against it. 
 What were all the ablutions and sprinklings of the rit- 
 
164 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ual law designed to prefigure and to signify ? Most 
 obviously we must answer, 'purification. The Jew who 
 washed his body, or sprinkled it with holy water, was 
 taught by this the necessity that his soul should also 
 be made clean, in order that he might be an acceptable 
 worshipper of that God who is a Spirit, and seeks for 
 spiritual worshippers. How could any thing but his 
 ignorance or superstition overlook this ? Yet many a 
 Jew did overlook it, and trusted, as multitudes now do, 
 to the virtue of the external ordinance, to the opus 
 operatum, to save him. But neither "the blood of 
 goats nor bullocks, nor the ashes of a heifer sprinkling 
 the unclean," could do any more of themselves than 
 " purify the flesh ;" they were the mere emblems of a 
 higher and spiritual purification. 
 
 So it is with baptism. How could an intelligent and 
 spiritually-minded Jew ever have regarded this rite as 
 designed to prefigure the death and burial of Christ, 
 when there was not a single thing that bore any anal- 
 ogy to this, in all the ablutions prescribed by the ritual 
 law ; nothing even in all those prescribed by the su- 
 perstition of the Pharisees? The thing is in itself alto- 
 gether improbable. It is doubly so, when we take 
 into consideration those passages of the sacred writers 
 which I have quoted above, and which show the 
 views of Christ and of the apostles, as to the symbol- 
 ical meaning of baptism. 
 
 Under the ancient dispensation, the rites were di- 
 vided into two great classes, viz., those significant of 
 purity or purification, and those significant of atonement 
 for sin. Nothing could be more appropriate than this. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 165 
 
 Man needed the one and the other in order to find ac- 
 ceptance with God ; the one is the work of the Spirit, 
 and the other of the Saviour who redeemed us by his 
 blood. Is there, then, any change in the essential condi- 
 tions of salvation under the new dispensation ? None, 
 we must answer. Are not the significant symbols, then, 
 under the new dispensation, a summary of those which 
 existed under the old? The belief of this spontane- 
 ously forces itself upon my mind. The work of the 
 Spirit is still symbolized under the gospel ; and a Sa- 
 viour's blood is still represented. The one baptism 
 signifies ; the other is as plainly indicated by the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 Whither must we be carried, if we dissent from this 
 view of the subject, and maintain, with many of the 
 Christian fathers, and not a few of our brethren of the 
 present day, that baptism is a symbol of the death and 
 burial of Christ ? All analogy is against it ; for thus 
 the ancient dispensation was not arranged. The na- 
 ture of the thing itself is against it. Water, as exhib- 
 ited in washing, sprinkling, etc., is never an emblem of 
 death and the grave ; it is only the image of over- 
 whelming floods, or of mighty rushing streams, that is 
 appropriate to signify the work of destruction. • But 
 both of these are foreign to the rite of baptism. 
 
 Finally, the explanation of the apostles and of Jesus 
 himself, is clearly in favour of connecting baptism, as a 
 symbol, with the sanctifying influences of the Spirit of 
 God. The texts produced above, and which are so 
 plainly to this purpose, will not be overlooked by a 
 candid and intelligent inquirer. 
 
166 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 How can so much stress be laid, then, upon Eom. 
 6 : 4, 5, and Col. 2 : 12, as ascertaining the ancient 
 mode of baptism ? Where else in all the Bible is a 
 ritual washing with water an emblem of death and 
 burial ? Nowhere ; and I venture, therefore, to say, that 
 it is only moral or spiritual baptism into the death of 
 Christ, of which the apostle speaks in these two pas- 
 sages. I know well, that an appeal against this 
 opinion can be made to many of the fathers. But I 
 know, too, that by the like appeal I may prove, 
 equally well, that baptism must be performed on naked 
 subjects; and moreover, that it is regeneration and 
 spiritual illumination, and is necessary to our final sal- 
 vation. And if the appeal be also made against my 
 opinion, as doubtless it will be, to the sentiments of 
 the great body of modern critics respecting Eom. 6 : 4, 
 5, and Col. 2 : 12, I must still say, that they appear to 
 me not to have sufficiently investigated the two-fold 
 division of the external ritual under the ancient dis- 
 pensation and under the Christian one, viz., into rites 
 emblematic of purity, and rites emblematic of atone- 
 ment for sin. Where is the first of these, if baptism is 
 merely a type or emblem of the death of Christ ? Have 
 we, then, two rites under the new dispensation, and 
 both significant of only one and the same thing, viz., 
 the death of Jesus ? Is this probable ? Is it credible ? 
 Can we believe it to be so, without the most explicit 
 testimony ? 
 
 Yet the nature of the thing itself, and all the scrip- 
 tural testimony concerning it, indicate that the rites of 
 the new dispensation have an essential correspondence 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 167 
 
 ■with those of the ancient one. I must regard this as 
 being real matter of fact, until I see the whole subject 
 in a light very different from that in which I now 
 view it. 
 
 Once more, then, directly to our point. Is it essen- 
 tial, in order that baptism should symbolize purifica- 
 tion or purity, that it should be performed by im- 
 mersion ? Plainly not ; for in ancient times it was the 
 water which was sprinkled upon the offending Jew, that 
 was the grand emblem of purification. So Paul con- 
 siders it, when he gives us, as it were, a summary of 
 the whole ritual of purification, by specifying the most 
 significant of all its usages, viz., that of the ashes of a 
 heifer mixed with water (Num. 19 : 17), with which 
 "the unclean are sprinkled" Heb. 9 : 13. So, too, he 
 decides, when he speaks of "drawing near to God, in 
 the full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled 
 from an evil conscience," Heb. 10 : 22. So also, even 
 when atonement was made ; for although sometimes 
 the blood was poured out at the basis of the altar, and 
 sometimes smeared on its horns, and on parts of the 
 person for whom expiation was to be made, yet the 
 grand significant emblem was that of sprinkling. On 
 the great day of atonement, the high-priest entered the 
 most holy place, and sprinkled the ark of the covenant 
 with blood ; Lev. 4 : 17 ; Heb. 9 : 25. Hence Paul 
 speaks of the blood of Jesus, as " the blood of sprinkling, 
 which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel ;" 
 i. e., Jesus' blood calls for pardon, but Abel's for ven- 
 geance, Heb. 12 : 24. Peter also adopts the same 
 
 Elect . . . 
 
168 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 unto obedience, through sanctification of the Spirit, and 
 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus," 1 Pet. 1 : 2. 
 
 Nor was this all. When the whole nation were 
 consecrated to God, at Mount Sinai, they, and the 
 book of the Law, and the tabernacle, and all the ves- 
 sels of the ministry, were sprinkled with blood, Heb. 
 9 : 19—21. 
 
 It is, then, a perfectly clear case, that the sprinkling 
 of water or of blood, was altogether the most significant 
 mode of purification, or of atonement, or of consecra- 
 tion to God, under the ancient dispensation. And so 
 the prophet Ezekiel speaks of water to be sprinkled, 
 under the new dispensation. After describing the 
 gathering in of all the Jews into the kingdom of Christ, 
 he represents- Jehovah as saying, "Then will 1 sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from all 
 your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse 
 you. A new heart also will I give you," etc. Ezek. 
 36 : 25, 26. 
 
 Is there no significancy, then, in that mode of a rite, 
 which, above all others, is spoken of in the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New, as the emblem of purification and 
 atonement and consecration ? Could Jews, who thus 
 spoke and wrote about the application of water and 
 blood by sprinkling, find in sprinkling no due signifi- 
 cancy of purification? The question answers itself, 
 after the considerations which have already been sug- 
 
 In performing the rite of baptism, then, what are we 
 to aim at? The shadow, or the substance? The sub- 
 stance, enlightened Christians should say. But is not 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 169 
 
 the substance the symbolizing of purity or purification ? 
 This, I hope, will not be denied. If, then, water be 
 applied in any such way as to make the symbol or 
 emblem significant or expressive, and highly so, 
 then is the main purpose of the rite answered. We 
 have decided this to be the case, in respect to the 
 Lord's Supper; why, then, should we be inconsistent 
 with ourselves, and deny it here ? 
 
 After the examples' which have been adduced of the 
 significancy of sprinkling, both from the Old Testament 
 and the New, I would hope that none of my readers 
 will be dissatisfied, if I consider this significancy as a 
 point made out. And now — what remains ? Must I 
 show that we are not at liberty, without being justly 
 exposed to the accusation of gross departure from 
 Christianity, to depart from the modes and forms of the 
 apostolic church in any respect ? I have shown that 
 all the churches on earth do depart from these, in their 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper, and yet without any 
 apprehension of being guilty of an impropriety, much 
 less of being justly chargeable with the spirit of diso- 
 bedience and revolt. I could easily extend this part 
 of my view to many other particulars. I ask those who 
 plead for literal conformity in mode to the ancient rite 
 of baptism, how they dispose of the ordinance respect- 
 ing the disciples' washing each others' feet, described 
 at large in John, c. xiii, and particularly enjoined in 
 vs. 14, 15? "Who has repealed the obligation to a 
 literal conformity with this command ? You will say, 
 •It is the spirit, rather than the letter, which is here in- 
 culcated. I accede. But what is the case in respect 
 8 
 
170 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 to baptism ? Will nothing but the letter do here ? So 
 you may think and reason ; but are you not entirely 
 inconsistent with yourself? 
 
 Why do we not feel bound at the present day to 
 follow the prescriptions of Paul to the Corinthian 
 churches, in c. xi. of his first epistle to them ? In this 
 chapter, women are directed to appear in public veiled ; 
 to wear their hair long ; and men to wear theirs short ; 
 vs. 10 — 15. Is this matter of obligation now to us? 
 Who believes and practices it? No churches on earth, 
 unless their civil customs lead them so to do. But 
 when and where were the precepts of Paul repealed? 
 Never and no where, if I must answer in the spirit of 
 those who urge the literal meaning of pa-xT^u) upon 
 the churches ; always and every where, I may answer 
 in another spirit and with other views, whenever and 
 wherever external customs and circumstances differ 
 from those of the Corinthian churches. Mere externals 
 must be things of particular time and place. Dress does 
 not make the man. One dress may be more conve- 
 nient, or more decorous than another ; but neither the 
 one nor the other is an essential part of the person. 
 
 So the common feeling of men has decided about 
 most of the external matters pertaining to religion, the 
 world over. They have always been modified by time 
 and place, by manners and customs, and they always 
 will be. The zealot may declaim against this, and cry 
 out that the church is in danger, and that she has de- 
 parted from the commands of the gospel ; but consid- 
 erate and really spiritual men will reply, that "God is 
 a Spirit, and that he seeks spiritual worshippers." 
 
CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 171 
 
 Accordingly, long before the light of the Reform a- 
 tion began to dawn upon the churches, the Roman 
 Catholics themselves were gradually adopting the 
 method of baptism by sprinkling or affusion, notwith- 
 standing their superstitious and excessive devotedness 
 to the usages of the ancient churches. So testifies o©e 
 of the most intelligent and useful ecclesiastical writers 
 of the earlier part of the dark ages ; I mean Walafriecl 
 Strabo (ob. 849), abbot of the convent of St. Gall. His 
 words ran thus: " It should be noted, that many have 
 been baptized, not only by immersion, but by affusion 
 (non solum mergendo, verum etiam de super fundendo), 
 and they may yet be baptized in this manner, if there be 
 any necessity for it; as, in the passion of St. Lawrence, 
 we read of a certain person baptized by water brought 
 in a pitcher (urceo allato) ;" De Rebus Eccles. c' 26. 
 So Thomas Aquinas (fl. 1250) in Summa Theol. III. 
 Ques. 66. Art. 7, says : " It is safer to baptize by the 
 mode of immersion, because this has common usage in 
 its favour." But these very words show that a differ- 
 ent usage was coming in, and that Acprinas did not 
 look upon it with any strong disapprobation. In the 
 Statut. Synod. Leodiens. anno 1287, c. 2, the mode of 
 baptism is prescribed, and it is there said, " That dan- 
 ger in baptizing may be avoided ; let not the head of 
 the child be immersed in water, but let the priest pour 
 water three times upon the head of the child, with a 
 basin, or some other clean and decent vessel, still 
 holding the child carefully with his hand." The Synod 
 at Cambray (Stat. Synod. Eccl. Camerac. an. 1800, de 
 Bapt.) say : " That danger in baptizing may be avoided, 
 
172 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 let not [the priest] immerse the head of the child in the 
 water, but, when he baptizes, let him pour water thrice 
 upon the top of his head, with a basin or other clean 
 and decent vessel." And in the same way run other 
 decrees of councils about this time; while some are 
 even still more liberal, permitting baptism to be per- 
 formed either by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling. 
 
 All this serves to illustrate how there sprung up, in 
 the bosom of a church superstitiously devoted to an- 
 cient rites and forms, a conviction that the mode of 
 baptism was one of the ddidtpopa of religion, i. e., some- 
 thing unessential to the rite itself, and which might be 
 modified by time and place, without any encroachment 
 upon the command itself to baptize. Gradually did 
 this conviction increase, until the whole Koman Catholic 
 church, that of Milan only excepted, admitted it. By 
 far the greater part of the Protestant world have also 
 acceded to the same views. Even the English Epis- 
 copal church, and the Lutheran churches, both zealous 
 in times past for what they supposed to be apostolic 
 and really ancient usage, have had no serious difficulty 
 in adopting modes of baptism quite different from that 
 of immersion. 
 
 To these evidences that departure from the method 
 of baptism "by immersion is not a novel thing, I may 
 add some accidental testimony of a very interesting na- 
 ture, taken from a late work of F. Muntcr, bishop of 
 Zealand, and Professor of Theology in the University 
 of Copenhagen, entitled, Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstel- 
 lungen der alien Christen. Dr. Miinter, who has re- 
 cently deceased, is regarded in Europe as having been 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 173 
 
 one of its ablest and most judicious antiquarians. Cer- 
 tain it is, that the churches are greatly indebted to him 
 for many illustrations of ancient facts and customs. In 
 the second part of the work whose title is quoted above, 
 under the head of baptism, he has .exhibited several 
 pictures or representations, taken mostly from ceme- 
 teries and catacombs, some of which deserve particular 
 notice. 
 
 The first which I shall mention is exhibited in Plate 
 X. fig. 59. It represents Jesus as standing in the Jor- 
 dan, immersed as high as the waist, and John the Bap- 
 tist as standing on the shore, holding a reed-staff in his 
 left hand, while his right is laid upon the head of the 
 Saviour, and he is making invocation for a blessing. 
 On the opposite shore of the river stands an angel, 
 with a basin in his hand, and a towel for the purpose 
 (as it would seem) of wiping off the water. For what 
 purpose this basin can be represented in the picture, 
 unless it be for that of pouring water on the head of 
 Jesus when he was baptized, I am unable to divine. 
 The picture Miinter assigns to the early part of the 
 middle ages. 
 
 In confirmation of the above explanation, I may re- 
 fer to a picture presented by Bosio, in his Roma Sot- 
 ieranea, 1632, p. 589. The Baptist stands, as in the 
 representation above, with his clothes on, upon the 
 brink of Jordan ; and Jesus stands in the river, im- 
 mersed to the waist. In the hand of John is a basin, 
 on which fire is represented as flowing down from 
 heaven, while Jesus is affused with the water which 
 descends from the basin. 
 
171 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 In Plate XII., figs. 85 and 86, are two more repre- 
 sentations of the rite of baptism. In fig. 85 are two 
 children, who apparently have attained less than half 
 their growth, standing in a vase of water which falls a 
 little below the waist, and in which it would be impos- 
 sible to immerse them, on account of the small size of 
 the vase. The bishop who baptizes is represented as 
 having completed the act, and is presented in the attitude 
 of invoking the divine blessing, while he lays his right 
 hand upon the head of one of the children. This pic- 
 ture Miinter supposes to be of earlier date than the 
 10th century. Fig. 86 is taken from Schone's Oes- 
 chitforschungen iiber die kirchl. Gebrauche unci Ein- 
 richtungen der Christen, and was copied by him from a 
 roughly-hewn stone at Aquileia. The person baptized 
 stands, as above, in a vase which falls below the knee, 
 while the water is represented as streaming from a 
 cloud above, and the Holy Spirit is descending in the 
 shape of a dove. The bishop stands by, and, with his 
 right hand stretched out, is invoking a blessing. 
 
 Dr. Miinter mentions also two other pictures, which 
 are presented in J. Ciampini's Explicatio duorum Sar- 
 cophagorum sacrum baptismatis ritum indicantium, Eom. 
 1697. In one of these., a man and woman are repre- 
 sented as kneeling in a large baptismal basin, while the 
 priest pours water on the head of the man from an urn 
 or pitcher. Ciampini thinks that this is a representa- 
 tion of the baptism of Agilulf and his wife, Theodo- 
 linde, king and queen of the Lombards, in A. D. 591. 
 The second picture represents a man kneeling with 
 folded hands, half divested of his clothing, on whose 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 175 
 
 head the priest pours water from a pitcher. Both of 
 these pictures are taken from sacophagi, dug up in the 
 vicinity of Naples. Ciampini attributes them to the 
 sixth century; but Miinter judges them to be of a later 
 age. 
 
 It may naturally be asked, Why pictures of an ear- 
 lier date than any of these, have not been found in 
 cemeteries and catacombs, and in the ruins of ancient 
 cities ? The answer is, that the earlier churches never 
 painted, or otherwise represented by images, the sacred 
 mysteries of baptism and the Lord's Supper ; for such 
 they deemed them to be. Such, in fact, they continued 
 to be, in their estimation, until the German nations that 
 came in upon Eome began to be baptized by thousands ;« 
 and then, of course, the rite of baptism could no longer 
 be regarded as secret. From this time, such represen- 
 tations of this rite began to be made in various ways, 
 as have been described above, 
 
 It will be seen from all this, that Christians began 
 somewhat early to deflect from the ancient practice of 
 immersing. It is remarkable, moreover, that so far as 
 I have yet been able to discover, there is not one of the 
 ancient pictures which represents baptism as performed 
 by immersion. How could this happen, if immersion 
 was so general, or rather so universal, in the middle 
 ages, as it has often been affirmed to be ? But I must 
 return from these historical notices to the argument 
 which I am endeavouring to urge. 
 
 From all that has been said above, it is manifest that 
 the great body of Christians have long come to the full 
 conviction, that no one particular mode of baptism can 
 
176 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 be justly considered as essential to the rite itself. And 
 is there not sufficient ground for this in the consider- 
 ations that have already been urged ? The question, 
 whether a religion preeminently spiritual, simple, and 
 designed to be universal, would probably attach import- 
 ance to the mere mode of an external rite, is one 
 which every enlightened mind may answer, I had al- 
 most said, d priori. The probability is at once felt to 
 be strongly against it, so soon as any one has thrown 
 off all attachment to opus operatum, i. e., to the mysti- 
 cal power and merit of external ceremonies. Under 
 the gospel, sanctification and purity are not so cheap, 
 nor to be had on such easy terms, as the performance 
 of outward rites. Every thing which teaches what is 
 opposed to this sentiment, directly or indirectly, con- 
 tradicts the spirit of the gospel ; for this demands of us, 
 as a thing fundamental and essential, that we should 
 be "poor in spirit, 11 and "take up the cross" by real 
 and internal self-denial, not with mere outward show 
 and ceremony. 
 
 The whole may be summed up in one single point. 
 Either the rite of Jmptism has a mystical power of it- 
 self to sanctify, which depends on the mode of its ad- 
 ministration, and its merit as an opus operation ; or it 
 is a symbolical rite, significant of truth, i. e., of doc- 
 trine, or fact. A mystical power one cannot believe 
 in, because millions of baptized persons have already 
 gone to perdition ; over these, therefore, baptism never 
 did exercise any mystical and saving influence. But 
 even if we should admit the existence of such a power, 
 can it be shown that it is exclusively connected with 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 177 
 
 immersion only ? Have the sanctifying influences of 
 the Spirit of God been limited to that part of the Chris- 
 tian church exclusively who practice immersion ? So 
 far from this, that the most vicious and ignorant of all 
 who bear the name of Christians, are the most numer- 
 ous and zealous of all the advocates of -immersion. I 
 refer, in this declaration, to the Oriental church, which 
 has a name to live while it is twice dead, and ought to 
 be plucked up by the roots. If there are exceptions to 
 my general remark (as there certainly are, and most 
 eminent ones, too, among the Baptists of England and 
 America), it remains to be shown that immersion has 
 any thing of consequence to do with their evangelical 
 character. The Baptists of the English and American 
 world, evangelical and devoted to religion as many of 
 them truly are, do not surpass in piety, as I must be- 
 lieve, many of their brethren in Christ who differ from 
 them in respect to the mode of baptism. 
 
 "We come, then, of necessity to the conclusion, that 
 the moral good to be expected from baptism, is to be 
 derived from the moral or spiritual instruction which 
 it conveys, and from the lively manner in which it 
 impresses this, and the obligation under which it lays 
 those who are concerned with the rite. All the rest 
 appears to be mere dreaming Pharisaism ; here is sub- 
 stantial reality. But may not this instruction be con- 
 veyed as well by affusion or sprinkling, as by im- 
 mersion ? If we look to the ancient dispensation, we 
 must say, Yes. If we look at the nature of the thing 
 itself, we must answer in the affirmative. If we appeal 
 to the general conviction of the Christian world, winch 
 8* 
 
178 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 lias decided against patristic and ancient usage, we 
 must give the same answer. Water applied in this 
 way or in that, is water still, i. e., a cleansing and pu- 
 rifying element. Its significance is not at all lost, or 
 even obscured. In the East, where bathing is so com- 
 mon, and where religious rites especially have required 
 ablution, it may be more significant, in some cases, to 
 immerse ; but in the west and north, where such rites 
 have long ceased (if indeed they were ever practiced), 
 immersion can have no more significancy than affusion 
 or sprinkling. Why then insist on it ? Or if you are 
 conscience-bound by your own views of the rite, why 
 judge your brother who is not, and thinks that Chris- 
 tianity was never designed to become a religion of 
 rituals ? 
 
 In fine, aspersion or affusion of water exhibits, and 
 fully exhibits, the essence of the thing, i. e., the in- 
 struction and symbol, aimed at by the rite of baptism. 
 Why then should we be zealous about any thing more 
 than this ? Such strenuousness, I am most fully per- 
 suaded, is a zeal without a proper degree of Christian 
 knowledge and liberality on this point. It is a zeal for 
 the costume of religion, rather than the true spirit of it. 
 So far as it goes, I must believe it to be really and 
 truly sectarianism. 
 
 On the other hand, to maintain that sprinkling or 
 affusion is the only mode of baptism, or the only proper 
 mode, seems to me to partake of the like sectarian 
 spirit. The great body of Christians have long ceased 
 to think that any thing of importance, in a religious 
 respect, is exclusively attached to either of these 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 179 
 
 modes. It is my earnest hope, that the superstitions 
 views of the Christian fathers, in respect to the mode of 
 baptism, may never again mislead the churches, or in- 
 terrupt their harmony. 
 
 3. I have one more suggestion to make in respect to 
 the mode of baptism. This is, that personsl safety and 
 convenience often demand that immersion should be 
 dispensed with ; and therefore, at least, it cannot well 
 be supposed that it is in all cases necessary. 
 
 So thought the ancient church, even when they at- 
 tached a very undue degree of importance to the rito 
 itself, and regarded it, for the most part, as indispensa- 
 ble to salvation. I cannot forbear an appeal to Cyprian, 
 bishop of Carthage, (fl. A. D. 240,) a warm-hearted 
 Christian and a martyr to his religion. When the 
 question was put to him, whether clinical baptism, i. e., 
 baptism by affusion on a sick-bed, was valid, he an- 
 swered thus : 
 
 " You ask of me, my dear Son, what I think respect- 
 ing those who have become subjects of divine grace in 
 a state of languor and sickness ; viz., whether they are 
 to be regarded as lawful Christians, when they have 
 not been bathed with saving water [immersed by bap- 
 tism], but perfusi, bedewed, affused. In regard to this, 
 let not our diffidence and modesty hinder any one to 
 think according to his own opinion, and practice as he 
 thinks. So far as my own humble opinion goes, I 
 think the divine benefits [of the ordinance] are in no 
 degree diminished or cut short [by any mode], nor 
 that any thing of the divine bounty is at all diminished, 
 where it [the ordinance] is received by the full faith of 
 
180 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 him who receives and him who administers it. Nor 
 do I think that the contagion of sin is washed away 
 by this salutary ordinance (as the filth of the skin and 
 body is by corporeal and secular bathing), so that there 
 is any need of soap and other means, [or] of a bathing- 
 tub and pool in which the ' body can be washed and 
 cleansed. The [physical] breast of a believer is 
 cleansed in one way ; the mind [or soul] of man in 
 another way, by the deserts of faith. In sacred rites 
 performed as necessity dictates, through divine mercy, 
 divine favor is bestowed on those who sincerely believe. 
 Nor should any be troubled, because sick persons are 
 SPRINKLED or AFFUSED, since they obtain the favor of 
 God; for the Holy Spirit says by Ezekiel the prophet: 
 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,' &c. 
 [Ezek. 26 : 25.] So in the book of Numbers : . ' The 
 man who shall be unclean . . . because the water 
 of sprinkling is not sprinkled upon him.' And again-: 
 ' The Lord said, the water of purification.' And again : 
 ' The water of sprinkling is purification.' [Num. 19 : 
 19, 20 ; 8:7; 19 : 12, 13.] Hence it appears, that 
 SPRINKLING is of like value with the salutary bath (aqua3 
 instar salutaris lavacri obtinere); and when these 
 things are done in the church, where the faith is sound 
 of the giver and receiver, all is valid (omnia stare), 
 and may be completed and effected agreeably to the 
 authority of the Lord and the truth of faith (maj estate 
 Domini et fidei veritate)." Eph. 69 or 76. 
 
 Here then sjirinkling, so early as the former half of 
 the third century, is pronounced to be legitimate and 
 valid, by one of the noblest men among all the Chris- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 181 
 
 tian fathers. The appeal which he makes to the Old 
 Testament, in order to show in what light this may be 
 considered, is altogether apposite. I have shown above, 
 what significancy this mode of applying either water 
 or blood had, in the view of the sacred writers. I need 
 only to add, that this noble and liberal decision of 
 Cyprian was confirmed and proclaimed by several ec- 
 clesiastical councils, not long afterwards. 
 
 That the aucient church habitually permitted depart- 
 ure from the ordinary method of baptism, in case of 
 extreme sickness or danger, has been already remarked. 
 The principle developed by this permission, so ably set 
 forth by Cyprian, is what I design still further to illus- 
 trate, under my present head. 
 
 The cases of extreme sickness and imminent danger 
 are not the only ones, in which reasonable considera- 
 tion pleads for dispensing with immersion. In the midst 
 of the dark ages, at the very midnight of superstition 
 about rites and forms, Dims Scotus, the celebrated 
 metaphysical theologian (fl. 1260), saw and felt this. 
 
 "A minister," says he, "may be excused from trine 
 immersion; for example, in case a minister should be 
 feeble as to strength, et sit unus magnus rusticus, and 
 there should be a huge country felloio to be baptized, whom 
 he could neither plunge in nor lift out ;•" Comm. in IV. 
 Sentent. Dist. 3, Ques. 4. 
 
 The quaintness of the illustration does not diminish 
 aughfr from its power, in respect to the principle which 
 was to be explained. The like to this must often 
 occur ; especially if the most ancient practice of repair- 
 ing to rivers and pools continue to be maintained. 
 
182 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Persons often need to be baptized, when access to 
 water abroad is difficult, dangerous, or impossible. 
 The infirm health of the officiating minister forbids the 
 exposure of himself in this way ; the feeble state of the 
 person to be baptized forbids it ; or the winter season 
 forbids it. In all the northern and southern parts of 
 the globe, reasons of climate must be urgent against 
 the practice of immersion in rivers and pools, for some 
 nine months in the year. On the sick bed, and in ex- 
 tremis, there are a multitude of cases in which it would 
 cost life. Do you say : Then let baptism be dispensed 
 with ? So would I answer, although on a ground very 
 different, perhaps, from yours. My answer would rest 
 on the ground, that no external ordinance is obligatory, 
 when it becomes dangerous to life or health. The great 
 Lord of the Sabbath admits works of necessity and 
 mercy, i. e. such services as are necessary to life and 
 comfort, to be done on his holy day. He has said that 
 the Sabbath was made for man. So was baptism. It 
 was not instituted to injure, destroy, or even hazard 
 life. In a case of distressing sickness and urgent 
 danger, we may say in respect to this rite or any other 
 external one, Voluisse est habuisse, i. e., to desire it, is 
 accepted in lieu of its being administered. So would I 
 answer in all cases of the like nature ; but you, who 
 plead as earnestly for the rite of immersion, as the 
 Roman Catholics do for baptism by the hands of one 
 of their own priests, you would say, that baptism must 
 be dispensed with in the case named of imminent 
 danger or extreme sickness, because the proper mode 
 of it has become impracticable. With this reason I 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 183 
 
 have no sympathy. While I believe that the Gospel 
 represents God as a Spirit, and as requiring spiritual 
 worship ; and that these two truths lie at the very 
 foundation of all religious service whatever ; I never 
 can believe that the mode of a rite merely external, can 
 be essential in any degree. I cannot submit to such a 
 yoke of bondage, when the liberty of the Gospel is 
 proffered. 
 
 But you will tell me, that all the difficulties in respect 
 to baptism abroad, in rivers and pools, can be avoided 
 by the building of a baptistery, such as the ancient 
 churches had ; where the hazard even of cold water 
 becomes unnecessary, and the feeble may be accommo- 
 dated with baths adapted in temperature to their state 
 and condition. 
 
 I cannot admit, however, the sufficiency or consist- 
 ency of your reply, on the grounds which jou yourself 
 maintain. For, in the first place, this practice of build- 
 ing baptisteries is well known to be an innovation upon 
 the more ancient usage of the church. In the time of 
 Justin Martyr there were no such accommodations as 
 these. They went out from the churches, i. e., the 
 places where they met, to rivers and pools, as he tells 
 us, in order to perform the rite. Who gave liberty, 
 then, to build baptisteries? In what part of the New 
 Testament do we find any thing concerning them? 
 What right have you now to depart from apostolic 
 usage ? You administer rebuke to me, because I do 
 not immerse; and this, on account of the literal obedi- 
 ence which (as you aver) is due to the command to 
 baptize all nations. Nothing, then, but literally doing 
 
184 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 as Christ and the apostles did, when they practiced the 
 rite in question, can be literal obedience. But where 
 were the baptisteries in their days ? May I not charge 
 you now, in my turn, with a departure from the sim- 
 plicity and significancy of baptism in pure and living, 
 or running water, as the rite was performed in the days 
 of the apostles ? On the ground which I occupy, this 
 charge amounts to an accusation of no very grievous 
 nature ; on yours, it must be placed under the same 
 category with your accusation against me, i. e., it must 
 be considered as a grievous departure from the com- 
 mand of Christ. There is no avoiding this conclusion. 
 
 I go farther with this argument. If you take your 
 stand on the ancient practice of the churches in the 
 days of the early Christian Fathers, and charge we with 
 departure from this ; in my turn I have the like charge 
 to make against you. It is notorious, and admits of no 
 contradiction, that baptism in those days of immersion, 
 was administered to men, women, and children, in 
 puris naturalibus, naked as Adam and Eve before their 
 fall. The most tender, delicate, and modest females, 
 young or old, could obtain no exception, where im- 
 mersion must be practiced. This practice was pleaded 
 for and insisted upon, because it was thought to be 
 apostolic. At all events, it began very early in the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 No wonder now that Athanasius complained, that in 
 his times there were " scandalous occurrences in the 
 baptistery." To tell the story of the ancient mode of 
 baptism, is enough to satisfy any one that his allega- 
 tions must be well founded. In vain did the churches 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 185 
 
 seek to avoid the reproach of this scandalous practice, 
 by building a separate baptistery for females, or by 
 baptizing them separately. Priests, and priests only, 
 in any common case, could administer the rite. The 
 scandal of the thing still remained. Yea, it increased 
 to such a degree, that the churches were at length 
 forced into a proper sense of decency ; and thus they 
 burst asunder the bands of superstition. 
 
 You reject this usage, because you believe it to be 
 an indecorum. But on the ground which you take, 
 this is not a sufficient reason. Literal conformity to 
 the usage of the ancient churches is the only thing 
 which should satisfy a conscience like yours. 
 
 But you say, "There is no evidence that the primi- 
 tive mode of baptism required persons to be divested 
 of all their garments." I grant it ; but still, there is 
 the same kind of evidence as proves to you that im- 
 mersion was the only apostolic mode of baptism, viz., 
 the universal usage of the ancient churches. Your 
 main reason for believing that fia-mifa means immer- 
 sion, must depend, after all, on the exegesis of the 
 fathers and the ancient churches. New Testament 
 usage of the word, in cases not relevant to this rite, 
 clearly does not entitle you to such a conclusion with 
 any confidence. If you say, "The classical use of the 
 word abundantly justifies the construction I put upon 
 it," my reply is, that classical usage can never be very 
 certain in respect to the meaning of the word in the New 
 Testament. Who does not know that a multitude of 
 Greek words here receive their colouring and particular 
 meanings from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek 
 
186 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 classics ? Do i9eoc, ovpav6g,odp£, ixiariq, diKatoavvr], and 
 other words almost without number, exhibit meanings 
 which conform to the Greek classics; or which, in 
 several respects, can even be illustrated by them? 
 Not at all. Then, how can you be over confident 
 in the application of the classical meaning of /3a7m£w, 
 when the word is employed in relation to a rite that is 
 purely Christian ? Such a confidence is indeed com- 
 mon ; but it is not the more rational, nor the more be- 
 coming, on this account. 
 
 After all, then, you depend for the exegesis of 
 Panri^o), as meaning to immerse, mainly on the practice 
 and the views of the early churches. If this be 
 authoritative, then why not be consistent, and carry it 
 through ? We have seen that Cyril could even exult 
 in the practice of divesting the candidates for baptism 
 of all their garments, since he viewed all this as a sig- 
 nificant rite. Why not follow the good father in this, 
 as well as in immersion ? 
 
 But why stop even here ? Can it not be shown that 
 the ancient churches practiced unction, both before and 
 after baptism ; and that the sign of the cross was a part 
 of the ceremonial ; that imposition of hands immedi- 
 ately succeeded it ; and that various other ceremonies 
 were sometimes practiced ? It can ; and if usages such 
 as these become authoritative, because the ancient 
 church practiced them, then the Romish Church is 
 nearest to Christian duty, who retains most of these 
 usages. On the like ground, the whole apparatus of 
 ancient superstition might be brought in upon the 
 churches of the present day. When we once admit that 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 187 
 
 all of an external nature which the ancient churches 
 practiced, is binding upon us, there is no end of rites 
 and forms, and worthless ceremonies, which serve only 
 to delude the multitude, and to deform a religion which 
 in its very nature is truly spiritual. 
 
 Sed — manum de tabula. I have written enough to 
 explain my own views and the grounds of them, if not 
 enough to satisfy the minds of others. I have not en- 
 gaged in this exposition with a willing mind, inasmuch 
 as I almost deem it a loss of time to spend so much of 
 it as this investigation has cost me, on a subject that so 
 nearly approaches to a discussion of rites and forms. 
 But I have been compelled, as it were, to this service. 
 For some years past, I have received letters every few 
 weeks, urging me to answer questions relative to the 
 mode of the baptismal rite, and other things connected 
 with it. The tenor of the two letters standing at the 
 head of this article, is a specimen of them. I must beg 
 my friends, one and all, to consider me as having now 
 done with the subject, and intending to write no more 
 upon it, unless indeed a new and pressing exigency 
 shall occur, that I cannot at all anticipate. No efforts 
 will draw me into a controversy. I have abstained, as 
 the reader will perceive, from all criticisms on contro- 
 versial books, and all polemical attitudes in respect to 
 them. I have expressed, freely and fully, my own 
 views. My Baptist friends will not be displeased at 
 this ; for thej, most of all, have urged me to do so. If 
 my sentiments go to show that I believe them to be in 
 an error, in regard to their zeal about immersion, they 
 show no more than what is matter of fact. I do believe 
 
188 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 that this is the sectarianism of their denomination ; and, 
 moreover, that it does not accord well, in this particular, 
 with the elevated and spiritual views which, at such, a 
 time of light as the present, ought to be cherished. 
 
 I have read with attention, since writing most of the 
 above essay, a recent publication by the Rev. A Car- 
 son, of Edinburgh, whose zeal is overflowing on this 
 subject. I have found in it many useful and striking 
 remarks on the classical use of fidirrco and Banri^o, and 
 the distinction made between them by classical usage. 
 Already, however, had I anticipated most of this, by my 
 own researches ; and now I see no occasion to change 
 what I had before written. I have taken some five or 
 six examples of the use of (3dnro and (ia-nri^ from Mr. 
 C, in reviewing my work for the press ; but I have not 
 once attempted to controvert him. 
 
 Mr. Carson lays down some very adventurous posi- 
 tions, in respect to one meaning, and one only, of words ; 
 which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth contra- 
 dicts, and always must contradict. His book is not 
 destitute of evidence that he has learning and acute- 
 ness. lie sometimes professes much liberal feeling. 
 But withal he lias so many adventurous philogical posi- 
 tions ; he occasionally makes such high and exclusive 
 claims to pure Christianity, on the ground of an external 
 rite; he sometimes utters such anathemas against his 
 opponents; and, joined with this, his book is often 
 filled with so much levity, and so many attempts at 
 witticism and sarcasm, that I am spontaneously led to 
 ask, "What can be the tendency of such discussion, 
 except to break asunder the bands of brotherhood ? 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 189 
 
 If he rightly represents his opponents, it must be ad- 
 mitted that he was at least led into temptation. That- 
 Dr. Ewing should gravely proffer to the public, the 
 word pop as a translation of (3aTTTi%u>, might tempt to 
 sarcasm a graver man than Mr. Carson. But what is 
 to become of charity, kind feeling, and truth, in the 
 midst of such controversy as this ? 
 
 But it is no part of my object to write reviews, or 
 make strictures upon the performances of other. Those 
 who seek to promote kind and brotherly feeling, rather 
 than to obtain victories in a dispute, will be grieved at 
 reading any thing of this nature, come from whom it 
 may, or however it may be recommended by learning 
 or acuteness. 
 
 For myself, I have not the least difficulty with any 
 man or, men, who prefer immersion to other methods 
 of baptism. I never can contend with any one about 
 this, except so far as to vindicate myself for not believ- 
 ing in the necessity of this mode. This I have now 
 done — I would hope, not in a sectarian way. If I have 
 felt obliged to speak freely, on the point of sectarian 
 feeling, my brethren will forgive this, who have urged 
 upon me fully to declare myself. I do not love them 
 any the less, because they are Baptists ; and I would 
 hope they will permit me still to believe in other modes 
 of baptism than immersion, without regarding me, on 
 their part, as guilty of so great a crime as Mr. Carson 
 charges on his opponents. 
 
 On the subject of infant-baptism I have said nothing. 
 The present occasion did not call for it ; and I have no 
 
190 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 wish or intention to enter into the controversy respect- 
 ing it. I have only to say, that I believe in both the 
 propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered ; 
 and therefore accede to it ex auimo. Commands, or 
 plain and certain examples, in the New Testament re- 
 lative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, 
 do I need them. If the subject had respect to what is 
 fundamental or essential in Christianity, then I must 
 find either the one or the other, in order to justify 
 adopting or practicing it. But as the case now is, and 
 the rite itself is but an external rite ; the general anal- 
 ogy of the ancient dispensation ; the enlargement of 
 privilege under the Gospel ; the silence of the New 
 Testament on the subject of receiving children into a 
 special relation to the church by the baptismal rite, 
 which shows, at least, that there was no dispute in 
 early ages relative to this matter ; the certainty that in 
 Tertullian's day the practice Avas general ; all these 
 considerations put together — united with the conviction 
 that baptism is symbol and dedication, and may be so 
 in the case of infants as well as adults ; and that it 
 brings parents and children into a peculiar relation to 
 the church and under peculiarly recognized obligation 
 — serve to satisfy me fully, that the practice may be, 
 and should be, continued. My friends will be con- 
 tented, I would hope, with this avowal, without an 
 effort to draw me into dispute. It is my full purpose 
 not to dispute on this point. The sentiments of the 
 Baptists, in relation to this subject, are no obstacle to 
 ray kind feelings towards them. If their views are 
 erroneous, still they are much better than the views of 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 191 
 
 those who practice this rite promiscuously, without any 
 regard to the character of those who offer their children 
 in baptism. 
 
 I have only to add, that it is my earnest hope and 
 prayer, that the time may speedily come, when all who 
 love the Lord Jesus shall cease to dispute about rites 
 and forms, and shall believe that they have " one 
 Lord, one faith, and one baptism" although the external 
 mode of this latter ordinance may not be the same in 
 all the churches. Why should there be any more 
 jealousy on this subject, than there is in respect to the 
 various modes and forms of administering and partak- 
 ing of the Lord's Supper ? 
 
 My correspondents whose letters I have printed at 
 the commencement of this discussion, will at least feel 
 themselves entitled to a word in particular. This I 
 may add, without occupying much time. 
 
 My missionary Brethren will now perceive, that my 
 opinion must of couse be, in accordance with the prin- 
 ciples above developed, that they should render the 
 Greek fiaTrrifa inthe same way as our English version 
 and the Vulgate have done, viz., by retaining the word 
 ftanrl^G) and merely giving it a form that will render it 
 analogous to other verbs in the language to which it is 
 transferred. In doing this, they are still at full liberty 
 to explain to their hearers the meaning of the word, ac- 
 cording to the views of it which they entertain ; while, 
 at the same time, they free themselves from the charge 
 of having made a sectarian translation. 
 
 In regard to the third question they put, which re- 
 
192 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 spects the words in Acts 19 : 5, I can hardly refrain 
 from expressing my astonishment, that a doubt should 
 ever have arisen, whether these are the words of Paul, 
 or of Luke the historian. Yet no less a critic than Beza 
 not only suggests this, but vehemently and confidently 
 maintains that they are the words of Paul. His argu- 
 ments are the following : — 
 
 1. That 6£ in v. 5 corresponds to fiev in v. 4, and 
 that both these verses must of necessity belong to the 
 words of Paul, for they must be corresponding parts 
 of one and same sentence or declaration. The answer 
 to this is : (1) That \iiv on which Beza places so much 
 reliance, is a reading of a suspicious character, and is 
 so marked by Knapp in his New Testament. (2) Mev 
 is often used absolutely, i. e., alone, or without any 6e 
 following it, in an apodosis ; e. g. Acts 1:1; Col. 2 : 23 ; 
 Eom. 1:8; Heb. 12:9; Kom. 3 : 2 ; 1 Cor. 11:18; 
 Kom. 11 : 13 ; 2 Cor. 12 : 12 ; 1 Thess. 2 : 18 ; Acts 
 26 : 9 ; Eom. 7 : 12 ; 10 : 1 ; Acts 28 : 22, etc., etc., and 
 in the same way in the Septuagint, and the Greek 
 classics also. Beza was too good a scholar not to know 
 this ; but his zeal against the Anabaptists misled him. 
 And even if fiev here be considered as belonging to the 
 protasis of a sentence, and therefore requiring de to 
 follow it ; yet the <5e which usually succeeds the pro- 
 tasis, is not of necessity always expressed. The apo- 
 dosis, if any is to be supposed, may, in the present case, 
 easily be made out: "John, indeed, baptized the baptism 
 of repentance, etc. . . . but Jesus in a different wav, 
 i. e., with the Holy Ghost." In the same way, \iev it- 
 self is often omitted in the protasis, while 6e stands in 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 193 
 
 the apodosis ; e. g., James 2:11; 1 Cor. 4 : 12 ; Phil. 
 1 : 18 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 14. (3) As in v. 5, I take to be sim- 
 ply the usual continuative of narration, employed times 
 -without number when /xtV does not precede it, both in 
 sacred and profane -writings ; see Bretschn. Lex. 6£ 3. 
 
 2. Beza is evidently moved to his criticism, by the 
 doctrine of the Anabaptists of his day, who strenuously 
 insisted on rebaptizing those who had been baptized 
 only in infancy. He seems to be jealous for the honour 
 of John's baptism, and wishes to make it out, that 
 Jesus, being baptized by John, received in fact the 
 same baptism as that of Christians. But what is all 
 this to the purpose of philology t I might say, What 
 is it to the purpose of theology ? For why should 
 baptism into a mere preparatory state for the Messiah's 
 kingdom, be the same thing as baptism into that king- 
 dom itself? And what after all can be more probable, 
 than that, of the three thousand baptized on the day 
 of Pentecost, many had been baptized by John ? 
 
 Against all this on the part of Beza, lie some in- 
 superable objections in the text itself of Acts 19 : 4 — 6. 
 If Beza is correct, then, according to v. 5, John baptized 
 into the name of Christ; a statement no where made in 
 the sacred records ; and one which by implication is 
 contradicted, as well by the nature of his baptism, as 
 by the manner of the narration of the sacred writers, 
 and the Phraseology respecting John's baptism which 
 they employ, and which Paul here employs in v. 4. 
 Moreover, if v. 5 contain the words of Paul, and relates 
 to baptism as performed by John, then does it follow 
 of necessity, by v. 6, that Paul was present when John 
 9 
 
194 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 baptized, and that lie laid his hands upon John's dis- 
 ciples, and communicated to them the Holy Ghost. 
 This supposition not only contradicts fact, but is in- 
 volved in the additional difficulty of contradicting what 
 John's disciples are here represented as saying in v. 8, 
 viz., "that they had not so much as heard, whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost." All this contradiction, I 
 say, follows from Beza's supposition ; for av-olc in v. 6 
 inevitably relates to the persons who are mentioned in 
 v. 5 as being baptized. The sacred writer says, in 
 terms that are not capable of any ambiguity, that Paul 
 laid his hands on the same persons who were baptized, 
 and communicated to them the Holy Ghost. Of all 
 this Beza has taken no notice. As to rebaptizing ; it is 
 one thing to repeat Christian baptism, and another to 
 perform this rite where it has never been performed. 
 Being baptized into an initiatory dispensation, is not 
 being baptized into one that is established and com- 
 pleted, and to which the first was merely preparatory. 
 
 In regard to the first question of the missionary 
 Brethren respecting 1 John 5 : 7, I have only to say, 
 that there is an overwhelming mass of critical evidence 
 against the genuineness of it, as the state of the matter 
 now is ; and yet there are some very singular evi- 
 dences, that the reading in question was early in the 
 copies of some of the western churches. The path of 
 safety is to insert it, but to include it in brackets, and 
 mark it as probably spurious. More or less than this, 
 the present state of critical knowledge respecting it 
 does not seem to permit us to do. 
 
 In regard to my anonymous correspondent, he will 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 195 
 
 see, by tlie perusal of my disquisition, that I differ 
 widely from his mode of reasoning about external rites. 
 My mode is thus : What is external merely, never can 
 be essential to a religion which is truly spiritual. But, 
 so far as external rites belong to the costume of religion, 
 they are valuable only for the instruction which they 
 convey, i. e., the symbols which they present, and which 
 are significant of important truth. No mystical power 
 of opus operatum can be allowed by true Protestants. 
 But an external rite, to all intents and purposes of any 
 possible consequence, is essentially preserved or per- 
 formed, lohen its significance is essentially kept up. This 
 is done by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling of water 
 in baptism. The Old Testament and the New stamp 
 all these methods with an indelible impression of 
 genuineness as to such signiflcancy. What God has 
 thus sanctioned, let us not seem to make light of. 
 
 My belief is, that we do obey the command to baptize, 
 when we do it by affusion or sprinkling ; that the mere 
 mode of applying water cannot possibly make any dif- 
 ference in the case; that he who maintains the con- 
 trary, if consistent with himself, should go over to the 
 opus operatum of the Eoman Catholics ; that on such 
 excessive attachment to the mere externals of religion, 
 are justly chargeable the divisions and feuds of Chris- 
 tians in relation to the mode of baptism ; and that the 
 church never can have peace, until men will cease from 
 the spirit of contention about matters of costume in re- 
 ligion, and leave every one to his own choice in this 
 respect. My correspondent will, of course, see that I 
 accede to no part of his arguments. I verily believe 
 
196 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 them to be founded in altogether erroneous views of 
 the nature and value of external rites ; and have no 
 apprehension, that if I am so haj)py as ever to attain to 
 a place among the blessed of another world, I shall 
 lose any part of the honour or glory of that world, be- 
 cause I have fully believed and taught here, that God 
 is A Spirit, and that those who worship him must worship 
 him in spirit and in truth ; and have resisted all efforts 
 to lead men to trust in the manner of any external 
 ordinances. " Circumcision is nothing ; and uncircum- 
 cision is nothing." " The letter killeth, but the spirit 
 maketh alive." A view such as my correspondent has, 
 ought to carry him, as it did Constantine, to a belief, 
 that he can be lawfully baptized only in the Jordan, 
 because Jesus was there baptized. How can consist- 
 ency stop short of this ? 
 
 Has my concealed friend never read in 2 Chron. 
 30 : 18-20, that, when the great multitude of Israel 
 assembled at Jerusalem, according to the invitation of 
 King Hezekiah, in order to keep the feast of the pass- 
 over, " many in the congregation were not sanctified," 
 i. e., were not clean recording to the requisitions of the 
 Levitical law ; moreover, that a multitude of people 
 .... who had not cleansed themselves, did not eat of 
 the passover otherwise than was written?" And what 
 did this good king in respect to them ? Did he ex- 
 communicate them, or refuse to keep the passover with 
 them? Neither; but "he prayed for them, saying, 
 The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his 
 heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though 
 he be not cleansed according to the purification of the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 197 
 
 sanctuary I" And what was the result ? Did such a 
 prayer come up before the throne of mercy with accept- 
 ance ? It did ; " the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, 
 and healed the people." 
 
 And is not this fraught with instruction, as to the 
 real value which the Bible sets upon externals ? It 
 does seem to me to be so ; and I wish my brethren who 
 bar up their communion-table against all who have 
 not been immersed might study such passages with 
 more attention. That distinguished man among them, 
 whose sun has recently gone down, although its beams 
 still illuminate the whole horizon, studied and felt the 
 power of such an example as Hezekiah set. The love 
 of Christ was a passport to communion at his table, and 
 to the fraternal confidence of his benevolent heart. 
 Blessings will rest, as I believe, on the head of those 
 magnanimous brethren of his denomination who follow 
 his example of Christian liberality. It is, indeed, a 
 serious responsibility that we take upon ourselves, 
 when we say, in the midst of all the light which the 
 nineteenth century sheds around us, "I allow you to 
 be a true disciple of Jesus ; I hope and believe you 
 have been born of the Spirit ; but I cannot sit down 
 with you at the feast of Jesus' dying love, because 
 water has not been applied to you in the same manner 
 as it has to me." Thus did not Hezekiah ; and thus, 
 those who resemble him in the temper of their souls, I 
 must hope and believe, will not much longer do. It is 
 too late. The Spirit will triumph at last over the 
 flesh ; the love of God, and of fellow-Christians re- 
 deemed bv a Saviour's blood, will burst asunder the 
 
198 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 manacles of rites and forms, and dispel the charms of 
 sectarian persuasives ; and there will yet be, in our 
 American churches, " one Lord, and one faith ;" yea, 
 and " one baptism" also, inasmuch as variety of mode 
 will no longer be regarded as infringing upon the unity 
 of this rite. Yes, those who have been sprinkled by 
 Jesus' blood, and sanctified by his Spirit, will yet be 
 one in him, as he prayed they might be, in his last fer- 
 vent supplication for them. The Lord hasten these 
 blessed things in their time ! 
 
 My correspondent will forgive me for speaking thus 
 freely. The occasion demands it. Those who are 
 ready to break the church in pieces, by contending for 
 rites and forms, seem to me not well entitled to take 
 the position, that others are chargeable with this who 
 will not succumb to such doctrines. For one, I be- 
 lieve that the liberty of Christ entitles us to be free 
 from a spirit of zeal for externals ; nor do I think it 
 probable that the churches in general will ever be en- 
 tangled again in such a yoke of bondage. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 199 
 
 ANOTHER VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF 
 LITERAL OBEDIENCE. 
 
 We come now to a point in this discussion, which deserves 
 the serious and prayerful attention of every professed fol- 
 lower of Christ. If obedience to the Saviour's commands 
 is the. acknowledged test of discipleship, and the evidence of 
 love to him, it certainly becomes us to pause and consider, 
 before we adopt a position that leads us to think or speak 
 lightly of his institutions. Professor Stuart frankly admits 
 that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the 
 rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that 
 the rite was usually performed by immersion, and he finds 
 nothing in the circumstances that absolutely forbids the con- 
 clusion that immersion was uniformly adhered to ; he fully 
 concedes that the churches immediately after the apostolic 
 age, for several centuries, plainly construed the word as 
 meaning immersion, and that the Greek Fathers and the 
 Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, must unde- 
 niably have understood its meaning ; and yet he supposes, 
 that although it were even demonstrably certain that baptizo 
 means only to immerse, and that the apostles uniformly 
 practiced immersion, it nevertheless would not follow that 
 we must adhere to the original ceremony. " He is not at 
 all concerned in what way the result of the inquiry may 
 come* out in respect to the original mode of baptism ; for the 
 external mode of an external rite, never can, with his present 
 views of Christianity, become to him a matter of any pecu- 
 liar interest, in any other point of view than merely that, of 
 a historical fact." Adopting the words of Calvin in his 
 Institutes, for. c. 15, § 19, he says : " It is of no consequence 
 
200 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 at all whether the person baptized is totally immersed, or 
 whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. 
 This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different 
 regions ; although the .word baptizo signifies to immerse, 
 and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient 
 church. He does not then attempt the defence of sprink- 
 ling, on the ground that such a practice receives the least 
 countenance either from the meaning of the original word, 
 or from apostolic precedent. He rests the argument on what 
 he supposes is a surer basis than either, viz., the nature of 
 the institution. Baptism is an outward ceremony ; and, there- 
 fore, he contends that it is no part of real religion, but a 
 mere circumstance of religion, and that, consequently, it can 
 be of no importance to preserve it in its original form. 
 
 " The rite in question," he says " is merely external. * * 
 * * * Whenever an enlightened Christian wishes to 
 make the inquiry, what is essential to his religion, should he 
 not instinctively open his Bible at John iv., and there read 
 thus : " Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall worship 
 the Father, neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem. 
 The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers 
 shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the 
 Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and 
 they that worship him must worship him " in spirit and in 
 truth." " Here," says Professor Stuart, "is the very foun- 
 dation principle of all Christian and all acceptable worship. 
 God who is himself a Spirit, requires the homage of our spirits. 
 All else is nothing while this is withheld ; and when this is 
 given, all else is circumstance, not essence." Christ unques- 
 tionably meant here to contrast the ancient and the new dis- 
 pensations ; observing that the true worshippers should 
 hereafter worship the Father, not before the symbol of his 
 glory in the temple of Jerusalem, but in every place wher- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 201 
 
 ever he is spiritually present ; and not as formerly, with 
 Jewish rites and forms, but in the spirit and truth of those 
 ancient types and shadows. But this by no means implies, 
 either that all external worship was to be abolished, or that 
 it was to be lightly esteemed. Christ and the gospel are 
 the " spirit and truth," the sum and substance of the ancient 
 economy; and he that approaches God through the Mediator, 
 whether it be with the homage of his spirit, or in the out- 
 ward institutions of Christianity, does in the fullest sense 
 worship in the spirit and truth of that dispensation. But to 
 explain Christ's words in this place, in such a manner as to 
 diminish the value and importance of baptism and the com- 
 munion, of prayer and praise, or of any of the instituted 
 forms of Christian worship, is to make Christ, in one part of 
 his word, set aside his institutions and his own authority in 
 other parts of his word. This is to interpret Scripture in 
 the true spirit of the ancient Pharisees. They taught that a 
 man might make a '•' corban of his property," i. e., consecrate 
 it, under pretence of honouring God, and after that be free 
 from the obligation to honour or support his parents. This 
 was making the word of God of no effect through their tradi- 
 tion. It was interpreting the Scriptures in such a way as to 
 make one part annihilate the authority of another. Any 
 iriterpretation of any passage, which sets aside the plain com- 
 mands of God in another part of his word, must be incom- 
 patible with the design of the Holy Ghost, and incompatible 
 with the real meaning of the passage. Professor Stuart in- 
 troduces the 4th of John to disprove the necessity of obeying 
 God in the outward institutions of religion. " God," he 
 says, " requires the homage of our spirits. All else is 
 nothing while this is withheld ; and when this is given, all 
 else is mere circumstance, not essence." It is true that if we 
 withhold the homage of our spirits, all else is nothing ; but 
 9* 
 
202 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 it is not true that spiritual exercises constitute the sum total 
 of religion. External worship is as really a part of religion 
 as spiritual homage. What is religion but obedience to the 
 commands of God ? and is it not as important to obey God 
 in relation to external duties, as in regard to spirituality ? 
 Can we rebel with more safety in one case than in the other ? 
 What higher spirituality can there be than to love God ? and 
 will not love prompt us to obey all the commands of God ? 
 " Then shall I not be ashamed," said the Psalmist, " when I 
 have respect unto all thy commandments." " I esteem all 
 thy precepts concerning ;ill things to be right : and hate every 
 false way." So if we are truly spiritual, we shall, like this 
 pious king, have respect unto all the commandments of God ; 
 and shall esteem all his precepts concerning all things to be 
 right. If we are spiritual, we shall sit, like Mary, at the feet 
 of Jesus to hear his word. If he claim the heart, we shall 
 give him our hearts ; and if he require the service of our 
 bodies, we shall cheerfully yield it. What have we to do, to 
 distinguish his commands into essential and non-essential ? 
 Is it not essential to obey all his commands? How can we 
 know what value he puts upon any service, any further than 
 he tells us in his word ? Professor Stuart supposes it can- 
 not be essential to adhere to immersion, because it is an 
 external ceremony, and. provided we render the homage of 
 our spirits, all external worship is the mere circumstance, not 
 the essence of religion. If external duties were not required, 
 they would not be essential. But God does require them ; 
 and yet he supposes that it is not essential to obey these 
 commands, provided that we render the homage of our 
 spirits. But is it a supposablc.case, that we can obey God 
 in regard to spiritual duties, and at the same time deliber- 
 ately disobey him in regard to another class of duties? The 
 position is self-evidently absurd. It assumes that a holy 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 203 
 
 heart may exist independently of a holy life. As well 
 might we suppose that a sweet fountain can send forth bitter 
 water, or a good tree produce bad fruit. The real Christian 
 will yield to the authority of God whenever he sees it. If he 
 is convinced that God requires him to pray, or praise, or be 
 immersed, he wall submit. If a duty be impracticable, the 
 command, under such circumstances, is not binding ; and I 
 do not say that the delinquent may not find forgiveness in 
 case he mistakes, or does not clearly see the path of duty. 
 But if one stubbornly rebells; if he wilfully disobeys in 
 regard to a known duty, no matter whether it be spiritual or 
 external, he cannot, while he persists, be entitled either to 
 the name of a Christian, or a hope of heaven. Does the 
 Scripture lead us to conclude that they may be neglected 
 with impunity 1 
 
 It was by external obedience, and not by spirituality 
 merely, that the integrity of our first parents was tested at 
 the beginning ; and the curse that followed the transgression 
 teaches us an awful lesson on the danger of delinquency in 
 regard to any positive precept. The Jewish feasts and Sab- 
 baths, the sacrifices and offerings, were external institutions ; 
 yet they were charged in the most solemn manner to ob- 
 serve the whole with religious scrupulosity : " What things 
 soever I command you, observe to do it : thou shalt not add 
 thereto, nor diminish from it." 
 
 It was in regard to an external rite, that Nadab and Abihu 
 sinned. The law forbade the offering of strange incense before 
 the Lord ; but they probably supposed the quality of the fire 
 was a mere circumstance ; that the whole was an external 
 rite, and the " mere mode of an external rite could not be 
 essential ;" and so ventured to transgress the positive com- 
 mand of God. The result was, that they paid for their 
 temerity with the forfeiture of their lives. Immersion is not 
 
204 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 a mode of baptism, a mere circumstance of the rite ; it is the 
 rite itself; but if it were a mere circumstance, the case of 
 Nadab and Abihu would show, not only that we cannot law- 
 fully dispense with a positive institution, but that when the 
 circumstances of a rite are prescribed, we can no more alter 
 these, than we can remove the rite itself. Jehovah will be 
 sanctified in them that come nigh him. They must approach 
 him in the way he has prescribed. Judging, then, in the 
 light of the Bible, we come unavoidably to the conclusion, 
 that the institutions of religion are too important to be either 
 neglected or altered, without incurring the displeasure of 
 God. And if we observe the design of baptism, and how 
 constantly the apostles insisted upon it in their preaching, as 
 well as the prominence that is every where given to it in the 
 New Testament, we cannot fail to see that a peculiar import- 
 ance was originally attached to this rite. 
 
 Christ in the commission charged the apostles to go and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, we find 
 them in their preaching as constantly directing the attention 
 of their hearers to the duty of baptism, as to that of faith and 
 repentance ; and obedience was yielded to the one, as inva- 
 riably as to the other. When Peter's hearers were pricked 
 in the heart, and inquired what they should do, he exhorted 
 them to repent and be baptized ; and they that gladly received 
 the word were baptized that very day. Philip, at Samaria, 
 pursued the same course : for it is said that when they be- 
 lieved the things that were spoken by him, they were bap- 
 tized, both men and women. So when he fell in with the 
 Ethiopian eunuch, he improved the first opportunity he had 
 of mentioning the duty, not of repentance and faith, but of 
 baptism ; for when they came to some water, the euirtich 
 exclaimed, See, here is water ! what doth hinder me to be 
 
CHRISTIAN .BAPTISM. 205 
 
 baptized 1 Of course the eunuch would not have proposed 
 to receive baptism, if Philip had not first informed him that 
 this was the instituted method of professing faith in Christ. 
 When Saul was converted, Ananias was sent to instruct 
 him in the way of duty. He seems to have been the first 
 Christian that visited him ; and he at the first interview 
 exhorted him to arise and be baptized. Peter, in the first 
 sermon he preached to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, 
 urged the duty of baptism. Lydia appears to have been con- 
 verted and baptized immediately upon the very first sermon 
 she heard. Of course the apostles must have directed her 
 attention to the subject. And when the jailer opened his 
 heart to hear the word of the Lord, and together with his 
 household, professed faith in Christ, the apostles did not 
 suppose that they had declared to them the whole counsel 
 of God, till they had directed them to be baptized. If, there- 
 fore, the apostles wherever they went, invariably preached 
 the necessity of baptism as a branch of Christian duty, and it 
 was as invariably submitted to by all who cordially received 
 the word, how can we draw the conclusion that the ordinance 
 is of little consequence, and may be altered or omitted alto- 
 gether, as convenience or fancy may dictate 1 We do not 
 believe that external rites have themselves any intrinsic im- 
 portance, that is, that they have any inherent efficacy of 
 sunctification; but they derive their importance from the 
 consideration that God has enjoined them ; and whether we 
 look at these rites in general, or at baptism in particular, in 
 the light in which they are presented in his word, they appear 
 evidently too important to be either neglected or lightly 
 esteemed. The argument, then, that we may lawfully re- 
 move or alter the rite of baptism, because it is an external 
 ceremony, is not sound. If Christ has enjoined immersion, 
 we must obey him. There is no such thing as reasoning 
 
206 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 away the obligation. And a command to immerse, can be 
 obeyed in no other way than by immersion. If we substitute 
 sprinkling, or any other ceremony in its stead, we add the 
 sin of presumption to that of disobedience. 
 
 " But," says Professor Stuart, " no injunction is any where 
 given in the New Testament, respecting the manner in which 
 this rite shall be performed. If there be such a passage let it 
 be produced. This cannot be done." 
 
 But what necessity is there for any particular injunction 
 respecting the manner of the rite 1 Would it be possible to 
 describe the rite more definitely than it is described by the 
 word ? If it has not been conclusively proved that baptizo 
 signifies to immerse, and that this is its only proper and legiti- 
 mate meaning, then there is no evidence in demonstration. 
 When they were required, under the law, to sprinkle the 
 blood and water upon the leprous person, and to pour oil 
 upon his head, what further explanation of the ceremony did 
 they need ? The words pour and sprinkle were definite 
 terms — so definite that they could not possibly mistake the 
 nature of the action. Baptise is just as definite in its mean- 
 ing as pour, or sprinkle ; and if we are guided by the word, 
 it is impossible to mistake the manner of the rite. But that 
 the word itself does " in all probability" signify to immerse, 
 Professor Stuart "cheerfully admits ;" he denies, however, 
 that it should be taken in its literal sense. To admit the 
 literal meaning of the command to determine the manner 
 of the rite, he thinks would prove too much ; for if we are 
 bound to observe literally the command in relation to bap- 
 tism, he supposes it will follow that we must likewise observe 
 literally the command in relation to the Lord's Supper. 
 " At the original institution of this rite," he observes, " they 
 were assembled in an upper room ; they reclined upon a sofa 
 or triclinium ; they celebrated at night ; they used unleaven 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 207 
 
 bread, and drank red wine ; their clothes were of a certain 
 form. In a word, all the circumstances of the occasion were, 
 in some respect or other, different from those which now 
 accompany the administration of the Lord's Supper. Yet 
 Jesus gave command respecting this ordinance in the follow- 
 ing manner : ' This do in remembrance of me .' I ask now all 
 the advocates for the literal sense of baptizo, who urge upon 
 the churches the original mode of this rite, why they do not 
 urge upon them in the same manner, and for the same reason, 
 the literal doing of what Christ commanded as to the sacra- 
 ment 1 Why do you not plead for its celebration by night ; 
 and this, too, in a reclining posture, in an upper chamber, with 
 unleavened bread, with the dress, furniture, and attendance 
 that originally were exhibited % You regard not one of all 
 these circumstances ; not even a single one. How then do 
 \ou obey the command of Jesus, this do in remembrance of 
 me ? According to the tenor of your own exegesis, you do 
 not obey it ; you cannot, while you do not literally imitate 
 all these particulars. 
 
 It is true that both commands stand upon the same foot- 
 ing, as it respects the principle of interpretation ; and unques- 
 tionably the language is to be taken in its literal sense in 
 both cases. But Professor Stuart supposes that all the cir- 
 cumstances accompanying the first celebration were embraced 
 in the command, This do. He entirely misapprehends the 
 Scripture narrative. The Evangelist states that when Jesus 
 instituted the communion, " he took bread and brake it, and 
 gave it to the disciples, saying, This is my body, which is 
 given for you : this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 
 xxii. 19.) Paul, alluding to this transaction, says, " The 
 Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took 
 bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 
 Take, eat ; * * * * this do in remembrance of me. After 
 
208 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, 
 saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood : this do 
 ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'''' (1 Cor. 
 xi. 23-25.) The command has no reference whatever to the 
 circumstances. But had the Saviour commanded us to cele- 
 brate the communion in an upper room, with unleavened 
 bread, and habited in a peculiar dress, it would be just as 
 important to observe these circumstances, as to participate 
 of bread and wine; and in neglecting them we should as 
 really disobey the command, as if we were to omit the rite 
 altogether. All that we are commanded to do, however, is 
 to eat bread, and drink the cup ; and this we are bound to do 
 literally* So with regard to baptism ; the command re- 
 
 * Professor Stuart supposes that, in case that bread and wine could 
 not be readily obtained, we might with perfect propriety substitute 
 any of the usual elements of nourishment for the body ; that we might, 
 for instance, in case of necessity, celebrate the commuuion acceptably 
 upon fish and water. Some Pedobaptist churches have recently im- 
 proved upon this suggestion, and actually removed the wine from the 
 communion altogether, substituting water in all cases. Is this keep- 
 ing the feast as it was delivered ? Christ caused the disciples to eat 
 bread, and to drink of the fruit of the vine, i. e., wine ; and he com- 
 manded them To do this, that is, to eat bread and drink wine repeat- 
 edly, in remembrance of him. Does this mean to eat fith and drink 
 water? Do we interpret language in this way in the common inter- 
 course of life? If a son ask bread of his father, will he give him a 
 stone? Or if he ask for afs/i, will he give him a serpent ? Why not 
 suppose, then, that Chrict means as he says? He instituted the feast 
 in foresight of every possible exigency ; and if he merely designed 
 that we should make use ot any of the common elements of nourish- 
 ment, why did he not say so ? Why did he not express himself intel- 
 ligibly ? How can the Bible be called a revelation, if its positive 
 precepts, which are delivered in the plainest and most unequivocal 
 language, may be made to mean any thing we choose to have them 
 mean? Let us suppose Joseph, when he was commanded to take 
 Mary and the young child and flee into Egypt, to have interpreted 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 209 
 
 quires us to be immersed ; and this we are bound to observe 
 literally. As to circumstances, as whether it shall be per- 
 formed in the morning or evening, whether it shall be 
 accompanied with singing or praying, &c, they are not im- 
 portant, because they are not contemplated in the command. 
 The advocates for the "literal sense of baptizo" then, who 
 urge upon the churches the " original mode " of this rite, do 
 urge upon them in the same manner, and for the same rea- 
 son, " the literal doing of what Christ has commanded, as to 
 the communion." We urge literal obedience to the com- 
 mand of Christ in both cases; and in both cases we are sus- 
 tained by the uniform practice of the apostles. 
 
 " But," says Professor Stuart, " an external rite, to all 
 intents and purposes of any possible consequence, is essen- 
 tially preserved or performed, ivhen its significance is essen- 
 tially kept up. Baptism is significant of purification ; and 
 
 the command on the same principle that is proposed to be adopted in 
 regard to baptism and the communion : " The spirit of the command 
 only requires me to flee from the reach of Herod ; the place is a mere 
 circumstance ; and though the command literally requires me to go 
 into Egypt, yet the command will be substantially obeyed, though I . 
 go into Arabia." On this principle of interpretation, might not 
 Jonah have found an apology for fleeing to Tarshish, when he was 
 commanded to go to Nineveh ? The command literally required him 
 to go to Nineveh ; but might he not have reasoned, that in its true 
 spirit it only meant that repentance should be preached to siuners ; 
 that there were wicked people in Tarshish, and the place was a mere 
 circwnst-tnce ; therefore the command might be substantially obeyed 
 by going to the latter place ? Paul received a specific commission to 
 go and preach among the Gentiles. But suppose he had refused to 
 leave Judea, and confined his labours to his own nation ; though he 
 would have been preaching the gospel and doing good, as well as 
 gratifying the excellent feelings of his heart towards his brethren, 
 would Christ, however, have considered him as acting in obedience to 
 his command? Certainly not. 
 
210 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 sprinkling is as expressive of this as immersion. Baptism, 
 it is true, is sometimes, though seldom, alluded to in the Scrip- 
 ture as an emblem of purification ; but this is not the main 
 design of the institution. The grand idea exhibited in bap- 
 tism, is, the new life upon which the subject is entered. 
 There is not a more important, or more prominent truth in 
 the word of God, than that men must be entirely transformed 
 in their moral character, before they can become the subjects 
 of the kingdom of Christ, or enter the realms of glory. The 
 Christian is, therefore, emphatically a new creature. He has 
 been born again ; he has passed from death to life : and it 
 is this important fact in his experience — this grand feature 
 in his moral character, that is designed to be uniformly ex- 
 hibited in the ordinance of baptism. And immersion in 
 water, by which the subject is buried, as it were, in a grave, 
 and again raised out of it, is a beautiful and impressive em- 
 blem of this fact. It represents, in a striking mariner, our 
 dying to sin, and coming forth again to a new life of holiness ; 
 or that complete moral change by which we are qualified to 
 become subjects of Christ's kingdom, children of God, and 
 heirs of heaven. But pouring and sprinkling cannot afford 
 an image of death and resurrection. If, therefore, we substi- 
 tute either of these ceremonies for immersion, we destroy the 
 significancy of the rite, and defeat the main design of the in- 
 stitution. But suppose we admit, for the sake of argument, 
 that purification is the principal thing, or, if you please, 
 the only thing, that is symbolized by baptism ; and sup- 
 pose we admit, too, that pouring and sprinkling would be 
 just as significant of this as immersion ; yet if Christ has 
 not left it to our choice, but has expressly designated the 
 emblem, and commanded us to observe immersion, can 
 we lawfully set aside the symbol he has selected, and sub- 
 stitute one of our own choice ? Was Moses at liberty to 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 211 
 
 cover the ark of the testament with brass, when he was com- 
 manded to overlay it with gold ? The priest was required to 
 sprinkle the blood upon the mercy-seat. Would he have 
 obeyed the command in case he had poured it 1 Such articles 
 as had been defiled by coming in contact with unclean rep- 
 tiles, were required to be dipped into water ; would they have 
 been considered as obeying the command in case they had 
 merely sprinkled them 1 Certainly they would not. How, 
 then, can we be considered as obeying the command to im- 
 merse, when we merely pour or sprinkle water on the can- 
 didate 1 Professor Stuart supposes that we should, in this case, 
 substantially obey the command ; because, though we do not 
 literally perform the ceremony that is required, yet we do 
 perforin one that is equally significant. But this, after all, is 
 not obeying the command. It is not doing what Christ has 
 required us to do. It is removing his institution altogether, 
 and substituting an invention of our own in its place. No 
 matter how much*may be said for its significance or usefulness. 
 If it is not the thing Christ has commanded, it is to be ranked 
 with the traditions and doctrines of men. Of all the num- 
 berless corruptions which, since the rise of Popery, have been 
 foisted into the worship of God, none were ever proposed 
 as avowed innovations. They are uniformly baptized with 
 some specious name of significance or usefulness, and sup- 
 ported by some plausible argument for their compatibility 
 with the spirit, if not with the letter of the gospel. We 
 ought, therefore, to be extremely cautious about receiving as 
 a sacred rite, and an institution of Christ, any thing that is 
 not clearly sanctioned in his word. Christ as a Son, having 
 charge of the New Testament Church, has been faithful in 
 revealing the will of his Father ; and as disciples, we shall 
 evince our love to him by submitting, without murmur- 
 ing or disputing, to his institutions; and not by substi- 
 
212 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tuting our own inventions in the place of the revealed will 
 of God. 
 
 " But," says Professor Stuart, "I ask those who plead for 
 literal conformity in mode to the ancient rite of baptism, 
 how they dispose of the ordinance respecting the disciples' 
 washing each other's feet, described in John, chap. xiii. 6 1 
 Who has repealed the obligation to a literal conformity with 
 this command ] You will say it is the spirit, rather than 
 the letter, which is here inculcated. I accede. But what is 
 the case in respect to baptism 1 Will nothing but the letter 
 do here ? So you may think and reason. But are you not 
 entirely inconsistent with yourself?" To this it is suf- 
 ficient to reply, that every act of brotherly kindness is not 
 necessarily an act of religious worship. The washing of 
 each other's feet, although Professor Stuart styles it an ordi- 
 nance, was not enjoined as a religious institution — an act of 
 homage to God — but as a service to the saints ; and can it be 
 shown that we are not bound to a literal conformity to this 
 command, whenever such an act would be a real service to 
 our brethren ? 
 
 " Personal safety and convenience," says Professor Stuart, 
 " often demand that immersion should be dispensed with. 
 * * * Persons often need to be baptized, when access 
 to water abroad is difficult, dangerous, or impossible. The 
 infirm health of the officiating minister forbids the exposure 
 of himself in this way ; the feeble state of the person to be 
 baptized forbids it ; or the winter season forbids it. In all the 
 northern and southern parts of the globe, reasons of climate 
 must be urgent against the practice of immersion in rivers 
 and pools for some nine months in the year." 1 am not 
 aware that " reasons of climate " interpose any serious bar- 
 rier to immersion in any habitable part of the world. The 
 Greek Church is spread over an extent of country that em- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 213 
 
 braces every variety of climate ; and they have always found 
 it practicable to immerse from the southern provinces of 
 Greece to the northern extremities of the Russian Empire. 
 True, there might be cases where immersion would be im- 
 practicable. But what then? If one is prevented from 
 receiving baptism, by circumstances that are beyond his con- 
 trol, he is released from the obligation. Christ does not 
 require it of him. But if Christ does not require it, why 
 should he be anxious to invent something in its place 1 Let 
 Romanists contend for works of " supererogation ;" but let us, 
 as Protestants, deem it sufficient to do what is commanded. 
 Professor Stuart supposes, however, that cases of extreme 
 sickness and imminent danger, are not the only ones in which 
 reasonable consideration pleads for dispensing with immer- 
 sion ; and in confirmation of his own, he cites the opinion of 
 Dans Scotus,the celebrated metaphysical theologian (fl. 1260), 
 "who says: "A minister may be excused from trine im- 
 mersion, for example, in case he should be feeble as to 
 strength, and there should be a huge country fellow to be bap- 
 tized {sit unus magnus rusticus), whom he could neither 
 plunge in nor lift out." — Comm. in iv. Sentent. Dist. 3, 
 Quest. 4. This would indeed be a sad dilemma for both 
 minister and candidate. But does Professor Stuart present 
 this case for the amusement of the reader, or does he 
 seriously think that cases may occur where a minister, on 
 account of the huge size of the candidate, should be allowed 
 so far to depart from the letter of the command as to sprinkle 
 him 1 Professor Stuart is really serious. " The like to 
 this," he says, "must often occur; especially if the most 
 ancient practice of repairing to rivers and pools continue to 
 be maintained." But must not cases of disparity in the size 
 of the minister and candidate have occurred as frequently in 
 ancient times as at the present dav? and if this were such a 
 
214 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 potent objection to immersion, why did not the ancients plead 
 for a dispensation ? Had Professor Stuart, or his " meta- 
 physical theologian," dipped a little into natural philosophy, 
 it must have occurred to him that whatever a person's size 
 may be, he is still lighter than water, and, therefore, when 
 immersed, naturally rises to the surface independently of 
 any effort on the part of the administrator. It is a prin- 
 ciple in hydrostatics, that every body, when immersed in water, 
 loses so much of its weight as is equal to the weight of an equal 
 bulk of water ; that is, loses about sixty-two pounds to every 
 cubic foot of water displaced. Therefore, if the weight of 
 the human body and that of water were just equal, a per- 
 son under water would lose his whole weight; that is, 
 his weight would be nothing. But being about one-ninth 
 lighter than water, he displaces more by one-ninth, than 
 what is equal to his own weight, and this surplus serves to 
 raise him; and the larger the person the greater is the upward 
 pressure. It requires, therefore, no exertion to bring the 
 candidate to the surface ; and in a suitable depth of water, 
 whatever be his size, a very moderate effort is sufficient to 
 raise him from the surface to an erect posture. But did 
 not Christ foresee every possible case ? Did he not know 
 who were to be the administrators, and who were to be bap- 
 tized 1 And did he not, in foresight of all these circum- 
 stances, command his ministers to go forth into all the world, 
 and immerse all that believe in his name? This point has 
 been incontrovertibly established ; and with the humble and 
 sincere disciple, such objections as the above have not the 
 weight of a straw ; they are contemptible. 
 
 But Professor Stuart thinks he has scriptural proof that 
 external rites are of little value. The passage he appeals to 
 is 2 Chron. 30: 18-20. It appears that Hezekiah, upon his 
 accession to the throne of Judah, wishing to restore the long- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 215 
 
 neglected solemnities of religion, cle'ansed the temple, and 
 proclaimed a passover on the. fourteenth day of the second 
 month, beirig too late to celebrate in the first. According 
 to. the law of Moses, all who had contracted ceremonial 
 defilement were prohibited access to the feast, until they 
 were purified : " Whosoever he be of all your seed, among 
 your generations, that goeth unto the holy things which the 
 children of Israel do hallow unto the Lord, having his un- 
 cleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut oft' from my pres- 
 ence." (Lev. 22 : 3.) But it was ascertained after the 
 solemnities of the passover, that " a multitude of the people 
 who had not cleansed themselves, did eat of the passover 
 otherwise than was written." " And what," says Professor 
 Stuart, " did this good king in respect to them ] Did he 
 excommunicate them, or refuse to keep the passover with 
 them ? Neither ; but he prayed for them, saying, ' The good 
 Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, 
 the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed 
 according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord 
 hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.' And is not 
 this," continues Professor Stuart, " fraught with instruction, 
 as to the real value the Bible sets upon externals ? It does 
 seem to me to be so." Hezekiah did not indeed refuse to 
 keep the passover with them ; for this feast was already over, 
 and their guilt consisted in having partaken in their unclean- 
 ness. Had he known, however, that they were not purified, 
 he could not have permitted them to approach the feasti 
 without being himself a partaker of their sin. But why did 
 he not excommunicate them 1 Was it because he thought 
 the offence of so little consequence as not to deserve notice 1 
 By no means. God forgave them, and therefore Hezekiah did 
 so. The feast of unleavened bread followed the passover, 
 and on this occasion continued fourteen days. The persons 
 
216 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 in question undoubtedly united with their brethren in the 
 remaining solemnities ; but not without being purified. It 
 is true that this case is fraught with instruction as to the real 
 value which the Bible sets upon externals. But what does 
 it teach us ? that externals are of little importance ? Does not 
 the fact* that God forgave them prove that they had sinned 
 in neglecting those rites of purification 1 And does not the 
 solicitude which Hezekiah felt on their account, go to show 
 that the offence was one of serious magnitude? There 
 surely is nothing in all this transaction that would lead us 
 to conclude that those institutions were unimportant, unless 
 it be the fact that God pardoned the delinquents. But 
 should the aggressor, because he is forgiven in one instance, 
 be emboldened to commit a second offence'? Will the 
 Christian, who has experienced the favor of pardon, turn the 
 grace of God into licentiousness? It is impossible. This 
 passage, then, instead of annihilating the value of external 
 rites, proves most conclusively, that when they are enjoined, 
 they cannot be dispensed with, without incurring the Divine 
 displeasure. 
 
 But in addition to all these considerations, Prof. Stuart 
 supposes there is an tmavoidable necessity in the case. 
 " Mere externals," he says, " must be things of particular 
 time and place. Dress does not make the man. One dress 
 may be more convenient, or more decorous than another ; 
 but neither the one nor the other is an essential part of the 
 person. So the common feeling of men has decided about 
 most of the external matters pertaining to religion, the 
 world over. They have always been modified by time and 
 place, by manners and customs, and they always will be. 
 The zealot may declaim against this, and cry out that the 
 Church is in danger, and that she has departed from the com- 
 mands of the gospel ; but considerate and really spiritual men 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 217 
 
 will reply, that God is a spirit, and that he seeks spiritual 
 worshippers." The amount of this argument is, that men 
 may modify and alter the institutions of Christ, because they 
 will do it; and whoever presumes to declaim against it, shall 
 be branded as a bigot and a zealot. Must positive institutions 
 then, though adapted to the universal Church, and designed 
 to be perpetuated to the end of time, be accommodated to 
 human notions of fitness and expediency? Have not baptism 
 and the communion — those distinguishing institutions of 
 Christianity — a more permanent character than the changing 
 customs of manners and dress? It is truly surprising that 
 any enlightened Christian should place the standing ordi- 
 nances of the gospel on a level with things of time and place. 
 Yet Professor Stuart strenuously maintains that the positive 
 institutions of religion stand upon the same footing with 
 customs of manners and dress ; and that they may be varied 
 to suit the time and place, with the same propriety, and on 
 the same principle, that a Turkish female might lay aside her 
 veil, or a gentleman change the fashion of his coat. The 
 Saviour, when he instituted these rites, must have had every 
 possible circumstance of time and place, manners and cus- 
 toms, in immediate view ; and yet he made no provision for 
 their accommodation to these circumstances. Who then 
 will presume to attach a proviso to the law, where he has not 
 appended one? But "the common feeling of men has de- 
 cided thus, the world over." It is nothing to me what the 
 feelings of men have decided, or how generally they may 
 have conspired to reject the authority of God. The man- 
 date of Jehovah is not to be set aside by the dictate of 
 mortals. It matters not how early they " began to deflect " 
 from the apostolic practice, nor how general the deflection. 
 ■\Vhat evidence have we that we love Christ, while we pay 
 more deference to the feelings of men, and the customs of 
 10 
 
218 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the times, than to his authority ? Did the apostles and proph 
 ets claim the liberty Professor Stuart pleads for 1 ? Were 
 they ever known to shun a commanded duty, from regard 
 to personal convenience, or in compliance with the customs 
 of the times ? Were they ever known to deviate in a single 
 iota from the divinely-instituted forms of worship, to escape 
 the sneers of the vulgar, or the frown of kings, or even to 
 save themselves from the martyr's fate? They were 
 " killed all the day long," and " counted not their lives dear 
 unto themselves." But would Daniel have persisted in his 
 custom of praying three times every day, in defiance of the 
 royal proclamation, and in hazard of an indescribably cruel 
 death, if he had supposed that "spirituality" would atone for 
 the neglect of external devotion 1 Would the apostles, whose 
 lives and labors were so precious to- the Church, have wan- 
 tonly courted persecution and death, from an excessive 
 attachment to mere matters of indifference? It is impos- 
 sible. They must have acted from a conviction that the 
 positive institutions of religion were not mere things of time 
 and place. 
 
 But, finally, if we will insist on a literal adherence to the 
 command, and maintain that a particular mode of applying 
 the water is essential, " We must," says Professor Stuart, 
 "if we would be consistent with ourselves, go over to the 
 opus operatum* of the Roman Catholics;" "and on such 
 excessive attachment to the mere externals of religion," he 
 adds, " are justly chargeable the divisions and feuds of 
 Christians, in relation to the mode of baptism ; and the 
 Church never can have peace, until men will cease from the 
 spirit of contention about matters of costume in religion, and 
 leave every one to his own choice in this respect." 
 
 * In other words, the doctrine of merit, or inherent efficacy, in the 
 act of duty performed. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 219 
 
 But in what sense is baptism left bo our choice ? Christ 
 has neither commanded us to pour nor sprinkle. He has 
 not told us to take our ehoice between different modes; but 
 he has expressly enjoined immersion. It is for us to deter- 
 mine whether we will obey this command or disobey it. 
 And because we choose to adhere to the command, we are 
 accused of an excessive attachment to duty. Is there danger, 
 then, of an excessive regard to the authority of God 1 What 
 standard have we to determine the importance of external, 
 or any other duties, but the mind of God 1 And he says : 
 " What thing soever I command you, observe to do it : thou 
 shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12 : 32.) 
 Yet because we choose to keep the ordinances of Christ just 
 as he delivered them to us, and decline an alliance with 
 those who seem to slight his authority, we are supposed to 
 cherish an attachment to external duties, that is altogether 
 disproportioned to their real importance, and fraught with 
 the" mischievous consequences of unholy strife and division. 
 Professor Stuart distinctly assumes that, though Christ com- 
 manded us to immerse, we are, nevertheless, at liberty to 
 choose between this and any other mode of applying water ; 
 and that if we refuse to admit this, and insist on a particular 
 mode, we evince an excessive attachment to the externals of 
 religion, and are justly chargeable with the divisions and 
 feuds of Christians in relation to the mode of baptism. Is 
 this charge just 1 ? Suppose that under a wise and equitable 
 administration of the government, a party of subjects should 
 conspire to throw off the restraint of the laws, so far as they 
 did not accord with their views of fitness and expediency, 
 -would it behoove the rest, for the sake of union, to go over 
 and join the standard of rebellion? Certainly not. And 
 though others are pleased to abjure the laws of Christ, and 
 depart from the simplicity of the gospel, it cannot be our 
 
220 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 duty, for the sake of harmony, to follow them. And though 
 there be " divisions," we are neither the occasion of the 
 schism, nor responsible for the consequences. The case of 
 Ahab and Elijah will furnish an apposite illustration. When 
 Israel, under the reign of Ahab, had relapsed into idolatry, 
 Elijah, jealous for the divine honour, reproved them for their 
 backslidings, and urged them to return, under penalty of 
 experiencing the judgments of the Most High. Ahab was 
 enraged at the prophet, and roughly accosted him as the 
 "troubler" of Israel. Elijah replied, "I have not troubled 
 Israel ; but thou and thy father's house, in that ye have for- 
 saken the commandments of the Lord." Like this ancient 
 prophet, instead of bartering the truth for an inglorious 
 peace, we are resolved to contend for the ordinances as they 
 were delivered, and disclaim all responsibility for the con- 
 sequences. If our brethren regard us on this account as. the 
 " troublers of Israel," we will bear the reproach, satisfied with 
 the approbation of Him who has said, " Ye are my friends if 
 ye do whatsoever I command you.'''' And does a strict ad- 
 herence to the command necessarily imply that we put 
 baptism in the place of the atonement of Christ, and the 
 sanctifying agency of the Holy Spirit? May we not con- 
 fine ourselves to immersion, from a conscientious regard to 
 the Saviour's command, without ascribing to the rite a 
 mystical power of sanctification I So far from believing 
 that baptism sanctifies or saves the subject, we never admin- 
 ister it to any, except they first profess faith iu Christ, and 
 give satisfactory evidence that they are already regenerated. 
 This indeed constitutes one of the principal features of our 
 denominational character. Why then are we so repeated I v 
 charged with laying an improper stress upon baptism] If 
 the truth were fairly brought out, it would be seen that it is 
 the Pcdobaptists themselves who lay an unwarrantable stress 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 221 
 
 upon this ordinance It is well known that both infant bap- 
 tism and sprinkling had their origin in the belief that baptism 
 gave a title to salvation. Supposing that all such as died 
 unbaptized were inevitably lost, they invented, at first pour- 
 ing, and afterwards sprinkling, as a substitute for baptism, in 
 case of imminent danger of death, and the impracticability 
 of immersion. And this practice, as Professor Stuart fully 
 acknowledges, was fur several centuries confined to cases of 
 this nature. Neither pouring nor sprinkling, then, was for 
 ages administered in a single instance, except for the express 
 purpose of securing to the subject the remission of his sins, 
 and a passport to heaven. So much for the birth and early 
 history of sprinkling. The stress that is laid upon the rite 
 by modern Pedobaptists, may be gathered from their respect- 
 ive Confessions of Faith, and the writings of their standard 
 authors. 
 
 For the views of the Roman Catholics, take the Canons 
 and Catechism of the Council of Trent. " If any one shall 
 say that baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be 
 accursed. Sin, whether contracted by birth, from our first 
 parents, or committed ourselves, is, by the admirable virtue 
 of this sacrament, remitted and pardoned. In baptism, not 
 only sins are remitted, but also all the punishments of sins 
 and wickedness are graciously pardoned of God. By virtue 
 of this sacrament, we are not only delivered from those evils 
 which are truly said to be the greatest of all ; but also we are 
 enriched with the best and most excellent endowments. For 
 our souls are filled with divine grace, whereby being made 
 just, and the children of God, we are trained up to be heirs 
 of eternal salvation also. To this is added a most noble 
 train of all virtues, which, together with grace, is poured of 
 God into the soul. By baptism we are joined and knit to 
 Christ, as members to the head. By baptism we are signed 
 
222 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 with a character which can never be blotted out of our soul. 
 Besides the other things which we obtain by baptism, it opens 
 to every one of us the gate of heaven, which before, through 
 sin. was shut/'* This needs no comment. 
 
 For the views of the English Episcopal church, take their 
 directory for the administration of the Sacraments. Here 
 the minister, previously to administering baptism, is required 
 to pray thus : "Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all 
 that need, the helper of all that flee to thee for succour, the 
 life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead ; 
 we call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming to thy holy 
 baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual re- 
 generation," etc. After administering the ordinance he 
 prays thus: "We yield thee hearty thaifks, most merciful 
 Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant 
 with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by 
 adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church." At 
 the confirmation of the baptized, prayer is offered tlius: 
 "Almighty and ever-living God, who hast vouchsafed to 
 regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, 
 and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins." The 
 Catechism is to the same effect. Question. " How many 
 sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? Answer. 
 Two only as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, 
 Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Question. What 
 meanest thou by this word sacrament? Answer. I mean 
 an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace 
 given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby 
 
 * Concil Trident. Scss.vii. Can. v. Catechism of Council of Trent, 
 pp. KJil — 175. The Council of Trent was assembled at twenty-live 
 sessions, from A. D. 1545, to A.D 15G3, under Topes Taul III., Julius 
 IE., and Pius IV. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 223 
 
 toe receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.''* 
 This needs no comment. 
 
 The views of the Presbyterians are thus set forth in their 
 Confession of Faith : "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to 
 that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet not- 
 withstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace 
 promised, is not only offered, but really exhibited and con- 
 ferred by the Holy Ghost, to such, (whether of age, or in- 
 fants,) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the coun- 
 sels of his own will, in his own appointed time."f Here it 
 is distinctly taught that the efficacy of baptism is such, that 
 grace, either at the time of the administration or afterwards, 
 is really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, in case 
 that the subject is embraced in the counsels of mercy. 
 
 The sentiments of the Reformed Dutch church are thus 
 stated in their Liturgy : Form for the administration of bap- 
 tism to infants of believers. — " Holy baptism witnesses and 
 sealeth unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus 
 Christ. For when we are baptized in the name of the Father, 
 God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us, that he doth 
 make an eternal covenant of grace with us,' and adopt us for 
 his children and heirs, &c. And when we are baptized in 
 the name of the Son, the Son sealeth unto us, that he doth 
 wash us in his blood from all our sins, incorporating us into 
 the fellowship of his death and resurrection, so that we are 
 free from all our sins, and accounted righteous before. In 
 like manner, when we are baptized in the name of the Holy 
 Ghost, the Holy Ghost assures us by this holy sacrament, 
 that he will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of 
 Christ, applying unto us that which we have in Christ, 
 
 * Book of Common Prayer, Admiuistration of the Sacrament. 
 f Confession of Faith, p. 123, ed. Philadelphia, 1834." 
 
224 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 namely, the washing away of our sins, and the daily renewing 
 of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot 
 or wrinkle among the assembly of the elect in life eternal." 
 It is here distinctly stated that the benefits of pardon, sancti- 
 fieation, and eternal life, are secure to all baptized infants. 
 The same is also taught in the catechism. 
 
 The following extracts are from distinguished and stand- 
 ard authors of different Pedobaptist denominations: 
 
 Matthew Henry, a Congregationalist, and a celebrated 
 Commentator: "The gospel contains not only a doctrine, 
 but a covenant ; and by baptism we are brought into that 
 covenant. Baptism wrests the keys of the heart out of the 
 hands of the strong man armed, that the possession may be 
 surrendered to Him whose right it is — The water of baptism 
 is designed for our cleansing from the spots and defilements 
 of the flesh — In baptism our names are engraved upon the 
 breastplate of this great High Priest — This then is the effi- 
 cacy of baptism ; it is putting the child's name into the gos- 
 pel grant — We are baptized into Christ's death, i. e. God 
 doth in that ordinance, seal, confirm, and make over to us, 
 all the benefits of the death of Christ — Infant baptism, 
 speaks an hereditary relation to God, that comes to us by 
 descent." Treatise on Baptism. 
 
 Budd^eus, a profound scholar, and a theological writer of 
 the last century : " Baptism is not a mere sign and symbol, 
 by which a reception into the covenant of grace is denoted ; 
 but by regeneration, which baptism effects, we are really re- 
 ceived iuto that covenant; and so are made partakers of all 
 the blessings peculiar to it." 
 
 Dr. Waterland, a celebrated scholar and divine of the 
 Church of England : " Baptism alone is sufficient to make one 
 a Christian, yea, and to keep him such even to his life's end ; 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 225 
 
 since it imprints an indelible character in such a sense as 
 never to need repeating." 
 
 Lewelyn: "Christ has nothing to do with any man, nor 
 any man with Christ, till he is baptized with water. All 
 power in heaven and in earth is in baptism. He that is not 
 baptized, has no interest in the Father, the Son, nor the Holy- 
 Spirit. By this ordinance he is united unto the true God, 
 and becomes one with him in all things. Baptism is our 
 righteousness and true holiness ; it is remission and cleansing 
 from sin, and though our sins be as scarlet, baptism makes 
 them whiter than snow. He who is baptized is as white and 
 clean from sin as God can make him." Treatise on Baptism, 
 pp. 5—23. 
 
 . John Wesley, the founder of Methodism : "By baptism, 
 we who were by nature children of wrath, are made the 
 children of God. And this regeneration, which our' church 
 in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely 
 being admitted into the church, though commonly connected 
 therewith. Being grafted into the body of Christ's church, 
 we are made the children of God by adoption and grace, 
 John 3:5. By water then* as a means, the water of bap- 
 tism, we are regenerated or born again : whence it is called 
 by the apostle, " the washing of regeneration." — In all ages, 
 the outward baptism is a means of the inward — Herein we 
 receive a title to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot 
 be moved. — In the ordinary way there is no other means of 
 entering into the church or into heaven. — If infants are guilty 
 of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, see- 
 ing, in the ordinary way they cannot be saved unless this -be 
 washed away by baptism."* 
 
 Deylingius, in his Pastoral Theology says : " Baptism is 
 
 * Treatise on Bapt. Work?, vol. vi. pp. 15, 17. New York, 1832. 
 10* 
 
226 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the sacrament of initiation, and as it were the gate of heaven, 
 in which a man is regenerated by the washing of water, and 
 the Word of God, purged from the guilt of sin, and declared 
 to be an heir of all celestial blessings" — and he adds, "If 
 Christian parents defer the baptism of their infants; or, 
 seized by the spirit of Anabaptism, or of fanaticism, will not 
 have them baptized at all ; — then, by the authority of the 
 consistory, or of the magistrate of the place, the infant must 
 be taken from the parents, and when initiated by baptism 
 returned to them."* 
 
 So essential is baptism deemed by the Roman Catholics, 
 that laymen, physicians, females, and even persons of any 
 class, are authorized to administer the ordinance in extraor- 
 dinary cases. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, 
 Father Jerom Forentini, of Lucca, published a fourth edition 
 of a middle-sized quarto, which had been published by him 
 some years before in a smaller compass, to explain, confirm, 
 and direct the baptism of infants unborn. This book was 
 accompanied with no less than forty imprimaturs and recom- 
 mendations from divines, bishops, physicians, generals of 
 orders, and universities.f And, So late as the year seventeen 
 hundred and fifty one, a doctor of divinity and laws, of Paler- 
 mo, J published in the Italian tongue, a book of three hundred 
 and twenty pages in quarto, dedicated to all the guardian 
 angels, to direct priests and physicians how to secure the 
 eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them when they 
 could not be born.§ 
 
 *»De Prudent. Pastoral. Pars. iii. c. 3, § 2, 15. 
 
 f Robinson, Hist, of Baptism, p. 432, ed. Loudon, 1790. 
 
 X F. E. Cangiamil.e, Embriologia Sacra Medio]. 1751. 
 
 § Such baptisms are not confined to past ages and foreign countries. 
 The practice is continued to the present day, and in our own country 
 A respectable physician in the city of New York was, in a certain in- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 227 
 
 It is not true, then, that an adherence to immersion neces- 
 sarily involves the doctrine of opus operalum ; but it is true, 
 and cannot be denied, that sprinkling is the legitimate off- 
 spring of that doctrine ; and that, for ages, it lived, and moved, 
 and had its being, in that sentiment alone. And it is equally 
 undeniable, that the two have usually gone hand in hand to the 
 present time. These facts I would gladly have passed over in 
 silence, had I not been compelled to notice them. Pedobap- 
 tists have laboured to impress the public mind with the belief, 
 that it is the Baptists who lay an improper stress upon the 
 ordinance of baptism. Now, this is exactly the reverse of 
 truth. It was necessary, therefore, that the views of the great 
 body of Pedobaptists, as set forth in their Confession of Faith, 
 and as avowed by their most popular writers, should be dis- 
 tinctly placed before the reader, that he might be able to 
 judge who it is that magnify the importance of this rite be- 
 yond its proper bounds. We do not believe, neither do we 
 teach, that baptism is regeneration ; that it is remission of 
 sins ; that it brings us into a covenant relation with God ; 
 or gives us a title to heaven. We require of every person 
 who proposes to receive baptism, that he give evidence of 
 having experienced the grace of regeneration and remission 
 of sins. So far from believing that baptism gives a title to 
 salvation, we insist that it is the experience of the grace of 
 salvation alone, that can give a title to baptism. But though 
 eternal life is the gift of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 we do believe, nevertheless, that it is important to observe 
 every institution that is of Divine appointment. We insist 
 that immersion is enjoined on every believer in Jesus Christ, 
 and that it is important for every believer to observe it. 
 
 stance, not long since, requested by apriest to administer baptism in a 
 case of this nature, provided that the circumstances should require it. 
 
228 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 To this Prof. Stuart opposes, that external rites make no 
 part of real religion ; that they are not essential to salva- 
 tion ; and that it cannot, therefore, be important to observe 
 them according to the original institution. But is his opinion 
 properly sustained 1 Does it not, in some important particu- 
 lars, at least, conflict with the doctrine of Scripture 1 James, 
 c. 1, v. 27, says : " Pure religion and undefiled before God and 
 the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their 
 affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." 
 Here it is clearly stated that outward duties do compose a 
 very important part of religion ; and that, however much 
 man may talk of spirituality and faith, unless he is a Chris- 
 tian in deed as well as in word, his religion is vain. And is 
 it not contrary to the spirit of true religion, for one to refuse 
 to obey any Divine command, and attempt to vindicate his 
 refusal by saying : " The performance of it is not essential 
 to my happiness ; for a sinner may be saved without it" ? 
 Is not this mode of arguing, as Mr. Booth observes, " big 
 with rebellion against God" 1 What! Shall we do nothing 
 that God has commanded, unless we look upon it as essen- 
 tially necessary to our future felicity 1 Is this the way to 
 manifest our faith in Jesus, and love to God ? " This is the 
 love of God," says the apostle, "that we keep his command- 
 ments ; and his commandments are not grievous," 1 John 
 5 : 3. And again, " I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy 
 children walking in truth, as we have received a command- 
 ment of the Father," 2 John 5: 4. Here the "love of God" 
 and " walking in truth" are inseparably connected with obedi- 
 ence to the Divine commands. Saul, when he was sent 
 against the Amalekites, with a particular charge to destroy 
 both man and beast, presumed to spare the best of the sheep 
 and of the oxen, for a sacrifice unto the Lord ; but what 
 said Samuel to him? " Hath the Lord as great delight in 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 229 
 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the 
 Lord \ Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, "and to 
 hearken, than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of 
 witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. 
 Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath 
 also rejected thee from being king," 1 Sam. 15 : 22, 23. 
 Saul presumed that a sacrifice would be, in that instance, as 
 acceptable to the Lord as obedience to his command. But 
 he was mistaken. So, if we presume to substitute in the 
 place of any Divine institution, an uncommanded service, 
 we must expect, instead of a gracious acceptance, to be met 
 with the rebuke, " Who hath required this at your hand ?" 
 
 Prof. Stuart does not pretend, that in practicing immer- 
 sion, we deviate either from the command of Christ or the 
 example of the apostles ; but he thinks we are pharisaically 
 rigid, and superstitiously attached to rites and forms, in that 
 we will allow of no alteration of the original form of the 
 institution. But what do all his arguments in favour of 
 changing the original rite amount to 1 What are consider- 
 ations of " personal convenience," and the " common feeling 
 of men," or even of the nature of the service required, when 
 placed in the scale against a positive command of Christ 1 
 What will these objections weigh with the sincere Christian, 
 who is satisfied that the Saviour requires him to be im- 
 mersed ? And how can one fail of being satisfied of this, 
 if he examine the subject in the light of reason and of Scrip- 
 ture % The meaning of the word, the design of the rite, and 
 the uniform practice of the apostles, all conspire to bring us 
 to the conclusion, that the original institution of Christ was 
 immersion, and immersion only. In this form it was trans- 
 mitted by the apostles to their successors ; and for more 
 than thirteen centuries it was preserved in its original sim- 
 plicity. In this form it is still binding on every follower of 
 
230 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ. And when the churches are purged of their corrup- 
 tions, and approach the period of perfection and millennial 
 glory, they must return to the apostolic standard, acknowl- 
 edging, as at the beginning, but one Lord, one faith, and 
 
 ONE BAPTISM.* 
 
 * This chapter is from the Review of Stuart, by the late Wm. Judd. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 NOTE FIRST. 
 
 Our English translators have erred egregiously in ren- 
 dering (3a7T~i^eiv iv, baptize toith. The preposition iv in 
 construction with /3a7rrtc;w, never means with, but is always 
 to be taken in the sense in or into. It is invariably so ren- 
 dered in the Latin Vulgate, and other early versions. fiaTr- 
 t'l&lv elg is not, as Prof. Stuart asserts, the usual classical 
 construction for expressing the idea of plunging into. This 
 verb expresses plunging, wherever it is used, whatever be the 
 mode of construction ; but taking only these cases where 
 mention is made of the element, and where the sense of 
 plunging into is indisputably certain from the connection, 
 I find, from a general survey of the examples, that the clas- 
 sics use f3anTL$eLv iv twice as often as f3anri^eiv etc. Prof. 
 Stuart's mistake on this point arose no doubt from confound- 
 ing the usage of fiaiTTi^G) with that of ftdiTTh). Taking it 
 for granted that the usage of both verbs is precisely the same, 
 he has produced some ten examples of pdnro) in construction 
 with etc, and one of /3a7rri%G), in order to show the usage of 
 the latter verb. Now, /3aTrrw is very often constructed 
 with Iv, with the sense of plunging into, perhaps almost as 
 often as with elc ; but admitting that it is, for the most part, 
 joined with efc, still it is certainly not.the case with regard 
 to (3a-TTTi%G) : as Prof. Stuart would have seen, had he con- 
 
 (231) 
 
232 APPENDIX. 
 
 ducted his investigation on strictly philological principles, 
 confining himself to the verb with which he was chiefly con- 
 cerned. The truth is, any verb in Greek, signifying to 
 plunge, might usually take either etc or kv, without any 
 material difference of meaning ; though in point of fact, some 
 verbs are connected with one, oftener than with the other. 
 Precisely the same usage obtains in English. We can say 
 either dip in or dip into ; immerse in or immerse into ; but 
 in actual use, dip is probably constructed with into oftener 
 than with in, while immerse is almost exclusively constructed 
 with in. Now this does not arise from the fact that the 
 expression " to immerse one in water " conveys a materially 
 different meaning from the phrase " to immerse one into 
 water;" for as to sense, the two expressions are entirely 
 equivalent ; but it is because the former expression is a more 
 euphonious one than the latter. It is entirely a matter of 
 taste. So with regard to the Greek. Whether "baptize 
 into" or " baptize in " be spoken, is, for the most part, im- 
 material, as to the sense. Hence it becomes a matter of 
 taste ; and they give the preference to the more euphonious 
 expression of the two. 
 
 Prof. Stuart has also entirely failed in his attempt to prove 
 that efiaTTTiod?! elg tov 'lopSdvfiv, in Mark 1 : 9, would bear 
 to be rendered " was baptized at the Jordan." The proofs 
 which he cites are Matt, 2 : 23, John 21 : 4, Acts 8 : 40, 
 Sept. Esth. 1 : 5. In not one of these instances, however, 
 does the preposition mean at. But if, in such connections, 
 it merely signifies locality, i. e. in, without the idea of en- 
 trance into, it will determine nothing as to its signification in 
 connection with such verbs as (3aTrri^o). Its proper and 
 primary meaning is into ; and it must be allowed its primary 
 meaning in all cases where the connection does not exclude 
 it. In connection with the verbs in question, it confessedly 
 
APPENDIX. 233 
 
 signifies into. Prof. Stuart admits this, and even contends 
 for it, on page 313, though he contends against it, with ref- 
 erence to Mark 1 : 9, ofT page 314. Nor has Prof. Stuart 
 done any thing towards establishing the sense, " was bap- 
 tized with the Jordan," which he thinks to be the true ren- 
 dering, the other being adduced only as a ]iossible construc- 
 tion. He appeals for proof to John 9 : 7, vcijjai elg koavji- 
 i3fj$pav, wash into the pool • and Alciphron 3. 43, Xovoa\i- 
 evov elg to fiaXaveiov, having washed into the bath, in which 
 cases, he supposes elg to be employed in a like sense with iv. 
 But before these passages can make any thing to his purpose, 
 it must be shown, not only that elg is here used in a like 
 sense with iv, but also that iv in such connections would sig- 
 nify with. In other words, it must be proved that elg in 
 these places signifies with. Now, I confidently deny that ev 
 in such connections ever signifies with ; and if it did, I would 
 still deny that elg could not be interchanged with it in the 
 sense of instrumentality ; for it has no such meaning in the 
 whole compass of the language. It is true that elg, in cer- 
 tain connections, signifies intusposition merely, i. e. position 
 •within the object mentioned, without the idea of entrance 
 into it ; but it never means mere proximity, nor instrumen- 
 tality. If elg were to be taken here for iv, it must be taken 
 for it in the sense of locality or intusposition ; and we should 
 have to render "in the pool" — "in the bath;" and not 
 " with the pool " — " with the bath ;" nor yet " at the pool " 
 — " at the bath." Indeed, the connection in both cases ex- 
 cludes the meaning at, that is, if at denote mere proximity ; 
 for the washing mentioned in John 9 : 7 was literally per- 
 formed in the pool, not merely at or near it. And so was 
 the washing or bathing mentioned in Alciphron 3. 43 literally 
 performed in the bath, not outside of it. If Prof. Stuart 
 doubts that the operation of bathing was performed in the 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 baths, I would refer him to such passages as Arrian. Epictet. 
 2. 20, " When you bathe, what do you go into ?" Again, 
 same e., " They seek to go away inlo the bath." Horn. II. 
 10. 576, " And then going into the polished baths, they washed 
 themselves." Aesch. Choeph. 489, "Remember the baths 
 in which thou wast bereaved of life" — the words of Ores- 
 tes to his father, who had been killed by Clytemnestra while 
 in the act of bathing. Agamem. 1 128, " She smote him, and 
 he fell in the laver of water" — an allusion to the same affair. 
 I do not believe, however, that elg here means in. I have no 
 doubt that it has in these places its proper and legitimate 
 signification. When we speak of washing into a vessel, the 
 idea expressed is that of washing off sweat, dirt, &c, into the 
 vessel. This is the proper force of the expression, and no 
 doubt it is used in this sense, when John speaks of washing 
 into the pool, and Alciphron, of washing into the bath. Dr. 
 Bloomfield supposes that this passage of Alciphron has a sig- 
 nificatio pregnans, and that the sense is, "to be washed (by 
 being plunged) into a bath." But I prefer the analysis which 
 I have just proposed. The words in Mark 1 : 9, then, for 
 aught that Prof. Stuart has advanced, may be rendered ac- 
 cording to their proper force, " was baptized or plunged into 
 the river Jordan." Even Dr. Bloomfield acknowledges this, 
 in his note on the place. He says : " Etc is not here for ev, 
 as most commentators imagine, who adduce examples which 
 are quite inapposite. The sense of ifianT. elg is, " was dip- 
 ped" or " plunged into." 
 
APPENDIX. 235 
 
 NOTE SECOND. 
 
 Prof. Stuart supposes that the words dvefirj (dva(3aivo)v) 
 dixb rov vdaroc, m Matt. 3 : 16; Mark 1 : 10, do not imply 
 that the. baptism was performed in the stream, but properly 
 mean no more than that Jesus retired from the water of the 
 river, by going up its banks. He confounds the walking up 
 out of the water with the emersion of the candidate, or the 
 rising from under the surface of the water to a standing pos- 
 ture, and goes on to argue that the words are incapable of 
 such a sense, because (1). The emersion was a part of the 
 baptism, and the baptism is said to have been completed 
 before he went up from the water ; in other words, £/3a?r- 
 rio^T] includes the emersion, and, therefore, the idea cannot 
 be supposed to be repeated in the word dvsfir). (2). The 
 verb dvafiaivu) is never used to signify emerging from the 
 water. The proper word for this is dvadva) ; but this verb 
 is never commuted, to his knowledge, with avafiaivoj, which 
 has a perfectly distinct usage, and is certainly never used in 
 the New Testament in the sense of emerging. (3). The 
 preposition dirb will not allow such a construction. He has 
 found no example where it is applied to indicate a move- 
 ment out of the liquid into the air. To all this I reply, that 
 the words in question are capable of being referred to Jesus' 
 emersion from under the surface of the water; for (1) the 
 emersion is not strictly included in e^aTrriaO?]. Baptizo 
 cannot mean at the same time both immerge and emerge ; 
 for no word can signify at the same time two exactly oppo- 
 site ideas. The idea of emersion is never associated with 
 baptism except by inference ; and this depends always upon 
 the connection. When we are told of the baptism of a ship, 
 or that Aristobulus was killed, being baptized in a pool by 
 
236 APPENDIX. 
 
 order, of Herod, we do not think of an emersion ; because it 
 is not contained in the word, and, moreover, the connection 
 forbids it. But when we are told of the baptism or immer- 
 sion of persons as a religious act, we at once associate the 
 idea of emersion, not, however, because it is contained in the 
 word any more in this case than in the others ; but we infer 
 it from the known fact, that they are immersed for an inno- 
 cent purpose. Hence, as emersion belongs to the rite only 
 by implication, the Evangelist, had he wished to express the 
 idea, could, without any tautology, have said that Jesus 
 " was baptized into the Jordan, and straightway emerging 
 from the water, he saw the heavens opened." (2). The verb 
 dval3aivo) is used to signify emersion from the toatcr. It is 
 employed to designate ascending motion in every variety of 
 connection ; and I cannot believe that any one would ever 
 have thought of its being less capable of signifying ascension 
 from water, than from any other substance, unless the con- 
 ceit had been suggested by a preconceived and favourite hy- 
 pothesis. This verb is used to denote emersion from the 
 water in the Epistle of Barnabas, Sect. 11, ''And there was 
 a river (Trora/ioc) running on the right hand, and beautiful 
 trees rose (or grew) up out of it, dv^j3atvev e% avTOv." This 
 example is unequivocal, and cannot be controverted. Again, 
 the LXX. employ it in a similar sense in Ps. 104: 8 
 (103:8), ''The mountains rise (dvafiaivovoiv), and the 
 vallies descend." The allusion here is to the apparent 
 rising of the mountains from the water, at the abatement of 
 the deluge. The verb is here as obviously employed in its 
 usual and proper signification as when we speak of the rising 
 of the sun; and it indisputably means rising or emerging 
 from the water. But the New Testament itself affords ex- 
 amples of such a meaning. The first occurs in Matt. 17 : 27, 
 " Go thou to the sea, and cast in a hook, and take up the 
 
APPENDIX. 237 
 
 fish that first cometh uj>, dvafHavra." Bretschneider explains 
 the verb here by emirgo, to emerge, and the modern Greek 
 by efiyn, coiueth out, emergcth. If, however, this should not 
 be deemed an unequivocal example, one may be found in 
 Rev. 13: 1, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw 
 a beast rising up out of the sea, £k T7Jg QaXdao-qq dvafidtvov." 
 This is an unquestionable example. John sees one beast 
 rising up out of the sea, and another in like manner rising up 
 out of the earth (v. 11). The imagery here is the same as 
 in 1 Sam. 28 : 13, where the witch of Endor professes to 
 have a view of gods ascending out of the earth, deovg dva- 
 (3aivovrag etc rrjg y?)c, or according to Origen, and rrje. — and 
 in Pseudo-Ezra, 1. 4. c. 13, where he says that he saw in a 
 vision, a man, or as it was afterwards explained to him, the 
 Son of God, ascending out of the midst of the sea, with myriads 
 of celestial attendants. (3). The preposition and is consistent 
 with the idea of emersion from the water. It is frequently 
 employed to express this idea, e. g. Horn. Hymn to Mercury, 
 185. "Aurora, who brings light to mortals, rose from the 
 deep flowing ocean, (bpvvr'' an - ' ojKeavoTo. 1 ' II. 19. 1, "Aurora 
 rose from the food of the ocean, an'' (l)K£avoto podhjv djpvvd' ." 
 Tobit 6:2, "A fish leaped from the river, dnb rov norafxov.''' 1 
 In these examples, and certainly indicates a movement out 
 of a liquid into the air. The words in question, therefore, 
 are clearly capable of being applied to Jesus' emersion from 
 under the surface of the water. And so Dr. Campbell trans- 
 lates the passage. This, however, is not the most natural 
 sense of the expression ; nor is it probably the true one. 
 The writer undoubtedly refers, not to the rising from under 
 the surface, but to the going up from the water, the depart- 
 ure commencing at the spot in the stream where the bap- 
 tism was performed. The difference between etc and and is, 
 that ek supposes intusposition, and dnb contiguity merely ; 
 
238 APPENDIX. 
 
 which is exactly the difference between out of and from ; for 
 in English usage, out of always signifies departure from 
 within the object mentioned, while from only expresses de- 
 parture from a point in contiguity with the object mentioned. 
 Thus, if we say that one went out of the water, it is signified 
 that he had been in it ; but if we say that he went /ro»i the 
 water, all that is actually expressed is, that he had been in 
 contiguity witli it, or by it. But though from does not actu- 
 ally express intusposition, it is, nevertheless, always com- 
 patible with it, that is, never forbids it. Therefore, when it 
 is said that Jesus went up from the water, the preposition 
 does not oblige us to suppose that he started from the 
 exterior limit of the water, as Prof. Stuart contends, but per- 
 mits us to suppose that he started either from the exterior 
 limit, or from any point within the interior of the stream, 
 as the connection may indicate ; and surely the connection 
 here indicates that the departure was from the interior of the 
 stream ; for it is stated that he was baptized into the stream, 
 and then went up immediately from the water. Now, it is 
 naturally signified by this, that after being baptized, he walked 
 up out of the water ; and so it would be understood by 
 ninety-nine readers out of a hundred. It is admitted that 
 the preposition does not of itself determine that he started 
 from the interior, of the stream ; yet I have never before met 
 with the philologist who contended that it excluded that idea. 
 As to whether dvafiatveiv can denote walking or going up 
 in the water, in order to depart out of it, the reader can need 
 no proof of that point, since he must have met with the verb 
 in that sense, in its various forms of .composition, on almost, 
 every page of the classics. Prof. Stuart's remarks on 
 Ka-afiaivuv elc, in Acts 8 : 38, are equally at war with 
 Greek usage, as well as with the common principles of philol- 
 ogy, and are altogether unworthy of their learned author. 
 
APPENDIX,' 239 
 
 The argument that the expression cannot mean (joing down 
 into the water, because it is the counterpart or antithesis of 
 dvafiaiveiv ano, is nothing to his purpose, inasmuch as this 
 latter expression does not mean going up the banks of the 
 river, but signifies literally and inevitably, going up out of 
 the water. The preposition elg with Karafiaiveiv, in every 
 instance which Prof. Stuart has cited to prove the meaning 
 to, literally signifies into, namely, in Luke 10:30; John 
 2 : 12 ; Acts 7 : 15, 8 : 26, 14 : 25, 16 : 8, 18 : 14, 22, 25 : 6. 
 To say that one is going towards Jericho, Capernaum, or 
 Egypt, as the case may be, is one expression ; to say that 
 he is going to the place is another expression ; and to say 
 that he is going into it is another expression still. In each 
 case the preposition has its proper and distinctive meaning. 
 \t' it be objected that the man who is represented as going 
 into Jericho, did not actually enter into Jericho, it is suffi- 
 cient to reply, that the expression does not contain that. 
 The writer says simply that he was going down into Jericho ; 
 for he here uses the imperfect, and not the aorist, as in the 
 other passages. The man was in the act of going down into 
 Jericho. All this was strictly true, and the expression means 
 no more. If it be said that one is felling a tree, the word 
 fell is entitled to its usual meaning, whatever the event may 
 be. The man is supposed to be really in fhe act of felling 
 the tree, though something should occur to prevent the com 
 pletion of the act. This is a universal principle in language. 
 The preposition elg has, therefore, beyond all doubt, its usual 
 meaning in all these passages ; and so it has in Luke 8 : 23, 
 and Rev. 13 : 13, where, however, Prof. Ripley is disposed 
 to concede that it signifies on, rather than into. The literal 
 meaning of Luke 8 : 23 is, There came down a storm of wind 
 into the lake. Rev. 13 : 13 likewise means literally, He 
 maketh fire come down out of heaven into the earth. It is true 
 
240 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Greeks, as well as we, could say "on the lake," and " on 
 the earth," but in that case the preposition would be em, and 
 not e/c. The phrases "into the lake," "into the earth," in 
 such connections as these, like the expressions " into the field," 
 "into the mountain," &c, are spoken with reference to the 
 circumferential limits. As to the remark, that ifi(3alvG) is 
 the appropriate expression to signify entrance into any place 
 or thing, and that the writer should have used this instead of 
 narafiaiveiv elc, if he had wished to signify that Philip and 
 the eunuch went down into the water, it has not the least 
 weight whatever. The one expression means to go in, and 
 the other to go down into, and the reader may judge for 
 himself whether the latter does not express entrance into, at 
 least as decisively as the former. Prof. Stuart, a few pages 
 back, when iv came up in connection with )3a7rrt£to, con- 
 tended that elc was the proper word for expressing the idea 
 of into ; but now that elg actually occurs, he would have us 
 believe that it means only to or towards, and that iv is the 
 only word that can take us into the water. Consistency is a 
 precious jewel, and the more so, seeing that it is so rarely 
 to be met with, especially among controvertists. The in- 
 sinuation that Kara(3aiveiv cannot, agreeably to usage, be 
 spoken of going down into the water, is perfectly unphilo- 
 logical and contrary to fact; for this is one of its most 
 common applications. ^Esop uses it in a single Fable (Fab. 
 127) no less than four times in this sense. What would a 
 native Greek think of this insinuation of the learned Pro- 
 fessor, that fSaiveiv cannot be employed to express walking 
 in water, either with respect to going down into it, going up 
 out of it, when this very word i^ almost the only one they 
 use to signify going through or fording a stream or body "I' 
 water, which, of course, includes both going down into it, and 
 going up out of it? Indeed, what must any Well-instructed 
 
APPENDIX. 241 
 
 philologist think ot' any and every one of his criticisms on 
 Karaj3ai,vetv e/c and dvaj3alveiv drro 1 Of themselves they 
 do not seem to me to merit a serious refutation ; but for the 
 sake of those who have but an imperfect knowledge of Greek, 
 I have thought it best to expose their fallacy. 
 
 NOTE THIRD. 
 
 The celebrated Jewish writer, Maimonides, who flourished 
 in the twelfth century, says : " Whenever any Gentile wishes 
 to be received into the covenant of Israel, and associated with 
 them, circumcision, baptism, and voluntary t offering are re- 
 quired. If the person be a female, then only baptism and 
 offering." — Issure Biah, cap. 13. Indeed it is a common 
 maxim among the Jews, that there is no proselyte, until he is 
 circumcised and baptized. But whether the custom of prose- 
 lyte baptism existed as early as the commencement of the 
 Christian era, is a disputed point among the learned. Prof. 
 Stuart has an elaborate article on the subject, in which he 
 enters into a pretty minute examination of the evidence in 
 the case. His results are substantially as follows : The bap- 
 tism of proselytes is no where enjoined in the Old Testa- 
 ment; and the Jewish writers who flourished about the 
 commencement of the Christian era, viz., Philo, Josephus, 
 and the Chaldee paraphrasts Onkelos and Jonathan, all ob- 
 serve a profound and universal silence respecting the exist- 
 ence of such a custom at the time their respective works were 
 written. The earliest mention of proselyte baptism is in the 
 Mishna, written by Rabbi Judah the Holy, about A. D. 220, 
 where the author says : " As to a proselyte, who becomes a 
 proselyte on the evening of the passover, the followers of 
 Shammai say, Let him be baptized (tooval), and let him eat of 
 11 
 
242 - APPENDIX. 
 
 the passover in the evening : but the disciples of Hillel say, 
 ' He who separates himself from the prepuce, separates himself 
 from a sepulchre,' i. e., he has need still of such repeated lus- 
 trations as one must practice, who has been polluted by a dead 
 body in the grave." — Tract. Pesahhim. c. 8, § 8. The Mish- 
 nical author does not here say that Hillel and Shammai did 
 themselves agitate the question about the baptism of prose- 
 lytes ; but it was a subject of dispute among their followers 
 at the time he wrote. In allusion to this passage in the 
 Mishna, and by way of explanation of it, the Jerusalem Tal- 
 mud, which is supposed to have been written during the 
 latter part of the third century, in Tract. Pesah. p. 36, c. 2, 
 represents Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, as saying, that 
 some Roman soldiers, who kept guard at Jerusalem, ate of 
 the passover, being baptized on the evening of the passover. In 
 the Babylonish Talmud it is stated, Cod. Jevamoth, fol. 46, 
 " As to a proselyte who is circumcised, but not baptized, 
 what of him? Rabbi Eliezer says: 'Behold he is a prose- 
 lyte ; for thus we find it concerning our fathers, that they 
 were circumcised, but not baptized.' But as to one who is 
 baptized, and is not circumcised, what of him 1 ? Rabbi Joshua 
 says : ' Behold he is a proselyte ; for thus we find it respect- 
 ing maid-servants, who were baptized, but not circumcised.' 
 But the wise men say : ' Is he baptized, but not circum- 
 cised ; or is he circumcised, but not baptized ; he is not a 
 proselyte until he is circumcised and baptized.'" 
 
 Excepting the testimony of the Mishna, all that we can gath- 
 er from the Rabbinic writers is, that some time in the latter 
 part of the third century, when the Jerusalem Talmud was 
 written, the custom of baptizing proselytes was common ; 
 still more so did it become during the times when the Baby- 
 lonian Talmud was written*; i, c, from the commencement 
 of the fifth century onward, some two hundred or more years. 
 
APPENDIX. Zio 
 
 On the whole we must admit, that, independently of the 
 Scriptures, we have evidence that ought to satisfy us, that, 
 at the commencement of the third century, the custom of 
 proselyte baptism was practiced among the Jews ; and if the 
 case of the Roman soldierSj related in the Jerusalem Talmud 
 as stated above, be truly represented, then, even while the 
 temple was standing, proselyte baptism must have been 
 known. We may, therefore, come safely to the conclusion, 
 that such baptism was practiced at, or not long after, the time 
 when the second temple was destroyed. But we are destitute 
 of any earthly testimony to the practice of proselyte bap- 
 tism, antecedently to the Christian era. The original insti- 
 tution of admitting Jews to the covenant, and strangers to 
 the same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcision. 
 No account of any other is found in the Old Testament, none 
 in the Apocrapha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, 
 Jonathan, Joseph the blind, or in the work of any other 
 Targumist excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, whose work belongs 
 ' to the seventh or eighth century. No evidence is found in 
 Philo, Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. 
 
 Such is the conclusion at which Professor Stuart arrives ; 
 and he thinks, inasmuch as it is on all hands conceded that 
 proselyte baptism among the Jews consisted in immersion, 
 that this subject has an important bearing on the question of 
 Christian baptism. I do not conceive, however, that it has 
 the least bearing on this subject whatever. Admitting that 
 the baptism of proselytes prevailed among the Jews at the 
 commencement of the Christian era, it would be a most pre- 
 posterous supposition, that Christ borrowed a distinguished 
 ordinance of his kingdom from that custom. Christian bap- 
 tism had a divine, not a human origin. See John 1 : 33 ; 
 Matt. 21 : 25 ; Mark 1:1:4. I agree with Prof. Stuart, 
 that the passages in Tacitus, Hist. v. 5, and the Epictetu.s of 
 
244 APPENDIX. 
 
 Arrian, L. 2. c. 9, which have sometimes been supposed to 
 relate to proselyte baptism, have no reference whatever to 
 that custom. But I cannot suppose with him, that Arrian 
 refers to the ordinary ablutions of the Jews. His words 
 are, according to Prof. Stuart's translation, " Why dost thou 
 call thyself a Stoic 1 ? Why dost thou deceive the multi- 
 tude? Why dost thou, being a Jew, play the hypocrite 
 with the Greek ? Dost thou not see how any one is called 
 a Jew, how a Syrian, how an Egyptian ? And when we see 
 any one acting with both parties, we are wont to say, He is 
 no Jew, but he plays the hypocrite. But when, avaXafiq 
 to irddog rov ftefia^ievov K.al T\p7]\iivov, he takes on him 
 the state and feelings of one who is washed or baptized (/3e- 
 ftafiiitvov), and has attached himself to the sect, then he is, 
 in truth, and is called, a Jew. But we are, Trapaj3aiTTioTai, 
 transgressors as to our baptism, or falsely baptized, if we are 
 like a Jew in pretence, and something else in reality," etc. 
 The writer is speaking particularly of public teachers, and 
 endeavours to expose the absurdity of their inculcating prin- 
 ciples which they did not practice. By a Jew, I think he 
 undoubtedly means a Christian. It is well known that Jews 
 and Christians were often confounded in the writings of pro- 
 fane authors. I take /3e(3am.ievov in its metaphorical sense, 
 and would translate the whole passage thus : " Why dost 
 thou call thyself a Stoic? Why dost thou deceive the multi- 
 tude ? Why dost thou, being a Jew, play the hypocrite with 
 the Greek ? Dost thou not see how any one is called a Jew, 
 how a Syrian, how an Egyptian? And when we see any 
 one acting with both parties, we are wont to say, He is no 
 Jew, but he plays the hypocrite. But when he assumes the 
 feelings of one who is imbued [with their doctrine], and united 
 with the sect, then he is in truth a Jew, and is so called. And 
 so we are false, or adulterated baptizers (-napafia-JTiOTai), 
 
APPENDIX. 245 
 
 Jews in word, but something else in deed, if our feeling (dis- 
 position or temper) do not correspond with our profession. 
 The verb bapto, often signifieSj metaphorically, to imbue with 
 
 a sentiment or doctrine, as has already been shown above ; 
 and as the writer is speaking of public teachers, that is, of 
 philosophers on the one hand, and of Christian teachers on 
 the other, it seems requisite to take parabaptistai in its ap- 
 propriate sense of baptizers, as I have rendered it. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 Though the authority of versions, either ancient or mod- 
 ern, cannot be admitted as decisive in regard to the meaning 
 of baptizo ; yet such of them a? were made in those parts 
 where, and in an age when, the meaning of the word was per- 
 fectly understood, and could not have been mistaken ; while 
 the pi-actice of all Christians in respect to baptism was uni- 
 form, and while, of course, there existed no sectarian motives 
 either to conceal or pervert its meaning ; such of the versions 
 as were made under these circumstances, especially if they 
 harmonize, in their results, with other acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of interpretation, must be supposed to furnish strong 
 corroborative proof of the true import of the word. 
 
 Ancient and Modern Oriental Versions. 
 
 Syriac. — The^ old Syriac, or Peshito, is acknowledged to 
 be the most ancient, as well as one of the most accurate ver- 
 sions of the New Testament extant. It was made at least 
 as early as the beginning of the second century, in the very 
 country where the apostles lived and wrote, and where both 
 the Syriac and the Greek were constantly used and perfectly 
 
2-16 APPENDIX. 
 
 understood. Of course it was executed by those who under- 
 stood and spoke both languages precisely as the sacred writers 
 themselves understood and spoke them. Michaelis, whose 
 competency to judge of its merits will not be disputed, pro- 
 nounced it to be the very best translation of the Greek Tes- 
 tament which he ever read, for the general ease, elegance, 
 and fidelity with which it is executed. All the Christian 
 sects in Syria and the East make use of this version exclu- 
 sively ; and within a few years past, it has been reprinted 
 and extensively circulated among them, at the expense of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society. This version renders 
 baptizo and its derivatives uniformly by amad, and its cor- 
 responding derivatives. All the authorities agree in assign- 
 ing to this word the primary and leading signification of im- 
 mersion. Prof. Stuart, so far as I know, is the first who 
 ever suggested a doubt of this meaning. " The Syriac," he 
 observes, "has a word, tzeva, like the Chaldee 3>n:r tzeva, and 
 the corresponding, Hebrew yna, tava, which means to plunge, 
 dip, immerse, etc. Why should it employ the word amad, 
 then, in order to render haptizo, ? In the Old Testament it 
 is employed in the like sense, only in Numbers 31 : 23. 
 There is no analogy of kindred languages to support the sense 
 in question of the Syriac amad. The Hebrew, Chaldee, and 
 Arabic all agree in assigning to the same word the sense of 
 the Latin stare, perstare, fulcire, roborare. It is hardly credi- 
 ble, that the Syriac word could vary so much from all these 
 languages as properly to mean immerse, dip, etc. We come 
 almost necessarily to the conclusion, then, inasmuch as the 
 Syriac has an appropriate word which signifies to dip, plunge, 
 immerse (tzeva), and yet it is never employed in the Peshilo, 
 that the translator did not deem it important to designate 
 any particular mode of baptism, but only to designate the 
 rite by a term which evidently appears to mean confirm, 
 
APPENDIX. 247 
 
 establish, etc. 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." 
 
 1. I would observe, in reply to this, that it is contrary to the 
 canons of criticism, to make the meaning of theSyriac word 
 entirely dependent on the usage of the kindred languages, 
 even though these several words were proved to be identical. 
 Michaelis, however, in his Syriac Lexicon, under the word 
 amad, remarks that, in his opinion, it is evidently derived not 
 from the Hebrew amad, to stand, but from the Arabic ghamat, 
 to submerge. The signification to stand, he says he does not 
 find at all in the Syriac, unless it be contained in the derivate, 
 amud, a pillar ; which usually occurs in the phrase, " a pil- 
 lar of cloud," or "a pillar of fire."* 2. Though the Syrians 
 had a score of words signifying immersion, it would not fol- 
 low that amad has not a similar meaning. The Greeks have 
 several words to express this act, as bapto, baptizo, dupto, etc., 
 of which baptizo alone is used to designate the rite of bap- 
 tism ; and yet Prof. Stuart admits that baptizo signifies im- 
 mersion. But amad, though the Peshito happens to employ 
 it exclusively, is not the only word used in the Syriac to 
 translate baptizo. The very word (tzeva) which Professor 
 Stuart mentions as properly signifying immersion, is often 
 used to designate the ordinance of baptism. Prof. Stuart, 
 with Michaelis in his hands, cannot be ignorant of this. — See 
 Mich. Lex. Syr., under the word, and authorities there refer- 
 
 * In bae baptizandi significatione conferunt baud pauci cum Heb- 
 raico "fey stetlt, ita ut, stare, sit stare in flumine, illoque mergi. Mihi 
 verisiruilius, diversum plane ab -;££, literarumque aliquapermutatione 
 ortum ex suhmergere. Stanti signiflcationem, reliquis, Unguis orien- 
 talibus communem apud Syros non reperio, nisi in derivato, quod 
 sequitur, amud, quod ex uno loco Castello citatur fere ubique reperics, 
 wbis et i2^ TifaJ columna ignis, legitur. 
 
248 APPENDIX. 
 
 red to. 3. The assertion that amad evidently appears to 
 mean confirm, establish, etc., is entirely gratuitous. Where 
 is the evidence of this meaning ? Is it in usage 1 Not in 
 the usage of the New Testament, surely. It is not credible 
 that Prof. Stuart, upon mature reflection, would be willing 
 to read Luke 11 : 38, " And when the Pharisee saw it, he 
 marvelled that he [Jesus] had not first confirmed him- 
 self {amad) before dinner." Mark 7:4: " And when they 
 come from the market, except they confirm themselves 
 (amadin), they eat not. And many other things there be, 
 which they have received to hold; as the confirmation 
 (maamuditha) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and 
 tables." Heb. 6: 1,2: "Therefore, leaving the principles 
 of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not 
 laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, 
 and of faith toward God, and of the doctrine of confirmations 
 (maamuditha). Chap. 9 : 10, " Which stood only in meats 
 and drinks, and divers confirmations (maamuditha)." Such 
 an interpretation, if it does not make nonsense of these pas- 
 sages, is an entire perversion of their meaning. The Greek, 
 Roman, and Episcopal churches have a ceremony of con- 
 firmation, in which the baptismal vows of the candidate, 
 originally made through the intervention of sponsors, are 
 confirmed, or ratified ; but to call baptism itself a confirma- 
 tion, is r at least, a novel use of the term ; and what idea is 
 to be attached to the word in this connection, I am at a loss 
 to conceive. The idea of "confirmation" or "establish- 
 ment" is introduced in the New Testament some scores of 
 times, but never in a single instance is it expressed by amad. 
 The word does not occur in this sense in the Old Testament, 
 nor indeed in any author whatever. Is any evidence of this 
 meaning to be derived from the Lexicons? Not one of 
 them acknowledge it. Castell defines the word ablutus est, 
 
APPENDIX. 249 
 
 baptizatus est, immersit; to bathe, baptize, immerse. — See 
 Castel. Lex. Heptaglot. sub. vc. London, 1069. Michaelis 
 defines it, ablutus est, baptizatus est, immersit ; to bathe, bap- 
 tize, immerse ; and adds, as has already been observed, that 
 it comes from the Arabic ghamat, to immerge. — See Mich. 
 Lex. Syr. sub. vc. Gottingen, 1788. Schaaf defines it ablutus 
 se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est; to 
 bathe one's self, to bathe, dip, immerse into ivater, baptize. — See 
 Schaaf Lex. Syr. sub. vc. Lyons, 1708. Guido Fabricus de- 
 fines it baptizavit, intinxit, lavit; to baptize, dip, bathe. — See 
 Lex. Syro. Chal. accompanying the Antwerp Polyglot, sub. 
 vc. Antwerp, 1592. Schindler assigns baptizatus, in aquam 
 immersus, tinctus, lotus fuit; to baptize, immerse into water, 
 dip, bathe. — See Schind. Lex. Panteglot. sub. vc. Hanover, 
 1612. Buxtorf gives baptizari, intingi, ablui, abluere se ; to 
 bajAize, dip, bathe one's self. — See Buxtorf. Lex. Chal. et Syr. 
 Basle, 1622. Beza, after remarking that baptizo properly 
 means to immerse, and never to tvash, except as a conse- 
 quence of immersion, says: "Nee alia est significatio verbi 
 -\72°$ quo utuntur Syri pro baptizari ; nor does the signification 
 of ' amad] lohich the Syrians use for ' baptize,'' differ at all 
 from this.'" — See Bezse Annot. in Marc. 7 : 4. 
 
 Against this array of authorities, I apprehend it will require 
 something more than mere conjecture, to set aside the estab- 
 lished and acknowledged meaning of this word. Indeed I 
 confess I have not the perspicacity to discover how Prof. 
 Stuart can consistently admit that the word is used to signify 
 immersion, in Num. 31 : 23, and at the same time, undertake 
 to prove that it has not this meaning at all. If it signifies 
 immersion in one instance, it may in a hundred. If it has 
 this meaning in the Old Testament, it may have the same 
 meaning in the New. 
 
 Ethiopic, or Abyssinian. — It is generally agreed that the 
 11* 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 ancient Abyssinian version in the Gheez, or dialect, appro- 
 priated to religion, should be dated as early as the introduc- 
 tion of Christianity into that empire, that is, rather earlier 
 than the middle of the fourth century. This version trans- 
 lates baptizo by ptta, tamak, which Castell says agrees (con- 
 venit cum) in signification with Sit:, tava ; and this he de- 
 fines, immersus, demersus / submersus, fixus, infixus fuit ; to 
 immerge, demerge, submerge, fix, infix. 
 
 Amharic. — The version in the Amharic, or common dia- 
 lect of Ethiopia, renders baptizo by the same word p>atj as the 
 ancient Ethiopic, or Gheez. The Amharic version, published 
 by the British and Foreign Bible Society, m 1822, was made 
 by Mr. Abraham, a learned Ethiopian, under the superin- 
 tendence of M. Asselin, the French Vice Consul at Cairo. 
 
 Armenian, ancient. — The ancient Armenian version is 
 universally ascribed to Miesrob, the inventor of the Arme- 
 nian alphabet, and to the patriarch Isaac, at the end of the 
 fourth, or early in the fifth century. — See Home's Introduc- 
 tion, vol. ii. p. 208. This version translates baptizo uniformly 
 by mugurdcl, which is also employed in 2 Kings 5 : 14, 
 where Naaman is said to have dipped himself in the Jordan. 
 This word, according to Father Pascal Aucher, signifies " to 
 baptize ; to wash by plunging into water;" and it is applied 
 to both persons and things — See Dictionary of Armenian and 
 English, by Father Pascal Aucher, D.D. Venice, 1825. 
 Also Dictionary of the Armenian Language, by Mekitar 
 Vartabed. Venice, 1749. 
 
 Armenian, modern. — The modern Armenian version 
 employs the same word as the ancient Armenian in translat- 
 ing "baptizo," and its derivatives. The Russian Bible So- 
 ciety, and the British and Foreign Bible Society, have printed 
 and circulated editions of both the ancient and modern Ar- 
 menian Scriptures. 
 
APPENDIX. 251 
 
 Georgian. — The Georgian version, which, according to 
 the tradition of the Greek Church, was originally made in 
 the eighth century, by Euphemius, the Georgian, and founder 
 of the Ibirian or Georgian Monastery, at Mount Athos, em- 
 ploys the word, nathlistemad, as a translation of baptizo. 
 For the meaning of this word, I have no access to the appro- 
 priate lexicons, but would refer the reader to the authority 
 of the learned Mr. Robert Robinson, author of " The History 
 of Baptism," who states that all the ancient eastern versions 
 render the Greek word baptizo in the sense of dipping. — See 
 Rob. Hist. Bap. p. 7. London, 1790. 
 
 Coptic. — The Coptic was the ancient dialect of Lower 
 Egypt. During the first ages, the Christian Scriptures were 
 read by the churches of Egypt, in the original Greek. The 
 Coptic version has been supposed by some to have been exe- 
 cuted in the second century. This, however, is not certain. 
 The learned Louis Picques in Le Long, Biblioth Sac. pars. 
 i. p. 287, refers it to the fifth century. This version trans- 
 lates baptizo by TQMC tomas. For the meaning of this 
 word, the reader is referred to the authority of Mr. Robin- 
 son, as above ; and also to that of the Baptist Mission Com- 
 mittee, who, in a recent official document addressed to the 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and 
 relating to the subject of translations, expressly mention the 
 Coptic as rendering baptizo in the sense of immersion. — See 
 Annual Report of the Ehg. Bap. Miss. Society, for 1844, 
 p. 32. 
 
 Sahidic. — The Sahidic version, or that in the dialect of 
 Upper Egypt, appears, from the arguments adduced by Dr. 
 Woide, to have been executed at the beginning of the second 
 century. It is unquestionably one of the oldest versions in 
 existence ; and is esteemed of the utmost importance to the 
 criticism of the Greek Testament, This ver.sion I have not 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 seen. For the manner in which it renders baptizo, the reader 
 is referred to the authority of Mr. Robinson, as above. 
 
 Arabic. — There are several Arabic versions of the New 
 Testament, supposed to have been principally executed be- 
 tween the seventh and eleventh centuries, after this language 
 had supplanted the Syriac and Egyptian. There are likewise 
 more modern translations into this language. The Arabic 
 versions render baptizo usually by amad, tzabag, or galas. 
 " Amad," according to Schindler, "signifies the same in Arabic 
 as in Syriac, baptizatus, in aquam immersus, tinctus, lotus 
 fuit;" to baptize, immerse into water, dip, bathe ; Castell, " ut 
 Syr. baptizavit," the same as the Syriac, to baptize ; Schaaf, 
 " tinxit, baptizavat," to dip, to baptize. " Tzabag," according 
 to Castell, is "tinxit panem, imbuet (Isa. 63 : 4), immersit 
 manum in aquam, baptizavit (per immersionem) ;" to dip as 
 bread in sauce, to dye, to immerse as the hand into water, to 
 baptize by immersion. " Gatas," according to Schindler, is 
 " natavit, urinavit, mersit, submersit, immersit sub aquam, 
 baptizavit ;" to swim, to dive, plunge, submerge, immerse under 
 water, baptize. If, therefore, these lexicographers are to be 
 trusted, Prof. Stuart is evidently mistaken in supposing with 
 respect to the Syrian amad, that the signification " to im- 
 merse" is unsupported by the analogy of kindred languages. 
 The British and Foreign Bible Society, and the London So- 
 ciety for promoting Christian Knowledge, have, within a few 
 years past, put in circulation several editions of the Arabic 
 New Testament. 
 
 Persian. — The Persian translations of the New Testament 
 are all quite modern. The most ancient is the one by Simon 
 Ibn Joseph Al Tabrizi, a Roman Catholic, made about A. D. 
 1341, and including only the four Gospels. — See Le Long, 
 Biblioth. Sacr. Pars. i. p. 269. Another version of the Gos- 
 pels, by Lieut. Colonel Colebrooke, was published at Calcutta 
 
APPENDIX. 253 
 
 in 1804. A version of the entire New Testament in Persian 
 was completed in 1812, by Meer Seyd Ali, under the super- 
 intendence of the late Rev. Henry Martyn, which was sub- 
 sequently printed at Petersburg, Calcutta, and London. The 
 Persian designates the ordinance of baptism by shastanah, 
 ghusl, and the derivate of amad. The two former express 
 ablution : the last has the same meaning in the Persian as in 
 the Arabic. 
 
 Turkish. — A Turkish version of the New Testament, by 
 Dr. Lazarus Seaman, was published at Oxford in 1666 ; and 
 in the same year a translation of the whole Bible into the 
 Turkish language was completed by Albertus Boboosky, in- 
 terpreter to the Porte. This manuscript remained at Leyden 
 unpublished, till Dr. Pinkerton, having ascertained its value, 
 recommended it to the British and Foreign Bible Society, at 
 whose expense the New Testament was published in 1819. 
 This version designates the act of baptism by the derivate 
 of amad, the same word that is used in the Arabic and Per- 
 sian, and expressing the same sense. 
 
 Tartar. — The Orenberg Tartar, published a few years 
 since by the Russian Bible Society, and which is the only 
 Tartar version I have seen, translates the word in question 
 by amad, following the Turkish and the Arabic. 
 
 Hebrew. — The first Hebrew version of the New Testa- 
 ment was made by Elias Hutter, and published in his Poly- 
 glot New Testament in 1599. Several versions have since 
 appeared. Hutter's version, as well as the one by the learned 
 Mr. Greenfield, accompanying Bagster's Polyglot, renders 
 baptizo invariably by bats taval, to immerse. The version 
 executed for the London Society for meliorating the condi- 
 tion of the Jews, transfers the Greek word. 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 Ancient and Modem Western Versions. 
 
 Latin. — Numerous translations of the Scriptures were 
 made into the Latin language, at the first introduction of 
 Christianity, while the Greek was yet perfectly understood, 
 although it was being gradually supplanted as a general 
 language. The most important of these, and the one which 
 appears to have acquired a more extensive circulation than 
 the rest, was usually known by the name of the Itala, or old 
 Italic, and was unquestionably executed in the early part of 
 the second century. This version adopts the Greek word 
 baptizo. Let it be remarked, however, that the Greek, 
 although the Latin was gradually supplanting it, was at this 
 time understood and used as a general language over Italy, 
 Persia, Syria, and Egypt, and indeed throughout almost the 
 whole world.* Add to this, that the earliest ecclesiastical 
 writers, and perhaps the very authors of this version, were 
 of Greek origin. Under these circumstances, it cannot be 
 thought surprising that this word should have passed from 
 one language into the other. Its meaning, however, was as 
 
 * L'usage de la langue Grecque, qui etoit repandue chez toutes les 
 nations, les rendit d'abord moins necessaires. On lisoit les originaux 
 dn Nouveau Testament presque dans tous les lieux du monde. Les 
 Eveques de Rome etoient souvent Grecs d'origine, comme on le con- 
 noit aisement par leurs noms, et leur langue etoit devenue fort com- 
 mune en Italic Les Perses, les Syriens, les Egyptiens, entendoient 
 cette langue, depuis que les Captaines d'Alexandrie, le Grand l'avoient 
 repandue. Origine, Clement d'Alexandrie, Denys, Theophile Cyrille, 
 Evoques de la ville d'Alexandrie, en un'mot les grans hommes que 
 1'Egypte produse dans les premiers siecles, ecrivoient tous en Grec. 
 Cette langue avoit passe jusques chez les Getes et les Sarmates, quoi 
 qu'on l'y prononcat tres duroment : c'cst Ovide qui nous en assure." — 
 Basnage, Hist, de TEglisc, 1,9, 3. 
 
APPENDIX. 255 
 
 definitely settled and as well understood in Latin, as in Greek 
 usage ; and the construction that they employed shows most 
 conclusively that it was accepted in the sense of immersion; 
 for in some of the most important MSS. that remain of the 
 Italic version, as the Codex Vercellensis, and Codex Veron- 
 ensis, the verb in question is often, and in the last-named 
 Codex almost invariably, constructed with the accusative 
 case. E. g. Mat. 3 : 6, cod. Vercel. " et baptizabantur * * 
 ab illo in Jordanen ;" cod. Veron. " et baptizabantur * * 
 * * * danen ;" and were baptized by him into the Jordan ; 
 v. 11, cod Veron. " baptizo vos in aquam ;" / baptize you 
 into water : v. 13, cod Veron. "Tunc venit Jesus a Galilsea 
 ad Johannen ut baptizaretur ab eo in Jordanen ;" then came 
 Jesus from Galilee to John, that he might be baptized by him 
 into the Jordan. Compare also John 1 : 26, and Mark 1 : 5. 
 See Evangeliarum Quadruplex, ed J. Blanchini, Rome, 1749. 
 Nor can it have escaped the notice of the intelligent reader, 
 that the Latin Fathers were accustomed to use baptizo 
 synonymously with mergo, tingo, etc. Thus Tertullian, De 
 Bap. c. 10, quoting Matt. 3: 11, represents John as saying 
 that he dipped [tinguere] the people unto repentance, but 
 that one should come after him, who would dip [tingueret] 
 them in the Spirit and fire. Now Tertullian, in quoting the 
 Evangelist's words, could not have substituted tingo for bap- 
 tizo, unless the two words had been synonymous. Indeed, 
 Prof. Stuart, p. 362, acknowledges that the Latin as well as 
 the Greek fathers, plainly construed baptizo in the sense of 
 immersion. It appears, then, that the early Latin translators 
 and ecclesiastical writers adopted this word, because it was 
 already in familiar use, and was as universally understood 
 to signify immersion among the Romans, as among the 
 Greeks. The Latin versions, therefore, are as decisive for 
 immersion, as are the oriental ones. And, although the 
 
256 APPENDIX. 
 
 Greek language gradually fell into disuse among the Ro- 
 mans, this word having been once adopted, was, as a natural 
 consequence, perpetuated by the general use of the Latin 
 Scriptures, and their necessary influence upon the choice of 
 ecclesiastical terms, till at length it came to be used to the 
 almost entire exclusion of the equivalent vernacular express- 
 ions. Almost all the Latin interpreters, whether Catholic 
 or Protestant, have followed the earlier translators in the 
 adoption of the Greek word. Some of the most recent and 
 best, however, translate bwptizo by an appropriate Latin term. 
 Jaspis, an eminent German scholar and critic, in his version 
 of the epistles, renders it either by immergo, to immerse, 
 tingo, to dip, or some equivalent expression. Prof. H. A. 
 Schott, in his critical edition of the Greek Testament, ac- 
 companied with a Latin translation, renders the word in all 
 cases by immergo, whether relating to the Christian rite or 
 not. 
 
 Gothic. — The Gothic version was made from the Greek, 
 about the middle of the fourth century, by Ulphila.s, a cele- 
 brated bishop of the Mcesogoths. As the author was educated 
 among the Greeks, he was undoubtedly fully competent to 
 his task. Unfortunately, however, this important version has 
 not come down to us entire. Only a mutilated copy of the 
 four gospels, and some fragments of the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, remain. This version, as far as appears, renders bap- 
 tizo in all cases by daupyan, to dip. Cases not relating to 
 the Christian rite exhibit the same principle. Thus, Marc. 
 7 : 4 is rendered, " And when they came from the market, 
 ni daupyand, unless they dip, they eat not ; and many other 
 things there be, which they have received to hold, as dau- 
 pcinins, the d>pp>ings of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, 
 and couches." 
 
 German. — A German translation from the Latin Vulgate, 
 
APPENDIX. 257 
 
 by an author now unknown, was first printed in 14GG, and 
 underwent several subsequent impressions before the appear- 
 ance of Luther's inestimable and much-admired translation, 
 which was published in detached portions at various inter- 
 vals, from 1522 to 1532. The Catholic versions by Detem- 
 berger and Emser appeared soon after that of Luther, and 
 in 1G30, that by Caspar Ulenburg. All these versions trans- 
 late baptizo by taufen, a dialectical variation of the Gothic 
 daupyan, and signifying to immerse. Luther says: "The 
 Germans call baptism, tauff, from depth, which in their lan- 
 guage they call tieff ; as it is proper that those who are 
 baptized be deeply immersed."* The author of the " Glos- 
 sarium Universale Hebraicum" referred to above, represents 
 the Ger. taufen as corresponding in form and signification 
 with the Sax. dippan, Eng. dip, etc. Gesenius, as already 
 quoted above, classes it with the Goth, doufan [daupyan] 
 Ital. tuffare, and other words signifying to dip, — and which 
 he considers as identical in regard to form with the Heb. 
 tava, to dip, to immerse. Dr. Knapp, Professor of Theology 
 at the University of Halle, speaking of the meaning of the 
 word baptism, says : ' : to $d-KTio\ia, from PaTrrl^eiv, which 
 properly signifies to immerse, (like the German taufen,) to 
 dip in, to wash by immersion." In another place he says : 
 " It would have been better to have adhered generally to 
 the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin allowed." 
 
 * <: Priino, nomen Baptismus Graecum est : Latine potent verti mer- 
 sio, cum inimergimus aliquid in aquam, ut totum tegatur'aqua ; et 
 quamvis illc mos jam absoleverit apud plcerosque (neque enim totos 
 demergunt pueros, sed tantum, pancula aqua perfundunt) debebant 
 tamen prorsus immcrgi : et statim retrahi. Id enim etymologia nom- 
 inis postulare videtur. Et Germani quoque baptismum, tauff vocant, 
 a profundidate, quam tieff illi sua lingua vocant, quod profunde demer- 
 gi conveniat eos qui baptizuntur." "Works, voL i. p. 336. Jena, 1556. 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 See Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr., vol. 2, 
 pp. 510, 517. 
 
 German-Swiss. The version in the German-Swiss, or 
 Helvetic dialect, originally made by John Piscator, between 
 the years 1G02 and 1604, and subsequently revised by 
 several divinity professors and pastors of the Helvetic 
 churches, translates baptizo by taufen. The version by Jo. 
 Henr. Reizius, first published in 1703, uses taufen in cases 
 relating to the Christian rite, explaning it in the margin by 
 cintauchen, the common word for immersion. In Mark 7 : 
 4, it translates baptizo by eintauchen, to immerse, and the 
 noun baptismos by eintauchunc/, immersion ; and so in Luke 
 11 : 38. In Heb. 6 : 2, and 9: 10, baptismos is translated by 
 tauffe in all the versions I have seen. 
 
 Jewish German. The Jewish German translations pub- 
 lished a few years ago by the London Society for promoting 
 Christianity among the Jews, likewise uses tauffen in trans- 
 lating baptizo. 
 
 Lower Saxon. The Lower Saxon translates the word in 
 question by taufen. This version was executed under the 
 direction of John Bugenhagius, and, according to Le Long, 
 was printed in 1524 — 30 ; but according to Home, 1533 — 4. 
 See Le Long Biblioth. Sac. P. ii. p. 247. Home. Int. vol. 
 ii. p. 229. ' 
 
 Belgian. A Belgian or Flemish translation made from 
 the Latin vulgate, was printed in 1475. Another was exe- 
 cuted from Luther's German version, for the use of the 
 Protestants, in 1560. A new translation, however, was 
 executed from the original, by order of the Synod of Dort, 
 and printed in 1037. This translation has been much 
 admired for its fidelity. The Belgian versions translate 
 baptizo by doopen, which is a dialectical form of the word 
 taufen, and signifies to dip. 
 
APPENDIX. 259 
 
 Danish. The earliest Danish version was made from the 
 Latin vulgate. The next was executed from Luther's German 
 version, by command of Christian III., king of Denmark, 
 and printed in 1550. It was subsequently revised and cor- 
 rected by order of Frederick II., in 1589. The version in 
 present use was made from the original Greek, by John 
 Paul Resenius, and at the command of Christian IV. It was 
 first published in 1605 — 7. See Le Long, Pars. ii. pp. 287, 
 288. Home, vol. ii. p. 229. The Danish translate baptizo 
 by dobe, which is a dialectical form of the Goth, daupyan 
 and the German taufen, and signifies to dip. 
 
 Swedish. The Swedish version was originally made from 
 Luther's German translation, and printed at Upsal in 1541, 
 by the command of Gustavus I. king of Sweden. This was 
 afterwards revised and conformed to the original text in 
 1703, by the command of Charles XII. See Le Long, 
 Pars. ii. p. 296. Home, vol. ii. p. 230. The Swedish 
 renders baptizo by d'dpa, a dialectical variation of lobe, and 
 signifying to dip. 
 
 Welsh. The Welsh translation of the New Testament 
 was originally made by order of Parliament, and first pub- 
 lished in 1567. This was revised and corrected by Wm. 
 Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, in 1588. During the reign of 
 James I., the Welsh version underwent a further examina- 
 tion and correction by Dr. Parry. This corrected version 
 which was published in 1620, is the basis of all the subse- 
 quent editions. See Home, vol. 2, pp. 258, 259. The 
 Welsh translates baptizo by bedyddio, to immerse. For the 
 original derivation and meaning of this word, the reader is 
 referred to the authority of Edward Lhuyd, A.M., a learned 
 Welshman, and a very distinguished antiquarian, in his 
 Archoeologia Britannica, under the word Baptisma. The 
 following is the substance of his remarks: "Bedydd, the 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 Welsh word for baptism, is derived from suddiant, a British 
 word which is well known to signify dipping, or immersion ; 
 and the verb of which is soddi, or suddo. The word for 
 baptism in the Cornn-British dialect, is bcdshidhian (bcdsud- 
 dian), the affinity of which, with the Welsh word suddiant, 
 must be obvious to every one. This Cornn-British word 
 bedsuddlan, points out the origin of the Armorican word for 
 baptism, badudhiant (baduddiant), which is doubtless no 
 other than badsuddiant, whose correspondence or synonymy 
 with the Welsh word suddiant, is equally clear and certain 
 with that of the aforementioned Cornn-British word. By a 
 comparison of these Armorican and Cornn-British words, 
 we are led unavoidably to conclude that bedsuddiant, or 
 badsuddiant , must have been the original word for baptism 
 in the British language, and that from which the present 
 Welsh word bedydd sprung. In time this ancient British 
 word, like many others in all languages, underwent some 
 change by abridgment or contraction. It was originally 
 bedsuddiant or badsuddiant ; and whatever may be said as 
 to the precise meaning of the prefix, the word itself unques- 
 tionably signified immersion; for the word suddiant has 
 always amounted to that as fully as any word in any lan- 
 guage could possibly do." See Article Baj)tis7na, in Lhuyd's 
 Arch. Brit. Comp. Vocab., ed. 1707; or a translation of the 
 same, in Dr. Richards' answer to Rev. B. Evens on Baptism, 
 pp. 1G, 17, ed. 1791. 
 
 Sclavonian. The Sclavonian or old Russian translation 
 of the New Testament was made from the original Greek in 
 the ninth century, by the two brothers Cyril and Methodius. 
 It was first printed in 1570. The Russians, being a branch 
 of the Greek church, practice immersion in all ordinary 
 cases ; but the ceremony of making the sign of the cross 
 upon the candidate in connection with immersion, had come 
 
APPENDIX. 261 
 
 to be regarded in the time of Cyril and Methodius, as the 
 more important ceremony of the two, and absolutely essen- 
 tial to the ordinance. Hence, among the Russians this rite 
 is technically designated from the " crossing," and not from 
 the " immersion." Their version, therefore, does not in fact 
 translate haptizo at all ; but substitutes the term krestit, to 
 cross; as Matt. 3 : 5, 6, " Then went out to him Jerusalem 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
 were crossed by him in Jordan, confessing their sins," v. 11 : 
 " I indeed cross you," etc. This is greatly to be regretted ; 
 for such a technical designation of the rite banishes entirely 
 from view the ordinance of Jesus Christ, and substitutes in 
 its place a tradition of men ; and every version constructed 
 upon this principle, though not in the least degree hostile to 
 immersion, not only sanctions, but is calculated to perpetuate 
 a piece of gross supserstition and folly, that had its birth 
 among the early corruptions of the man of sin. [This mean- 
 ing of krestit is stated upon the authority of a Eussian gentle- 
 man, whose education and rank are a sufficient guaranty for 
 its correctness.] 
 
 . Russian. As the Sclavonic is no longer understood among 
 the common people, a translation of the Scriptures into 
 modern Russ was made by M. Gliick, a Livonian clergyman, 
 and printed at Amsterdam at 1698. As the Russian lan- 
 guage has undergone considerable changes since that time, 
 the Emperor Alexander in 1816, directed the Synod of 
 Moscow to prepare a new translation. The New Testament 
 was accordingly completed in 1822. See Home, vol. ii. p. 
 266. The modern Russian employs krestit, in the same 
 manner as the Sclavonic. Several other nations in northern 
 and eastern Europe, which are related to Russia either by 
 language or religion, appear to have constructed their trans- 
 lations upon a similar principle. Both the British and 
 
202 APPENDIX. 
 
 Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society, 
 have, within a few years past, aided extensively in circulat- 
 ing the Scriptures in the Sclavonic, Russian, and kindred 
 dialects. 
 
 Romanese and kindred versions. The Romanese lan- 
 guage is divided into two dialects, the Churwelsche and the 
 Ladiniche ; the former of which is spoken by the inhabitants 
 of the Engadine, one of the loftiest vallies of Switzerland, 
 bordering upon the Tyrol ; and the latter by the Ladins, 
 who reside on the confines of Italy. The versions in these 
 dialects, as well as in the Italian, French, Spanish, Vaudois» 
 Portuguese, etc., adopt the word baplizo in the same manner 
 as the ancient Latin. Nor is this at all surprising. These 
 languages were derived principally from the Latin. And 
 since in the later stages of the • Latin, baptizo was almost 
 exclusively used for designating the ordinance of baptism, 
 its adoption in these languages was almost a matter of course. 
 Its retention, however, in common use, and especially its 
 adoption into their versions of the Scriptures, was, to say the 
 least, extremely injudicious and improper. While the mean- 
 ing of this word was generally understood, there was no im- 
 propriety in using it; but in these languages, just as in the 
 English, it conveys no definite idea, except to the learned : 
 and upon no rational principle whatever can a translator be 
 justified in retaining any word that is capable of translation, 
 after it has ceased to be intelligible to common readers. 
 
 English and other versions. The first English trans- 
 lations of the Bible known to be extant, was made by an 
 unknown individual, and is placed by Archbishop Usher to 
 the year 1290. About the year 1380, the celebrated John 
 WickJiffe translated the entire. Bible from the Latin vulgate 
 into the English language, not being sufficiently acquainted 
 with the Hebrew and Greek to translate from the orisrinals. 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 The first printed edition of the English scriptures was a 
 translation of the New Testament from the original Greek, 
 by Win. Tindal, published abroad in the year 1526. The 
 first edition of the entire English Bible was that of Miles 
 Coverdale, published in October, 1535. Matthewe's Bible 
 was published in 1537 ; Cranmer's Bible, in 1539 ; Taverner's 
 Bible in the same year ; the Geneva Bible, in 1560 ; the 
 Bishops' Bible, in 1568 ; the Rhemish New Testament, 
 translated from the Latin vulgate by the Romanists, in 1582 ; 
 and the Douay Bible by the same, in 1610. The transla- 
 tion prepared by the command of King James, was first 
 published in 1611. Home, vol. 2, p, 232—249. The intro- 
 duction of the word baptize into the English language, is to 
 be traced to the early footing obtained in England by the 
 emissaries of the Romish church, and to the exclusive use of 
 the Latin Scriptures previously to the circulation of vernac- 
 ular translations. But this term had not. at the time the 
 present authorized version was made, the universal suffrage 
 it has since obtained. It had been introduced, however, into 
 most of the previous translations, and King James com- 
 manded " the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the 
 word church, not to be translated congregation." The word 
 baptize was of course included. Thus a word imposed by 
 foreign influence, but never adopted into the language with 
 any settled meaning, and to which none but the learned could 
 attach any definite idea, was required by royal authority to 
 be retained, whatever might be the judgment or choice of the 
 translators. Most of the versions since made by Pedobap- 
 tists have been constructed on the same principle ; as, for 
 example, the Irish, Monks, Gaelic, Mohawk, Esquimaux, 
 Taheitan, etc. In the Seneca language they have rendered 
 baptizo to sprinkle ; in the Cherokee, to immerse; and in the 
 Icelandic and Chinese, to wash. The Baptists, who have 
 translated the Scriptures, either in whole or in part, in 
 between thirty and forty of the languages of India, have, I 
 believe, invariably proceeded upon the principle of translat- 
 ing the word according to its proper and acknowledged mean- 
 ing, to immerse. 
 
 It appears, then, upon a review of the whole, that the 
 ancient oriental versions which were executed by those who 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 were perfectly familiar with the Greek language, and before 
 there could have existed any motive for mistranslation in this 
 case, uniformly rendered baptizo in the sense of immersion; 
 that the first instance of the transfer of this word was in a 
 country where the Greek was spoken as a general language, 
 and to a great extent was as well understood as the vernacu- 
 lar tongue ; and that its retention in the Latin language after 
 the Greek had fallen into general disuse, was the occasion of 
 its introduction into other languages, as a barbarous and un- 
 meaning term, to the great prejudice of the interests of truth, 
 and of the peace of the church. On what ground, then, can 
 Prof. Stuart regard those versions that are executed on the 
 principle adopted by the Baptist missionaries, as sectarian 
 translations 1 The fact that these versions accord with our 
 distinguishing sentiments, surely will not be assumed as the 
 ground of such a charge. If the simple fact that the senti- 
 ments and practice of a particular denomination harmonize 
 with the Scriptures, constitutes those Scriptures sectarian, 
 then must sectarianism be a harmless thing. In case that 
 the meaning of the original is either perverted or concealed, 
 for the sake of favoring a sect, the translation becomes 
 properly sectarian. But on what principle can a translation 
 be pronounced sectarian, which faithfully represents the 
 meaning of the original, and is supported by the earliest and 
 most important versions in existence; and while, inde- 
 pendently of those made by Baptists, the versions now used 
 over more than one half of the Protestant world, and by 
 Christians of every denomination, translate the word in 
 question precisely in the same manner ? 
 
 The Baptists do not translate baptizo to immerse, because 
 such a rendering harmonizes with their practice, and will 
 tend to promote their denominational views. Far from it. 
 Those men of God who have manifested such disinterested 
 zeal, and endured so much self-denial and toil for the salva- 
 tion of the heathen, deserve the credit of purer and holier 
 motives. They construct their translations upon this prin- 
 ciple, because the literal and obvious meaning of the original 
 requires this rendering; and that translator who consents in 
 any case to conceal the truth of God, by introducing a bar- 
 barous term not understood by common readers, incurs a 
 responsibility which I should tremble to bear.